Hands Across the Sand
-Join us to stop near shore Oil Drilling In Florida Waters
The Florida House of Representatives has already passed a bill that would allow NEAR SHORE oil drilling, that’s within 3 miles of our beaches. The bill would allow pipelines to run to the shore as well. Texas Oil interests have bought off every lobbyist and politician against near-shore oil drilling in our waters. Unless something is done we will have Oil derricks in sight of and fouling our beaches in the near future.
David Pleat is running for District 7 House of Representatives, and we had a meet and greet at Bud & Alley's on October 1. While the election is far off, David is bringing attention to the fact that we may soon have Oil platforms off our coast unless something is done. David spoke eloquently about the importance of stopping Texas Oil interests from fouling our beaches.
The politicians are promising to fix all the states ills, you name it, as a sweetener to get it passed fully. Don Gaetz, our Senator is advocating it. (SEE CLARIFICATION BY SENATOR DON GAETZ AT BOTTOM OF THIS POST) Every representative in our area already voted for it. They had a quick vote at the end of session and the public hardly knows what happened. In the near future they will be trying to pass this fully by tacking it on the gambling pact that is up for a vote with the Seminole Tribe.
This issue affects our quality of life and tourism. This could happen as soon as December or sooner. Most politicians are trying to divert attention to the fact that they voted for this bill, many are already backpedaling. If we make this issue visible and create a groundswell of opposition the bill could be stopped but we must act quickly.
This is not a partisan issue this is a Florida issue. Our beaches are sacred no matter what your race, religion, sex or political affiliation. We need to come together on this issue for our children and grandchildren. Thank you for your help in passing this along to all Florida citizens. A website will be coming out soon, handsacrossthesand.org.
This is what I am suggesting we do.
Hands Across The Sand
Premise:
Initiate a movement to encourage the Concerned Citizens of Florida on a chosen day to join hands on the beach along the 1197 statute miles of Florida Coastline or the Florida Gulf Coast (779 miles) for 15 minutes to create a human line in the sand for the purpose of opposing the eminent legislation to allow near shore oil exploration along the pristine coast of Florida.
This is an effort to "Draw a line in the Sand" against near shore oil drilling in our waters. "We have a choice. Do we want a pristine white line or an oil-drenched polluted one? Believe me, it will be black as oil if this bill passes"
All we have to do is simply go to the beach and join hands for 15 minutes, simple right? This could happen as soon as next month so we need to get the word out. We will be choosing the day next week.
This should get national attention and we very well could stop this legislation in its tracks.
Number of People needed for the whole state
1056 people per mile (one every 5 feet) x 1197 miles = 1,264,032 people
Number of People needed for the Gulf Coast of Florida only
1056 people per mile (one every 5 feet) x 770 miles = 813,120 people
Thanks for your support,
Dave Rauschkolb
A clarification from Senator Don Gaetz
I received a call from Senator, Don Gaetz in the past hour and would like to clarify his position on this Bill. He felt I mischaracterized his position having stated he was among politicians "advocating" the bill. I apologized to him and asked him to state his position on near shore oil drilling.
Don told me his voting history speaks for itself and that he has not voted on the bill and would consider the bill if it is brought to the Senate taking into regard the economic, military and environmental impacts. He verified his position stated in the article below.
Don will be emailing me on Monday with a more in depth statement regarding his position on the matter. I have known Don personally for the past 24 years and it is my sincere hope when all is said and done he will stand with us in opposition to near shore drilling.
The fact remains that all of our local representatives in the House voted for this bill and this article confirms that it is being considered if certain issues regarding the military are satisfied. At some time in the near future a version of the house bill could go before the State Senate. As concerned Floridian's we should follow this matter very closely.
Local lawmakers: oil drilling bill must include military protections
Comments 2 | Recommend 1
September 12, 2009 05:50:00 PM
By MATT DIXON / News Herald Writer
PANAMA CITY — In April, the Florida House passed a bill that would allow the governor and cabinet authority to accept applications for oil and gas drilling as close as three miles off Florida's beaches.
Both area House members supported the legislation, which was never considered by the Senate, but only after provisions were made to protect the Panhandle’s five military bases.
“Jimmy Patronis and I both worked together to ensure that the bill had language that explicitly protected the area’s military interests,” said Rep. Marti Coley, R – Marianna.
With speaker-designate Rep. Dean Cannon, R – Winter Park, and Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R – Merritt Island, in line to become Senate President, set to co-author a similar piece of oil drilling legislation, the topic of oil drilling near the beaches of Bay County, and other coastal areas statewide, is again fast approaching.
Area lawmaker’s priorities, however, remain unchanged.
“If there is any type of military mission that could be affected by a drilling plan, I won’t support it,” Patronis, R – Panama City, said.
Because last session there was no companion to the House bill in the Senate, and Senate President Jeff Atwater, R – North Palm Beach, citing time restraints, refused to take up the House bill, Sen. Don Gaetz, R – Niceville, never got the opportunity to officially chime in on the issue.
He says, however, that he stands in lock step with Coley and Patronis.
“I am with the military,” he said. “If a bill would make us vulnerable in any way, or put us in danger of having any missions being picked off by Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. … I will be the loudest voice saying, ‘Let’s slow down.’”
Gaetz said he thinks the issue will inevitably re-appear during the legislature regular session, but that talks of offshore oil drilling coming up during a potential two-day special session in October are pre-mature.
“I think it will come up again, and I think there will be companion bills with strong sponsors,” Gaetz said. “But it will not be a special session issue unless it’s a special session devoted entirely to the topic.
Coley said that talks she has had with House leadership about protecting military interests have gone well.
“I actually spoke with the speaker-designate about protecting the military when considering drilling off of our coast,” she said. “He told me. ‘That’s a given.’”
Replies
338
Beach Fanatic
Beyond the environmental issue is the economic issue. Why place your mulit billion dollar tourist and military economy in jeapordy for a future promise of 2-3 billion a year down the road? 120 billion v. 2? Not a single guarenteed job for Floridians? Texas to benefit but not our State while giving up our most valuable commodity?[/quote]
Dead on. Reminds me of this scene from the movie Independence Day:
Gen. Gray: Are you all right?
President Thomas Whitmore: I saw... its thoughts. I saw what they're planning to do. They're like locusts. They're moving from planet to planet... their whole civilization. After they've consumed every natural resource they move on... and we're next. Nuke 'em. Let's nuke the b*stards. <but Dave's idea is probably better>
Beach Fanatic
It is nice to see that this community can jump to it at a moments notice for environmental purposes. I remember well the efforts we put out with the "Trust" working tirelessly to protect the State Forest lands from development, (I don't know we have won that one yet). I have a few contrary ideas on this one though. There is an amazing amount of misinformation that gets passed around as fact in this internet age, and often it gets so distorted that people act on it as if it were absolute fact. There are many facts regarding the effort to allow drilling in the offshore areas of Florida that are totally ignored and may cause us in rushing into erecting protests that are not pertinent.
Fact:
The targets for POTENTIAL drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico are the Jurassic Norphlet formation, 200 million year old sand dunes. This formation produces off Mobile Bay and is at a depth of over 25,000' there. These wells cost in the neighborhood of $100 million to drill. The projection of that trend eastward would put it over 60 miles out, undetectable from our beaches, and in a high temperature and pressure environment which in plain physics could only produce Gas.
Fact:
There is an enormous "Resource" play going on in the interior parts of the US that has unlocked an enormous amounts of natural gas previously thought to be unproducible. This gas is a clean burning fuel that hopefuly will displace some very expensive imported oil. Some estimates are in the order of 100 years of reserves at current rates of consumption, making the economics of drilling 5 miles down for gas very questionable.
Fact:
The moratorium on drilling in the eastern gulf has extended all the way to the Canadian border on the east coast. There is development of gas fields in the Areas of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The US has no idea what we have out there as no remote sensing of geophysical surveys have been performed since 1975.
Fact:
Cuba is leasing blocks of its offshore to foreign governments to evaluate its northern coast. South Florida already has oil fields on the west coast in the "Sunniland Formation", a Cretaceous limestone about 100 million years old.. There is a very good chance that additional hydrocarbons could be found off the west coast of southern Florida.
I can't help but feel we are preaching from a fragile pulpit when you project images of oil spills and rigs in the surf, ignoring the excellent environmental record of the last two decades when we have tough environmental laws with sharp teeth, and the courage to enforce them. When the price of gasoline reaches $5 a gallon and the weekly visitors that support most of our economy do not appear who are we going to blame? The oil companies!
I am a Professional Geologist licensed in Florida having been in the area since 1980, I have worked in the Oil and Gas business as well as in the environmental side both as a volunteer and as a professional and have sat quietly for a long time here watching ignorance of coastal geological processes lead to "Beach Renourishment " insanity, and the building on top of primary dunes and then being surprised by erosion. It occurs to me this fanatical response to drilling offshore is not our immediate need in South Walton. The need of the panhandle region for a stable economy that can survive the ups and downs of the tourist industry and offer jobs more rewarding than cleaning houses and bussing tables to our youths and allow them to live here as professionals after graduation should be considered with attention to facts rather than fancies.
I really do not believe the offshore drilling effort would impact our area in any event, but we should be considering more than a new Publix as economic development!
Hi Murphrg,
With all due respect, you don't write like a geologist seeking to interject science and objectivity into the discussion. Below is my interpretation of your post-
You start out citing your concerns that misinformation and the ignoring of facts will cause folks to "[rush] into erecting protests that are not pertinent". Then you provide four "facts" that seem to be completely irrelevant to what we are protesting.
Your first "fact" implies (let me know if I am misreading/misinterpreting your words) that folks have no need to protest because the real target for drilling would actually be 60 miles out and that it wouldn't be oil but rather it would be for a gas. If this was the case, oil companies wouldn't be lobbying our politicians to lift the ban.
Your second "fact" implies (let me know if I am misreading/misinterpreting your words) that folks have no need to protest because recent developments are making it possible for 100 years of natural gas to be accessed thereby making it less likely that drilling would occur for oil because it wouldn't make economic sense. If this was the case, oil companies wouldn't be lobbying our politicians to lift the ban.
Your third "fact" implies (let me know if I am misreading/misinterpreting your words) that folks have no need to protest because there may be massive gas fields northeast of the US near Canada but that we can't be sure because we haven't really explored since the mid 70's. This one left me scratching my head. Are you saying that another reason to support the lifting of the ban on drilling is so that we can go see what is up there near Canada?
Your fourth "fact" implies (let me know if I am misreading/misinterpreting your words) that folks have no need to protest because Cuba is allowing foreign governments to explore and drill near us and you think there might be something to drill for off the Western coast of FL.
Please help me to understand how/why any of these four facts would/should cause any logical person to conclude that we should lift the ban on drilling?
So continuing with my analysis of your post-
In the next section, you went on to say that you feel that when SoWallers post the (actual/undoctored images) of recent oil spills and free floating oil rigs in the ocean that they are "preaching from a fragile pulpit" and "ignoring the excellent environmental record of the last two decades" for offshore drilling. Then you praise our "tough environmental laws" stating that they have "sharp teeth" and that we have the "courage to enforce" them. And you provide some fear mongering in the form of $5 per gallon gas prices which would hurt our local economy by keeping the tourists away.
Then after making the case that your professional background includes working for both the interests of big oil and the environment, you went on to provide your commentary about issues such as Beach Renourishment and the practice of building proximity to dunes.
Next you call our cause- our opposition to offshore drilling a "fanatical response" that is "not our immediate need in South Walton". You provide us with your opinion of our immediate need which is an economy that isn't so reliant on tourism so that our youth can "live here as professionals after graduation".
Then you jabbed Publix! Be careful, brother! You don't want to get banned from enjoying those $1.99 chicken breast specials! haha (I knew I'd find a way to be lighthearted somewhere in here).
Well, that about sums up why you don't sound like an objective geologist to me.
Any odds you will share with us your identity? Perhaps this will enhance your credibility for those with whom you disagree...
Can't wait for your response...
Geo
Edited
SoWal Insider
Geo: I love your analytical and reasonable responses. From my understanding of the situation, there are already huge known reserves of natural gas in many other locations across the US. The problem isn't in producing vast quantities of natural gas, but the rather overwhelming task of converting our fleet of cars and trucks to that kind of fuel. This certainly won't happen unless the oil companies want it to happen. So don't hold your breath. It doesn't seem the least bit relevant to off-shore drilling in the eastern Gulf. The most important point is the infintesimally small return we might possibly gain from such a huge risk. If anybody thinks off-shore drilling in the eastern Gulf would change the price of gasoline (a world-wide market) they are being extraordinarily naive.
Beach Comber
im not so sure that was analytical nor reasonable sounded like reductio ad ridiculum to me
side note: way to go dave not only spearheading a noble cause but got your restaurants name all over the state...double threat guy i like it
perhaps once this is defeated and never to return we can stand up against the oil rigs already pumping oil in big cypress and shut them down
side note: way to go dave not only spearheading a noble cause but got your restaurants name all over the state...double threat guy i like it
perhaps once this is defeated and never to return we can stand up against the oil rigs already pumping oil in big cypress and shut them down
Edited
Beach Fanatic
im not so sure that was analytical nor reasonable sounded like reductio ad ridiculum to me
side note: way to go dave not only spearheading a noble cause but got your restaurants name all over the state...double threat guy i like it
perhaps once this is defeated and never to return we can stand up against the oil rigs already pumping oil in big cypress and shut them down
I took an elementary logic class freshman year too. Shall we break out the "truth tree"?
I invested a lot of time attempting to point out why I believe our geologist friend's post contained invalid arguments and why I believe it was less than objective. If you disagree, show me where and why. Don't just do a drive by.
Beach Lover
Last week at the committee meeting in tally, the "energy people" admitted that drilling will NOT reduce gas prices at all! So you can leave the soaring gas prices arguement out of this.
Senator Gaetz, using typical fear tactic, cites the need to be independent of mideast oil! Ain't gonna happen by drilling!
Who will protect us from the biggest thieves, worse than the mid east. They manipulate minds with lies. They manipulate prices to twist your arm. They manipulate the legislature with the money they steal from us, all the while convincing us its mid east oil's fault. And in the process, they make record profit. Why that would be the big hat, flag waving texas oil men.
Please check nottheanswer.org There is a picture there of starving dolphin due to the australian oil spill.
None of the proponents want to discuss the environment. All compromise is ALWAYS at the expense of the environment!
Senator Gaetz, using typical fear tactic, cites the need to be independent of mideast oil! Ain't gonna happen by drilling!
Who will protect us from the biggest thieves, worse than the mid east. They manipulate minds with lies. They manipulate prices to twist your arm. They manipulate the legislature with the money they steal from us, all the while convincing us its mid east oil's fault. And in the process, they make record profit. Why that would be the big hat, flag waving texas oil men.
Please check nottheanswer.org There is a picture there of starving dolphin due to the australian oil spill.
None of the proponents want to discuss the environment. All compromise is ALWAYS at the expense of the environment!
Beach Fanatic
Offshore drilling splits House | tallahassee.com | Tallahassee Democrat
"Opponents speak of tar balls washing ashore, hurricanes uprooting even submerged oil pumps and a change of Florida's image from the nation's playground to its utility room. Proponents promise jobs, hundreds of millions in sorely needed tax revenue and an environmentally safe contribution to energy independence.
Public support for some forms of drilling has risen in polls by Associated Industries of Florida since 2006. Last year, aligning with GOP presidential nominee John McCain, Gov. Charlie Crist switched ? saying he could support considering drilling that's "far enough, safe enough and clean enough" ? and the state House passed a bill that would have allowed the state's Cabinet to grant drilling permits."
"Opponents speak of tar balls washing ashore, hurricanes uprooting even submerged oil pumps and a change of Florida's image from the nation's playground to its utility room. Proponents promise jobs, hundreds of millions in sorely needed tax revenue and an environmentally safe contribution to energy independence.
Public support for some forms of drilling has risen in polls by Associated Industries of Florida since 2006. Last year, aligning with GOP presidential nominee John McCain, Gov. Charlie Crist switched ? saying he could support considering drilling that's "far enough, safe enough and clean enough" ? and the state House passed a bill that would have allowed the state's Cabinet to grant drilling permits."
Beach Lover
What is "clean enough"? compromise on our environment!!!
Admin
Murph - thanks for adding to the discussion. It is always nice to see the other side, or parts of it. And thanks for your work in preserving public lands in SoWal. I wish our predecessors had posessed the foresight not to build so close to the gulf and the lakes. Hindsight is (nearly) 20/20. I am glad guys like Dave are getting involved so that foresight can be used in this case.
Beach Comber
My name is Bob Murphy, I live in Grayton. Grew up on the beach in New York where I witnessed what is now the largest “Beach Restoration Project” in the world, (Rockaway Beach), destroyed the vegetation and dunes I grew up on. It was started in 1965 and they are still dredging offshore sediments onto the now dark course grained sand on the beach and have killed all the near shore biota that fed the marine fisheries there. I witnessed the scrapping of the beaches here and the digging of trenches in the shore post Opal with no regard for the permanent damage to the shore. I am a Certified Petroleum Geologist; I am a member of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists, licensed as a Professional Geologist in Florida and Texas. I have worked in Geology for 36 years, and my respect for the earth and our environment are paramount
The concept of there being a difference between Oil Companies and Gas producing entities is not valid. The very same companies that drill for oil drill for gas, they are in reality energy companies. They do not, in my opinion, stand in the way of Natural Gas powered vehicles. In fact the technology for CNG engines and vehicles is well established at least since 1975 when my friend had one. If you look at the Okaloosa Gas trucks you will see they are powered by natural gas. It is amazing to me that we as a nation are insisting to push electric vehicles when the storage technology is still developing, as well as the need to generate and inefficient transport of electricity to the end user. It is presently much less efficient than internal combustion engines. There is certainly a need to advance the storage technology and efficiencies with electric engines, but a bridge is needed to cover that gap. Natural gas is an obvious choice. The problem is we do not have a distribution system which could fill your car with compressed natural gas like you use a filling station, nor do we have one for electricity either. In fact the BTU (energy content) value of oil to an mcf of gas is 6:1, which is one barrel of oil has as much energy as 6,000 cubic feet of methane. This morning the price of oil is near $80, the price of 1,000 cubic feet of gas is about $4. The cost of gas as an energy source is about a third the cost of oil!! That is because we produce almost 100% of our use in the USA and import almost none.
The fact of the matter is when the energy demands get high enough, and prices cause the entire state and country to do something about it, it would be better for us to have made these decisions in a calm manner and have plans and protections in place. By putting it off you place us in the position of having some outside force inject unpopular decisions on us all. The search for Oil and Gas is complex and takes many years to do correctly. If it were opened tomorrow, it would take 10 years to even identify a place to drill and work through all the red tape of federal and State regulations. I trust you have some concept of the MMS and how the process works.
Back in the mid 80’s when we were working to protect the State Forest here in Walton County and I was one of the founding members of “Beach to Bay”, a group of volunteers and environmentalists I was asked what I thought of the proposal to drill off of Pensacola. I answered that they really didn’t want to know what I thought. They insisted that my opinion had value, so I said it would be good for fishing. That led to a diatribe very much like your response,Geo, although it didn’t sound centered on any pertinent geological facts either. I responded to him that I was correct; they did not want to hear my opinion!
Indulge yourself and protest loud. I know it makes you feel good. I was not attempting to change anybody's minds with this post, just tired of hearing how one sided these discussions are.
By the way, who are you and what makes you so smart.
The concept of there being a difference between Oil Companies and Gas producing entities is not valid. The very same companies that drill for oil drill for gas, they are in reality energy companies. They do not, in my opinion, stand in the way of Natural Gas powered vehicles. In fact the technology for CNG engines and vehicles is well established at least since 1975 when my friend had one. If you look at the Okaloosa Gas trucks you will see they are powered by natural gas. It is amazing to me that we as a nation are insisting to push electric vehicles when the storage technology is still developing, as well as the need to generate and inefficient transport of electricity to the end user. It is presently much less efficient than internal combustion engines. There is certainly a need to advance the storage technology and efficiencies with electric engines, but a bridge is needed to cover that gap. Natural gas is an obvious choice. The problem is we do not have a distribution system which could fill your car with compressed natural gas like you use a filling station, nor do we have one for electricity either. In fact the BTU (energy content) value of oil to an mcf of gas is 6:1, which is one barrel of oil has as much energy as 6,000 cubic feet of methane. This morning the price of oil is near $80, the price of 1,000 cubic feet of gas is about $4. The cost of gas as an energy source is about a third the cost of oil!! That is because we produce almost 100% of our use in the USA and import almost none.
The fact of the matter is when the energy demands get high enough, and prices cause the entire state and country to do something about it, it would be better for us to have made these decisions in a calm manner and have plans and protections in place. By putting it off you place us in the position of having some outside force inject unpopular decisions on us all. The search for Oil and Gas is complex and takes many years to do correctly. If it were opened tomorrow, it would take 10 years to even identify a place to drill and work through all the red tape of federal and State regulations. I trust you have some concept of the MMS and how the process works.
Back in the mid 80’s when we were working to protect the State Forest here in Walton County and I was one of the founding members of “Beach to Bay”, a group of volunteers and environmentalists I was asked what I thought of the proposal to drill off of Pensacola. I answered that they really didn’t want to know what I thought. They insisted that my opinion had value, so I said it would be good for fishing. That led to a diatribe very much like your response,Geo, although it didn’t sound centered on any pertinent geological facts either. I responded to him that I was correct; they did not want to hear my opinion!
Indulge yourself and protest loud. I know it makes you feel good. I was not attempting to change anybody's minds with this post, just tired of hearing how one sided these discussions are.
By the way, who are you and what makes you so smart.
Edited
Beach Comber
"too" i don't recall taking any classes with you nor do i know what the "truth tree" is (shruggy face emoticon) so break out whatever helps guy (sunglasses slightly cocked mouthy face emoticon) in the end it doesnt matter...no bill has been filed yet so dave is way ahead of the game...however in addition to holding hands, it is going to be much more important to vote with your wallets, thats how oil interests are going to win, start a 527, raise money and use it to support candidates that are opposed and defeat it that way, politicians respond to money thats why this is even an issue...i dont think long long term implications are being considered by the likes of haridopolis and cannon. this is an issue because the state needs money, our state constitution requires a balanced budget every year, they jacked up our "fees" last year so what can they do this year, i guess cutting costs and reducing the state payroll is not an option. far more is to be made off of people who come to visit than off of the proceeds from oil rigs. but what do i know i have no skin in the game, you say less tourists i hear less people driving below the speed limit in the passing lane, no parking problems in grayton, no crap left on the beach, and a lower cost of living which all sound pretty good to me (winky face emoticon)
Beach Fanatic
My name is Bob Murphy, I live in Grayton. Grew up on the beach in New York where I witnessed what is now the largest “Beach Restoration Project” in the world, (Rockaway Beach), destroyed the vegetation and dunes I grew up on. It was started in 1965 and they are still dredging offshore sediments onto the now dark course grained sand on the beach and have killed all the near shore biota that fed the marine fisheries there. I witnessed the scrapping of the beaches here and the digging of trenches in the shore post Opal with no regard for the permanent damage to the shore. I am a Certified Petroleum Geologist; I am a member of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists, licensed as a Professional Geologist in Florida and Texas. I have worked in Geology for 36 years, and my respect for the earth and our environment are paramount
The concept of there being a difference between Oil Companies and Gas producing entities is not valid. The very same companies that drill for oil drill for gas, they are in reality energy companies. They do not, in my opinion, stand in the way of Natural Gas powered vehicles. In fact the technology for CNG engines and vehicles is well established at least since 1975 when my friend had one. If you look at the Okaloosa Gas trucks you will see they are powered by natural gas. It is amazing to me that we as a nation are insisting to push electric vehicles when the storage technology is still developing, as well as the need to generate and inefficient transport of electricity to the end user. It is presently much less efficient than internal combustion engines. There is certainly a need to advance the storage technology and efficiencies with electric engines, but a bridge is needed to cover that gap. Natural gas is an obvious choice. The problem is we do not have a distribution system which could fill your car with compressed natural gas like you use a filling station, nor do we have one for electricity either. In fact the BTU (energy content) value of oil to an mcf of gas is 6:1, which is one barrel of oil has as much energy as 6,000 cubic feet of methane. This morning the price of oil is near $80, the price of 1,000 cubic feet of gas is about $4. The cost of gas as an energy source is about a third the cost of oil!! That is because we produce almost 100% of our use in the USA and import almost none.
The fact of the matter is when the energy demands get high enough, and prices cause the entire state and country to do something about it, it would be better for us to have made these decisions in a calm manner and have plans and protections in place. By putting it off you place us in the position of having some outside force inject unpopular decisions on us all. The search for Oil and Gas is complex and takes many years to do correctly. If it were opened tomorrow, it would take 10 years to even identify a place to drill and work through all the red tape of federal and State regulations. I trust you have some concept of the MMS and how the process works.
Back in the mid 80’s when we were working to protect the State Forest here in Walton County and I was one of the founding members of “Beach to Bay”, a group of volunteers and environmentalists I was asked what I thought of the proposal to drill off of Pensacola. I answered that they really didn’t want to know what I thought. They insisted that my opinion had value, so I said it would be good for fishing. That led to a diatribe very much like your response,Geo, although it didn’t sound centered on any pertinent geological facts either. I responded to him that I was correct; they did not want to hear my opinion!
Indulge yourself and protest loud. I know it makes you feel good. I was not attempting to change anybody's minds with this post, just tired of hearing how one sided these discussions are.
By the way, who are you and what makes you so smart.
Hi Bob,
Thank you for having the courage to share your identity. We do not agree on this issue but I respect you very much for sharing your opinions as you rather than sticking with the relative anonymity of an avatar and a screenname.
I am satisfied that A) you are really a geologist and that B) you do care about the environment. That said, I stand by my assertions in my response to your original post.
I really put a lot of effort into reading and trying to understand your words and I spent a great deal of time typing a response to them. It is disappointing that rather than clarifying your points that you instead just write me off as someone who feels good/indulges himself by protesting loud. It is a shame that instead of refuting my argument that you refer to it as a "diatribe".
My name is George. I enjoy the art of conversation/communication and I like to argue. I feel the need to point out faulty arguments on all sides of a debate, especially when they might seem credible on the surface. I live in Santa Rosa Beach and my avatar is a picture of me.
I know nothing about geology or sniffing out oil fields. But I can smell BS 60 miles offshore. (that last jab was intended to be playful)
Edited
Beach Fanatic
That was not a platform, it was a drilling jack-up rig storm waves were obviously very large, and if you were here for Opal you would have seen cars, trucks, and wrecks washed up on the beach here. Other storms have washed up military drones and ordinance on these beaches as well. I'm not saying there are no risks in this life, or that I am for drilling within 3 miles of our beach. But you can still realize there are two sides to the discussion, and the problems are not easy ignore for either possition.Isnt a jack-up rig just a mobile platform?? And I was here for Opal but I dont remember seeing any cars or trucks washed up, only household appliances from the destroyed homes near Dune Allen. Maybe the ones you saw were from those houses also. I have also personally found ordinance on these beaches that was not from a storm , just from the natural erosion of the sand.
Beyond the environmental issue is the economic issue. Why place your mulit billion dollar tourist and military economy in jeapordy for a future promise of 2-3 billion a year down the road? 120 billion v. 2? Not a single guarenteed job for Floridians? Texas to benefit but not our State while giving up our most valuable commodity?I agree that we should be wary of these companies promising jobs for Floridians. The majority (if not all) jobs would probably go to the employees that are already with by these companies, most of whom would love to move from TX to our beaches. Until they make them look like TX beaches, when they will move on to the next "big reserve' they find or think they will find.
I think that the key to stop our dependency on foreign oil is not to drill for more of it here but to look to and invest in, the other forms of energy that are so abundant here, i.e. wind and solar. The billions spent on just one drilling site that may or may not yield could be better spent on building power plants that produce these cleaner energy sources.
Beach FanaticAuthor
Talk of a Special Session in December on Rail issue??? Or is it Oil as well
There could be a special session called to discuss the High Speed Rail Issue. Strange isn't it that this can't wait until March? It is very possible, the Oil Bill could be introduced to the Senate in December during this special session. All while the public are scrambling to shop for the holidays. We need to follow this development very closely.
Immediate, Continual Updates at
News Service of Florida - State Government Reporting
HOUSE WAITING FOR SENATE TO GET ON BOARD SUNRAIL SPECIAL SESSION
By KEITH LAING
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, Oct. 28, 2009..........Thus far, most of the Tallahassee talk about a possible December special session to approve the controversial proposed SunRail commuter train in Orlando has come from the upper chamber of the Legislature.
But one of the House sponsors of the bill that would have allowed the train to be built last year told the News Service of Florida that the lower chamber is simply waiting to see if the Senate will get on board with the session and signal it will approve the plan.
The House has been ready to go for two years on it, said Rep. Dave Murzin, R-Pensacola, who introduced the House companion to the SunRail that bill the Senate voted down last year. We're just waiting to see what the Senate wants to do. The House has moved in the past in that direction to support it and I think they would be predisposed to support it (again in a special session).
In 2008, the House approved the language of a liability agreement with CSX Corp., which the freight rail company had tied to the sale of the 61 miles of track that would be used to run SunRail trains. The bill also cleared its only House committee in 2009, but the plan reached the end of the line in the Senate when staunch opposition led by Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, brought it down on the floor of the Senate.
Murzin, who chairs the House Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Council, said the House was waiting to see if the Senate math would add up differently before jumping on board with the special session talk.
Let's see if it was put up on the board, would they have the votes, Murzin said. Then we'll move forward. If they don't have the votes, why waste the time, effort, and money of going up to Tallahassee?
The wheels on the special session talk began moving quickly last week when Senate President Jeff Atwater said the federal government was looking for action on other rail projects in Florida before it considers approving the state's $2.5 billion application for the first leg of the long proposed Tampa-Orlando-Miami bullet train. In total, the state submitted three applications for some of the $8 billion that is available in the federal economic stimulus package for high speed rail, also asking for $432 for SunRail and $70 million for Atlantic Coast Amtrak service.
Decisions on the applications are expected by the end of the year, forcing lawmakers to consider reconvening early if they want to show the federal government the state is serious about rail.
However, after Atwater raised the specter of a rail special session during his trip to meet with federal transportation officials and the Florida U.S. delegation in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Larry Cretul's office said only that the speaker would discuss the possibility with Atwater when he returned. But Murzin said the House was aware of the importance of acting on SunRail, even if it was leery of getting too far ahead of the Senate.
'Whenever the feds say there's an opportunity to draw down more money, Florida needs to be first in line, he said. That adds to the sense of urgency.
Murzin added that there could be advantages to dealing with SunRail in a limited special session instead of a wide-open regular session, when it could be linked with other issues. Last year, backers linked funding for Tri-Rail to the plan in an unsuccessful effort to win support from the South Florida delegation.
There's lots of dynamics in there, Murzin said. There's statewide concern about expenditures of money, and it got caught up in the trial lawyer fight. Unfortunately, a lot of times it revolves around who you can sue. Tri-Rail was mixed in there too, and kind of muddied the water up. Going into a special session, you're going in with one issue.
The 2008 Senate SunRail sponsor, Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, told the News Service that he could not predict whether the House would ultimately get on the special session train, but he was confident that the plan had support in the chamber.
I've not heard anything from (the House) that they would be interested (in a special session), but I would hope they would be receptive, being that one of the sponsors over there will be the next Speaker of the House, Constantine said, referring to key SunRail backer Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park. The (House) leadership felt comfortable they would be able to pass the bill in whatever form it passed in the Senate.
-END-
10/28/09
Detailed context on Florida transportation issues is available on the NSF Transportation Backgrounder at The News Service of Florida: Florida Transportation Backgrounder.
Independent and Indispensable
News Service of Florida - State Government Reporting
There could be a special session called to discuss the High Speed Rail Issue. Strange isn't it that this can't wait until March? It is very possible, the Oil Bill could be introduced to the Senate in December during this special session. All while the public are scrambling to shop for the holidays. We need to follow this development very closely.
Immediate, Continual Updates at
News Service of Florida - State Government Reporting
HOUSE WAITING FOR SENATE TO GET ON BOARD SUNRAIL SPECIAL SESSION
By KEITH LAING
THE NEWS SERVICE OF FLORIDA
THE CAPITAL, TALLAHASSEE, Oct. 28, 2009..........Thus far, most of the Tallahassee talk about a possible December special session to approve the controversial proposed SunRail commuter train in Orlando has come from the upper chamber of the Legislature.
But one of the House sponsors of the bill that would have allowed the train to be built last year told the News Service of Florida that the lower chamber is simply waiting to see if the Senate will get on board with the session and signal it will approve the plan.
The House has been ready to go for two years on it, said Rep. Dave Murzin, R-Pensacola, who introduced the House companion to the SunRail that bill the Senate voted down last year. We're just waiting to see what the Senate wants to do. The House has moved in the past in that direction to support it and I think they would be predisposed to support it (again in a special session).
In 2008, the House approved the language of a liability agreement with CSX Corp., which the freight rail company had tied to the sale of the 61 miles of track that would be used to run SunRail trains. The bill also cleared its only House committee in 2009, but the plan reached the end of the line in the Senate when staunch opposition led by Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, brought it down on the floor of the Senate.
Murzin, who chairs the House Economic Development & Community Affairs Policy Council, said the House was waiting to see if the Senate math would add up differently before jumping on board with the special session talk.
Let's see if it was put up on the board, would they have the votes, Murzin said. Then we'll move forward. If they don't have the votes, why waste the time, effort, and money of going up to Tallahassee?
The wheels on the special session talk began moving quickly last week when Senate President Jeff Atwater said the federal government was looking for action on other rail projects in Florida before it considers approving the state's $2.5 billion application for the first leg of the long proposed Tampa-Orlando-Miami bullet train. In total, the state submitted three applications for some of the $8 billion that is available in the federal economic stimulus package for high speed rail, also asking for $432 for SunRail and $70 million for Atlantic Coast Amtrak service.
Decisions on the applications are expected by the end of the year, forcing lawmakers to consider reconvening early if they want to show the federal government the state is serious about rail.
However, after Atwater raised the specter of a rail special session during his trip to meet with federal transportation officials and the Florida U.S. delegation in Washington, D.C., House Speaker Larry Cretul's office said only that the speaker would discuss the possibility with Atwater when he returned. But Murzin said the House was aware of the importance of acting on SunRail, even if it was leery of getting too far ahead of the Senate.
'Whenever the feds say there's an opportunity to draw down more money, Florida needs to be first in line, he said. That adds to the sense of urgency.
Murzin added that there could be advantages to dealing with SunRail in a limited special session instead of a wide-open regular session, when it could be linked with other issues. Last year, backers linked funding for Tri-Rail to the plan in an unsuccessful effort to win support from the South Florida delegation.
There's lots of dynamics in there, Murzin said. There's statewide concern about expenditures of money, and it got caught up in the trial lawyer fight. Unfortunately, a lot of times it revolves around who you can sue. Tri-Rail was mixed in there too, and kind of muddied the water up. Going into a special session, you're going in with one issue.
The 2008 Senate SunRail sponsor, Sen. Lee Constantine, R-Altamonte Springs, told the News Service that he could not predict whether the House would ultimately get on the special session train, but he was confident that the plan had support in the chamber.
I've not heard anything from (the House) that they would be interested (in a special session), but I would hope they would be receptive, being that one of the sponsors over there will be the next Speaker of the House, Constantine said, referring to key SunRail backer Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park. The (House) leadership felt comfortable they would be able to pass the bill in whatever form it passed in the Senate.
-END-
10/28/09
Detailed context on Florida transportation issues is available on the NSF Transportation Backgrounder at The News Service of Florida: Florida Transportation Backgrounder.
Independent and Indispensable
News Service of Florida - State Government Reporting
Edited
Beach Comber
Hi Bob,
Thank you for having the courage to share your identity. We do not agree on this issue but I respect you very much for sharing your opinions as you rather than sticking with the relative anonymity of an avatar and a screenname.
I am satisfied that A) you are really a geologist and that B) you do care about the environment. That said, I stand by my assertions in my response to your original post.
I really put a lot of effort into reading and trying to understand your words and I spent a great deal of time typing a response to them. It is disappointing that rather than clarifying your points that you instead just write me off as someone who feels good/indulges himself by protesting loud. It is a shame that instead of refuting my argument that you refer to it as a "diatribe".
My name is George. I enjoy the art of conversation/communication and I like to argue. I feel the need to point out faulty arguments on all sides of a debate, especially when they might seem credible on the surface. I live in Santa Rosa Beach and my avatar is a picture of me.
I know nothing about geology or sniffing out oil fields. But I can smell BS 60 miles offshore. (that last jab was intended to be playful)
We agree to disagree, I don't have the time to go over everything I wrote, have to leave town to afford living here. I will say that I have personally been on some 60 drilling operations over the years, many of them offshore, and the effluent from the folks wadding in the surf on any given summer day far exceeds any polution I have ever whitnessed offshore. (also intended to be playful) I mention the joy of standing together in protest because I have been there and know how empowering it is.
Cheers!
Beach Fanatic
"too" i don't recall taking any classes with you nor do i know what the "truth tree" is (shruggy face emoticon) so break out whatever helps guy (sunglasses slightly cocked mouthy face emoticon) in the end it doesnt matter...no bill has been filed yet so dave is way ahead of the game...however in addition to holding hands, it is going to be much more important to vote with your wallets, thats how oil interests are going to win, start a 527, raise money and use it to support candidates that are opposed and defeat it that way, politicians respond to money thats why this is even an issue...i dont think long long term implications are being considered by the likes of haridopolis and cannon. this is an issue because the state needs money, our state constitution requires a balanced budget every year, they jacked up our "fees" last year so what can they do this year, i guess cutting costs and reducing the state payroll is not an option. far more is to be made off of people who come to visit than off of the proceeds from oil rigs. but what do i know i have no skin in the game, you say less tourists i hear less people driving below the speed limit in the passing lane, no parking problems in grayton, no crap left on the beach, and a lower cost of living which all sound pretty good to me (winky face emoticon)
In your last post you said you thought I made an invalid reductio ad ridiculum argument. I am quite familiar with fallacies in argumentation from an elementary logic class (one of my favorites) I took in college. I figured you must have taken a similar class too. Guess not. Maybe you just like to speak in Latin. haha
Sorry you don't like emoticons.
I agree with you that the opposition to drilling will need to put money where their mouth is.
Edited
Beach Comber
from the Florida Today Yesterday
Our views: Drilling for answers
Florida Today, 10/28/2009
Forum today will explore move to OK oil drilling off Florida's Gulf coast
To drill or not to drill, that's the big -- and very controversial -- question.
And it's a question that needs the most rigorous examination, because ending the more than two-decade ban on drilling for oil off Florida's Gulf coast would have major, long-term ramifications for our state.
The battle lines are drawn:
The oil companies and their supporters in the Legislature are pulling out the stops to approve drilling within 10 miles of the coast, saying it would create thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into Florida's bone-dry budget.
Opponents say it would put the state's environment and beach-dependent tourism industry at risk from spills and other drilling-related pollution, and the oil industry's job and money claims are overblown.
They'll meet for debate tonight in a forum at Florida State University in Tallahassee co-sponsored by the college and Gannett's four newspapers in Florida, including FLORIDA TODAY.
The 7-9 p.m. session will be Webcast live on floridatoday.com. Brevard residents can e-mail their questions to FlaForum@tallahassee.com for consideration by panelists, who will represent drilling proponents and detractors.
State Sen. Mike Haridopolos, the Merritt Island Republican and incoming Florida Senate president, will be among those on the panel. He's sponsoring the pro-drilling measure in the Senate, and during a recent meeting with FLORIDA TODAY's editorial board promised an exhaustive review of the issue.
That's good because anything else is unacceptable.
Name the oilmen
Some of what Haridopolos said worried us, especially his answer to a question about the secretive group of oilmen financing the drilling push.
Haridopolos said he didn'tknow who they were and insisted it shouldn't matter.
Actually, it matters a greatdeal, because our state's irreplaceable natural resourcesare at stake.
The public has a right to know their identities. Open government demands it to prevent oil companies with deep pockets from cutting deals behind closed doors.
If Haridopolos truly means what he says about complete transparency on the drilling issue, as the prime Senate sponsor of the bill, he should find out at once who they are and publicly name names.
Meanwhile, we can all become better informed about potential benefits and risks of drilling by listening to both sides present their views tonight.
Key GOP defections
Several key Republican lawmakers in the Senate are bucking their party and oppose drilling, according to the St. Petersburg Times.
They include current Senate President Jeff Atwater, who says he's not convinced Floridians want drilling and that it's not among his priorities for the 2010 session.
Four other GOP senators say they won't vote to approve it: Sens. Victor Crist, R-Tampa; Dennis Jones, R-Seminole; Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland; and Durell Peaden, R-Crestview.
"Once you ruin those pristine beaches, they're ruined forever," Peaden told the Times about the risk from spills. He went on to blast the out-of-state oilmen as "shysters" promoting a "shell game" at the expense of Florida's tourism economy.
That view received support recently. Top scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have issued a strong warning against drilling in the Arctic, Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico in a new report obtained by the Chicago Tribune.
They say it would have a negative impact on marine life, commercial and recreational fisheries and other resources in the ocean. They recommended excluding large tracts in those areas from the federal government's draft offshore leasing plan for 2010-15.
The scientists also criticized the Interior Department's assessment of the dangers from oil spills, saying they're "understated and generally not supported or referenced."
Significantly, Mike Sole, secretary of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, questioned the oil companies' promise that drilling would bring $2.25 billion a year into the state's budget during testimony last week before a House committee.
He said Alabama receives $50 million to $300 million annually from oil royalties and taxes and Texas takes in about $45 million a year. Florida would need a lot more than that to even consider risking the state's $65-billion-a- year tourism industry to the devastating impacts of an oil spill.
Ignore scare tactics
The oil companies have responded with scare tactics.
Florida Energy Associates, the industry's lobbying arm, released a video that says if Floridians don't support drilling and its supposed fiscal windfall, they might face a sales tax hike or state income tax.
That's not going to happen.
Conservative Republicans control the Legislature and most view raising the sales tax as a non-starter -- especially when they're up for re-election next year. To them, an income tax is even more unpalatable.
All of this and more should be on the table during tonight's Florida State forum.
Tune in.
Our views: Drilling for answers
Florida Today, 10/28/2009
Forum today will explore move to OK oil drilling off Florida's Gulf coast
To drill or not to drill, that's the big -- and very controversial -- question.
And it's a question that needs the most rigorous examination, because ending the more than two-decade ban on drilling for oil off Florida's Gulf coast would have major, long-term ramifications for our state.
The battle lines are drawn:
The oil companies and their supporters in the Legislature are pulling out the stops to approve drilling within 10 miles of the coast, saying it would create thousands of jobs and pump billions of dollars into Florida's bone-dry budget.
Opponents say it would put the state's environment and beach-dependent tourism industry at risk from spills and other drilling-related pollution, and the oil industry's job and money claims are overblown.
They'll meet for debate tonight in a forum at Florida State University in Tallahassee co-sponsored by the college and Gannett's four newspapers in Florida, including FLORIDA TODAY.
The 7-9 p.m. session will be Webcast live on floridatoday.com. Brevard residents can e-mail their questions to FlaForum@tallahassee.com for consideration by panelists, who will represent drilling proponents and detractors.
State Sen. Mike Haridopolos, the Merritt Island Republican and incoming Florida Senate president, will be among those on the panel. He's sponsoring the pro-drilling measure in the Senate, and during a recent meeting with FLORIDA TODAY's editorial board promised an exhaustive review of the issue.
That's good because anything else is unacceptable.
Name the oilmen
Some of what Haridopolos said worried us, especially his answer to a question about the secretive group of oilmen financing the drilling push.
Haridopolos said he didn'tknow who they were and insisted it shouldn't matter.
Actually, it matters a greatdeal, because our state's irreplaceable natural resourcesare at stake.
The public has a right to know their identities. Open government demands it to prevent oil companies with deep pockets from cutting deals behind closed doors.
If Haridopolos truly means what he says about complete transparency on the drilling issue, as the prime Senate sponsor of the bill, he should find out at once who they are and publicly name names.
Meanwhile, we can all become better informed about potential benefits and risks of drilling by listening to both sides present their views tonight.
Key GOP defections
Several key Republican lawmakers in the Senate are bucking their party and oppose drilling, according to the St. Petersburg Times.
They include current Senate President Jeff Atwater, who says he's not convinced Floridians want drilling and that it's not among his priorities for the 2010 session.
Four other GOP senators say they won't vote to approve it: Sens. Victor Crist, R-Tampa; Dennis Jones, R-Seminole; Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland; and Durell Peaden, R-Crestview.
"Once you ruin those pristine beaches, they're ruined forever," Peaden told the Times about the risk from spills. He went on to blast the out-of-state oilmen as "shysters" promoting a "shell game" at the expense of Florida's tourism economy.
That view received support recently. Top scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have issued a strong warning against drilling in the Arctic, Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico in a new report obtained by the Chicago Tribune.
They say it would have a negative impact on marine life, commercial and recreational fisheries and other resources in the ocean. They recommended excluding large tracts in those areas from the federal government's draft offshore leasing plan for 2010-15.
The scientists also criticized the Interior Department's assessment of the dangers from oil spills, saying they're "understated and generally not supported or referenced."
Significantly, Mike Sole, secretary of Florida's Department of Environmental Protection, questioned the oil companies' promise that drilling would bring $2.25 billion a year into the state's budget during testimony last week before a House committee.
He said Alabama receives $50 million to $300 million annually from oil royalties and taxes and Texas takes in about $45 million a year. Florida would need a lot more than that to even consider risking the state's $65-billion-a- year tourism industry to the devastating impacts of an oil spill.
Ignore scare tactics
The oil companies have responded with scare tactics.
Florida Energy Associates, the industry's lobbying arm, released a video that says if Floridians don't support drilling and its supposed fiscal windfall, they might face a sales tax hike or state income tax.
That's not going to happen.
Conservative Republicans control the Legislature and most view raising the sales tax as a non-starter -- especially when they're up for re-election next year. To them, an income tax is even more unpalatable.
All of this and more should be on the table during tonight's Florida State forum.
Tune in.
Beach Comber
from the orlando sentinel today...looks like mr cannon is losing steam
Caveat emptor on drilling
Orlando Sentinel, 10/29/2009
The gist: Wondrous claims about lifting Florida's offshore ban don't hold water.
Fortunately for Florida, Rep. Dean Cannon's quest to lift the state's offshore drilling ban is slowing. Credit the growing number of dubious claims for dragging it down.
The latest came last week during a hearing before the House Select Policy Council on Strategic & Economic Planning, when promises about the riches drilling would produce for Florida landed with a thud.
The pro-drilling group Florida Energy Associates estimates Florida can expect $2.25 billion in royalties annually by opening up its coastal waters in the Gulf to drilling. That's based in part on the assumption that it can depend on companies pumping 150 million barrels of oil annually.
Well ... Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole told the council chaired by Mr. Cannon that Louisiana produces just 6 million barrels of oil annually. And Texas -- big ol' Texas -- produces just 2 million barrels annually from its state waters. Add in its take from natural gas, and it nets an average of about $45 million a year.
The Texas General Land Office adds that all offshore drilling up to 10 miles off the Lone Star State's shores since the late 1940s has brought Texans just over $6 billion in royalties.
But Florida, somehow, can expect $2.25 billion a year?
Or maybe those wanting to drill really don't know what to expect? As a representative for Big Oil says, "we are confident there are significant reserves off Florida's coast." But he adds, "like the environmentalists [say], you won't know for sure how much is out there unless you drill and find out."
Other claims are faring little better. Or worse. Like the one that says criticism concerning the damage drilling can cause amounts to fear-mongering, because modern oil exploration's improved safety record ensures it will protect and preserve Florida's coastline.
Except 150 miles off Australia's northwest coast, for a 10th straight week, oil continues to spew up to 400 barrels a day from a state-of-the-art rig.
Four attempts to seal the leak by some of the world's leading oil well-control specialists have failed. A fifth try is scheduled next weekend.
Big Oil's defenders say a spill -- however unlikely -- off Florida's shallower waters could be sealed far more speedily.
But, quite likely, not before damaging the coast. Moreover, lifting Florida's drilling ban would likely cause the federal ban that keeps drilling 125 miles from the Gulf shore to crumble. A spill in a deep-set rig 50 or 75 miles out could present Florida with a hard-to-cap crisis like the one near Australia.
Claims by Mr. Cannon that offshore drilling will get an honest and open airing also took a hit earlier this month when the Senate leadership appointed the spouse of a lobbyist for the oil industry to head a committee that will consider a drilling bill.
Mr. Cannon also keeps talking about how all those drilling royalties can support all sorts of needy state programs, including those benefiting the environment.
But where's the discussion about how much money the state would have to devote to regulating drilling?
According to a report in Wednesday's Sentinel, Mr. Cannon now thinks he won't be able get the Legislature to vote this year on lifting Florida's drilling ban.
He's looking instead to next year's regular session.
That's a relief. This idea needs a lot more time and review, and even then it may not pass muster.
Without further scrutiny, its credibility will keep springing leaks each time it surfaces.
Caveat emptor on drilling
Orlando Sentinel, 10/29/2009
The gist: Wondrous claims about lifting Florida's offshore ban don't hold water.
Fortunately for Florida, Rep. Dean Cannon's quest to lift the state's offshore drilling ban is slowing. Credit the growing number of dubious claims for dragging it down.
The latest came last week during a hearing before the House Select Policy Council on Strategic & Economic Planning, when promises about the riches drilling would produce for Florida landed with a thud.
The pro-drilling group Florida Energy Associates estimates Florida can expect $2.25 billion in royalties annually by opening up its coastal waters in the Gulf to drilling. That's based in part on the assumption that it can depend on companies pumping 150 million barrels of oil annually.
Well ... Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Sole told the council chaired by Mr. Cannon that Louisiana produces just 6 million barrels of oil annually. And Texas -- big ol' Texas -- produces just 2 million barrels annually from its state waters. Add in its take from natural gas, and it nets an average of about $45 million a year.
The Texas General Land Office adds that all offshore drilling up to 10 miles off the Lone Star State's shores since the late 1940s has brought Texans just over $6 billion in royalties.
But Florida, somehow, can expect $2.25 billion a year?
Or maybe those wanting to drill really don't know what to expect? As a representative for Big Oil says, "we are confident there are significant reserves off Florida's coast." But he adds, "like the environmentalists [say], you won't know for sure how much is out there unless you drill and find out."
Other claims are faring little better. Or worse. Like the one that says criticism concerning the damage drilling can cause amounts to fear-mongering, because modern oil exploration's improved safety record ensures it will protect and preserve Florida's coastline.
Except 150 miles off Australia's northwest coast, for a 10th straight week, oil continues to spew up to 400 barrels a day from a state-of-the-art rig.
Four attempts to seal the leak by some of the world's leading oil well-control specialists have failed. A fifth try is scheduled next weekend.
Big Oil's defenders say a spill -- however unlikely -- off Florida's shallower waters could be sealed far more speedily.
But, quite likely, not before damaging the coast. Moreover, lifting Florida's drilling ban would likely cause the federal ban that keeps drilling 125 miles from the Gulf shore to crumble. A spill in a deep-set rig 50 or 75 miles out could present Florida with a hard-to-cap crisis like the one near Australia.
Claims by Mr. Cannon that offshore drilling will get an honest and open airing also took a hit earlier this month when the Senate leadership appointed the spouse of a lobbyist for the oil industry to head a committee that will consider a drilling bill.
Mr. Cannon also keeps talking about how all those drilling royalties can support all sorts of needy state programs, including those benefiting the environment.
But where's the discussion about how much money the state would have to devote to regulating drilling?
According to a report in Wednesday's Sentinel, Mr. Cannon now thinks he won't be able get the Legislature to vote this year on lifting Florida's drilling ban.
He's looking instead to next year's regular session.
That's a relief. This idea needs a lot more time and review, and even then it may not pass muster.
Without further scrutiny, its credibility will keep springing leaks each time it surfaces.
Beach Comber
report of yesterdays forum
Offshore-drilling debate reveals upcoming battle lines
Orlando Sentinel, 10/29/2009
TALLAHASSEE -- Envision oil derricks cluttering Florida's sunset views. Oil spills threatening marine life, turning beach sand black and scaring away tourists.
Or picture a very different scenario: High-tech oil and gas operations that set a new safety standard. Thousands of good-paying jobs flooding Florida. Billions in state revenues.
Those competing scenarios emerged during a two-hour televised debate between offshore-oil-drilling supporters and foes in Florida, sponsored by the Tallahassee Democrat and Florida State University. The forum featured dueling three-member panels -- for and against drilling -- as well as two legislative leaders.
The debate hints at a grueling political battle on the horizon in Tallahassee: Whether to repeal the 1990 ban on oil drilling in Florida waters, which extend 10.3 miles from the coastline in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Drilling in the oil- and natural gas-rich Gulf could become the top issue during Gov. Charlie Crist's final year in office and the Legislature's spring session, which begins in March.
Hank Fishkind, an Orlando economist in favor of drilling, said opening Florida waters to exploration promises to create 20,000 jobs and bring in more than $2 billion in revenue. At the same time, he said, the risk of an oil spill is slight.
Another drilling supporter, Southern Strategy Group adviser David Rancourt, compared drilling to putting a man on the moon. Using modern technology, Florida could drill and maintain a strong tourism industry, he said, adding: "Oil and gas exploration and beautiful beaches are not mutually exclusive."
But drilling foes say if Florida lifts its drilling ban, the state would risk its economy and environment based on an unproven promise of jobs and money. And drilling off Florida's coast won't drive down gas prices or do much toward making American energy independent, they said.
"Near-shore oil drilling will put at risk our environment, our economy, and will change Florida as we know it forever," said Pinellas County Commissioner Kenneth Welch, a drilling opponent. "Florida's coastal environment is not for sale. Why would we risk a world-class tourism economy?"
In Tallahassee this spring, an effort to repeal the Florida oil-drilling ban passed the House, but stalled in the Senate. At Wednesday's forum were Rep. Dean Cannon, R- Winter Park, and Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Indialantic. Both lawmakers support oil drilling -- at one point Wednesday, Haridopolos decried the "scare tactics" of drilling opponents -- but said they want to gather facts and lead a thorough review before voting.
The debate moderator, Gannett Capitol Bureau Chief Paul Flemming, pressed the pro-drilling panelists over the shadowy finances of the group lobbying for the drill-now effort. Rancourt would only say that the group includes a "God-fearing" collection of American oil and gas explorers. "Some of them wish to remain anonymous for the time being," he said, citing competitive concerns.
That didn't cut it for Florida Audubon's Eric Draper, who noted the public owns the waters petroleum interests want to explore. "We don't get at the truth when we're hiding behind the claim of anonymity," Draper said.
Josh Hafenbrack can be reached at jhafenbrack@sun-sentinel.com or 850-224-6214.
Offshore-drilling debate reveals upcoming battle lines
Orlando Sentinel, 10/29/2009
TALLAHASSEE -- Envision oil derricks cluttering Florida's sunset views. Oil spills threatening marine life, turning beach sand black and scaring away tourists.
Or picture a very different scenario: High-tech oil and gas operations that set a new safety standard. Thousands of good-paying jobs flooding Florida. Billions in state revenues.
Those competing scenarios emerged during a two-hour televised debate between offshore-oil-drilling supporters and foes in Florida, sponsored by the Tallahassee Democrat and Florida State University. The forum featured dueling three-member panels -- for and against drilling -- as well as two legislative leaders.
The debate hints at a grueling political battle on the horizon in Tallahassee: Whether to repeal the 1990 ban on oil drilling in Florida waters, which extend 10.3 miles from the coastline in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Drilling in the oil- and natural gas-rich Gulf could become the top issue during Gov. Charlie Crist's final year in office and the Legislature's spring session, which begins in March.
Hank Fishkind, an Orlando economist in favor of drilling, said opening Florida waters to exploration promises to create 20,000 jobs and bring in more than $2 billion in revenue. At the same time, he said, the risk of an oil spill is slight.
Another drilling supporter, Southern Strategy Group adviser David Rancourt, compared drilling to putting a man on the moon. Using modern technology, Florida could drill and maintain a strong tourism industry, he said, adding: "Oil and gas exploration and beautiful beaches are not mutually exclusive."
But drilling foes say if Florida lifts its drilling ban, the state would risk its economy and environment based on an unproven promise of jobs and money. And drilling off Florida's coast won't drive down gas prices or do much toward making American energy independent, they said.
"Near-shore oil drilling will put at risk our environment, our economy, and will change Florida as we know it forever," said Pinellas County Commissioner Kenneth Welch, a drilling opponent. "Florida's coastal environment is not for sale. Why would we risk a world-class tourism economy?"
In Tallahassee this spring, an effort to repeal the Florida oil-drilling ban passed the House, but stalled in the Senate. At Wednesday's forum were Rep. Dean Cannon, R- Winter Park, and Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Indialantic. Both lawmakers support oil drilling -- at one point Wednesday, Haridopolos decried the "scare tactics" of drilling opponents -- but said they want to gather facts and lead a thorough review before voting.
The debate moderator, Gannett Capitol Bureau Chief Paul Flemming, pressed the pro-drilling panelists over the shadowy finances of the group lobbying for the drill-now effort. Rancourt would only say that the group includes a "God-fearing" collection of American oil and gas explorers. "Some of them wish to remain anonymous for the time being," he said, citing competitive concerns.
That didn't cut it for Florida Audubon's Eric Draper, who noted the public owns the waters petroleum interests want to explore. "We don't get at the truth when we're hiding behind the claim of anonymity," Draper said.
Josh Hafenbrack can be reached at jhafenbrack@sun-sentinel.com or 850-224-6214.
Beach Comber
A heavy 'nay' in SW Fla.
Southwest Florida's News-Press, 10/29/2009
Following a lively Internet debate over oil and natural gas exploration off Florida's Gulf Coast, a group of area residents engaged in a similar discussion at The News-Press.
But the local debate was pretty lopsided: Six people were opposed; two were undecided; and one was for exploration.
During the Internet event, those opposed to exploration mentioned that tar balls are a problem on beaches in states with offshore drilling, and proponents said those tar balls come from natural seepage.
"They were saying tar balls were natural, so why don't they happen naturally over here?" said Dave Jensen, co-owner of Jensen's Twin Palms Cottages & Marine and Jensen's on the Gulf on Captiva. "I have a neighbor from Santa Barbara (Calif.), and sure enough, they have tar balls there, and they have oil drilling offshore."
Offshore drilling is not only oil rigs but also land-based infrastructure, said Charlotte County Commissioner Adam Cummings, who worked on a drill ship off Cameron, La., for a short time.
"There's a heavy offshore industry that needs a heavy onshore industry to support it," he said. "Google Cameron, La.; zoom in and see if that's the kind of place where you want to live. Look at the communities that support that kind of work and compare it to Southwest Florida."
A key argument against offshore drilling is the impact it would have on Florida's tourism, which returned $3.9 billion to Florida in tax revenue and generated $65.2 billion in direct economic impact in 2008.
An oil spill, opponents said, would be a tremendous blow to the state's economy.
"We had a recent example of how water quality affects tourism," said John Albion, director of the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce. "We had a dredging project to open Matanzas Pass, and some of the material was a little nasty. It felt mucky, and the water was cloudy before the Fourth of July, and people started checking out of motel rooms."
Another issue is the aesthetics of oil rigs along the coast, though panel members on the Internet forum said wells would actually be on the sea floor, and rigs would only be visible during construction, no more than six months.
"There's nothing romantic about catching sunset with an oil rig in the way," Fort Myers City Councilman Warren Wright said. "I've lived in California where there's offshore drilling. It's just different. It smells different."
Joe Mazurkiewicz, former mayor of Cape Coral, used to work in the oil industry in Central and South America and is undecided.
"There's too much unknown to make a decision," he said. "We need to allow someone to go in and determine what the asset is. We owe it to ourselves."
Jan Ganter, a member of the Lee County Republican Executive Committee, was the only person at The News-Press in favor of energy exploration.
"The risk-reward is worth it," she said. "If we always paid so much attention to risks, we'd never have gone to the moon. I'm tired of being held hostage because we always have to get energy from somebody else."
Members of the discussion at The News-Press for a forum on oil and natural gas exploration off Florida's Gulf Coast:
- John Albion, Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce.
- Dave Jensen, Jensen's Twin Palms Cottages & Marine and Jensen's on the Gulf.
- Warren Wright, Fort Myers councilman.
- Adam Cummings, Charlotte County commissioner.
- Jan Ganter, Lee County Republican Executive Committee.
- Joe Mazurkiewicz, political consultant and former mayor of Cape Coral.
- Janet Martin, Bonita Springs councilwoman.
- Martha Simons, Bonita Springs councilwoman.
- Brad Cornell, National Audubon Society.
- Raymond Rodrigues, The News-Press editorial board citizen member alumnus.
Southwest Florida's News-Press, 10/29/2009
Following a lively Internet debate over oil and natural gas exploration off Florida's Gulf Coast, a group of area residents engaged in a similar discussion at The News-Press.
But the local debate was pretty lopsided: Six people were opposed; two were undecided; and one was for exploration.
During the Internet event, those opposed to exploration mentioned that tar balls are a problem on beaches in states with offshore drilling, and proponents said those tar balls come from natural seepage.
"They were saying tar balls were natural, so why don't they happen naturally over here?" said Dave Jensen, co-owner of Jensen's Twin Palms Cottages & Marine and Jensen's on the Gulf on Captiva. "I have a neighbor from Santa Barbara (Calif.), and sure enough, they have tar balls there, and they have oil drilling offshore."
Offshore drilling is not only oil rigs but also land-based infrastructure, said Charlotte County Commissioner Adam Cummings, who worked on a drill ship off Cameron, La., for a short time.
"There's a heavy offshore industry that needs a heavy onshore industry to support it," he said. "Google Cameron, La.; zoom in and see if that's the kind of place where you want to live. Look at the communities that support that kind of work and compare it to Southwest Florida."
A key argument against offshore drilling is the impact it would have on Florida's tourism, which returned $3.9 billion to Florida in tax revenue and generated $65.2 billion in direct economic impact in 2008.
An oil spill, opponents said, would be a tremendous blow to the state's economy.
"We had a recent example of how water quality affects tourism," said John Albion, director of the Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce. "We had a dredging project to open Matanzas Pass, and some of the material was a little nasty. It felt mucky, and the water was cloudy before the Fourth of July, and people started checking out of motel rooms."
Another issue is the aesthetics of oil rigs along the coast, though panel members on the Internet forum said wells would actually be on the sea floor, and rigs would only be visible during construction, no more than six months.
"There's nothing romantic about catching sunset with an oil rig in the way," Fort Myers City Councilman Warren Wright said. "I've lived in California where there's offshore drilling. It's just different. It smells different."
Joe Mazurkiewicz, former mayor of Cape Coral, used to work in the oil industry in Central and South America and is undecided.
"There's too much unknown to make a decision," he said. "We need to allow someone to go in and determine what the asset is. We owe it to ourselves."
Jan Ganter, a member of the Lee County Republican Executive Committee, was the only person at The News-Press in favor of energy exploration.
"The risk-reward is worth it," she said. "If we always paid so much attention to risks, we'd never have gone to the moon. I'm tired of being held hostage because we always have to get energy from somebody else."
Members of the discussion at The News-Press for a forum on oil and natural gas exploration off Florida's Gulf Coast:
- John Albion, Fort Myers Beach Chamber of Commerce.
- Dave Jensen, Jensen's Twin Palms Cottages & Marine and Jensen's on the Gulf.
- Warren Wright, Fort Myers councilman.
- Adam Cummings, Charlotte County commissioner.
- Jan Ganter, Lee County Republican Executive Committee.
- Joe Mazurkiewicz, political consultant and former mayor of Cape Coral.
- Janet Martin, Bonita Springs councilwoman.
- Martha Simons, Bonita Springs councilwoman.
- Brad Cornell, National Audubon Society.
- Raymond Rodrigues, The News-Press editorial board citizen member alumnus.
Beach Comber
lots of articles today on the subject
Cash cow or curse? Drilling experts offer familiar promises, warnings
Tallahassee Democrat, 10/29/2009
Offshore drilling would bring 20,000 new jobs and $2 billion a year to Florida, or it would doom a $60-billion-a-year industry that draws millions of tourists to Florida's pristine beaches.
Proponents and opponents traded those familiar promises, warnings and a few sharp barbs Wednesday night in a two-hour debate broadcast live on television, radio and the Internet.
Sponsored by Florida State University and Gannett Florida, the parent company of the Tallahassee Democrat, the debate featured two expert panels who participated in an often freewheeling exchange before a studio audience of about 100.
"We've got a really good coastal economy right now. Why in the world would you put that at risk?" Eric Draper, a chief opponent and veteran lobbyist for Audubon of Florida, asked.
"There's not been an oil spill since I've been alive in the United States, and I was born in 1970, and there's 4,000 rigs," said a flustered Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and the chief proponent of lifting Florida's two-decade drilling ban in state waters.
Opponents demanded to know all of the members of the shadowy Florida Energy Associates, the driving force behind the push in the Florida Legislature, a limited liability company that has hired more than 30 of the state's leading lobbyists to push for lifting the ban.
But they continued to be frustrated.
FEA's public face is Lance Phillips, a Republican Party activist and independent oil producer from Mexia, Texas, and Doug Daniels, an attorney from Daytona Beach.
David Rancourt, a panelists and lobbyist with Southern Strategy Group, said the rest of the partners are wildcatters, or independent oil explorers who need to stay silent to protect their competitive advantage. They will disclose their names as soon as Florida starts issuing offshore leases, Rancourt promised.
It's no different from the 1970s, when mystery developers began buying up vast swaths of Central Florida for what would ultimately become Disney World, Rancourt said.
"This is a very competitive industry," he said. "Disney came into Florida in a similar way, and look at the opportunities they created."
Opponents also raised the specter of vast refineries and storage facilities that would gobble up Florida's coast if offshore drilling were allowed.
"Now you've got a full coastline," said opponent David McLain, a member of Apalachicola Bay Riverkeepers. "Imagine that refinery in your back yard."
All of the Florida oil and gas would be processed in existing refineries in Gulf States, where production has fallen to 60 percent of capacity, Rancourt pledged.
"I don't believe you can permit a refinery in the state of Florida if you wanted to," Rancourt said.
Proponents continued to hammer away at the safety of offshore drilling, pointing to studies that showed only minor spills in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Opponents shot back with reports of recent spills, including a massive blowout in the Timor Sea off of Australia and recent tanker collisions in the Gulf of Mexico.
Cash cow or curse? Drilling experts offer familiar promises, warnings
Tallahassee Democrat, 10/29/2009
Offshore drilling would bring 20,000 new jobs and $2 billion a year to Florida, or it would doom a $60-billion-a-year industry that draws millions of tourists to Florida's pristine beaches.
Proponents and opponents traded those familiar promises, warnings and a few sharp barbs Wednesday night in a two-hour debate broadcast live on television, radio and the Internet.
Sponsored by Florida State University and Gannett Florida, the parent company of the Tallahassee Democrat, the debate featured two expert panels who participated in an often freewheeling exchange before a studio audience of about 100.
"We've got a really good coastal economy right now. Why in the world would you put that at risk?" Eric Draper, a chief opponent and veteran lobbyist for Audubon of Florida, asked.
"There's not been an oil spill since I've been alive in the United States, and I was born in 1970, and there's 4,000 rigs," said a flustered Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and the chief proponent of lifting Florida's two-decade drilling ban in state waters.
Opponents demanded to know all of the members of the shadowy Florida Energy Associates, the driving force behind the push in the Florida Legislature, a limited liability company that has hired more than 30 of the state's leading lobbyists to push for lifting the ban.
But they continued to be frustrated.
FEA's public face is Lance Phillips, a Republican Party activist and independent oil producer from Mexia, Texas, and Doug Daniels, an attorney from Daytona Beach.
David Rancourt, a panelists and lobbyist with Southern Strategy Group, said the rest of the partners are wildcatters, or independent oil explorers who need to stay silent to protect their competitive advantage. They will disclose their names as soon as Florida starts issuing offshore leases, Rancourt promised.
It's no different from the 1970s, when mystery developers began buying up vast swaths of Central Florida for what would ultimately become Disney World, Rancourt said.
"This is a very competitive industry," he said. "Disney came into Florida in a similar way, and look at the opportunities they created."
Opponents also raised the specter of vast refineries and storage facilities that would gobble up Florida's coast if offshore drilling were allowed.
"Now you've got a full coastline," said opponent David McLain, a member of Apalachicola Bay Riverkeepers. "Imagine that refinery in your back yard."
All of the Florida oil and gas would be processed in existing refineries in Gulf States, where production has fallen to 60 percent of capacity, Rancourt pledged.
"I don't believe you can permit a refinery in the state of Florida if you wanted to," Rancourt said.
Proponents continued to hammer away at the safety of offshore drilling, pointing to studies that showed only minor spills in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
Opponents shot back with reports of recent spills, including a massive blowout in the Timor Sea off of Australia and recent tanker collisions in the Gulf of Mexico.
SoWal Insider
Carl Hiaasen always has an interesting viewpoint. Hopefully, he'll join Hands Across the Sand.
Lawmakers' love affair with Big Oil - Carl Hiaasen - MiamiHerald.com
Lawmakers' love affair with Big Oil - Carl Hiaasen - MiamiHerald.com
SoWal Expert
Carl Hiaasen always has an interesting viewpoint. Hopefully, he'll join Hands Across the Sand.
Lawmakers' love affair with Big Oil - Carl Hiaasen - MiamiHerald.com
Let me be the first to call dibs on holding one of his hands.
Beach Fanatic
the shadowy Florida Energy Associates, the driving force behind the push in the Florida Legislature, a limited liability company
An LLC??? WTH? How do we know that these anonymous "wildcatters" have enough in their coffers to cover the enormous cost of of a clean up should there be a spill? Or would they just use the pretty lax Florida bankruptcy laws and walk away?
Beach Comber
a little morning reading
Our Opinion: Complex issue
Tallahassee Democrat, 10/30/2009
Our Opinion: Complex issue | tallahassee.com | Tallahassee Democrat
A public forum at the studios of 4FSU on Wednesday on whether Florida should lift its long ban on drilling for oil and natural gas off our coastline was good conversation and debate. Thousands of people tuned in on radio, TV and the Internet. Hundreds posted comments on our live interactive blog and still more followed the debate on Twitter.
The point is this: Both sides of this debate have the attention of many Floridians; but every Floridian has a stake in this debate.
Conversations like the debate sponsored by the Tallahassee Democrat, Gannett Florida properties and Florida State University are good, but can only go so far in finding answers to the hundreds of questions presented by our readers and viewers. That can be frustrating to time-starved citizens who want all the answers in one neat setting.
But this issue is too complex for that.
That's why Florida State University has a second local event planned for Monday. FSU will a present a symposium featuring some of the foremost experts and academics on this topic in the world. It will begin at 2:30 p.m. at the University Center Club. Gannett Florida State Editor Paul Flemming, who moderated our debate, will also moderate this event. A complete list of panelists is available at Http://www.ieses.fsu.edu. Online registration is available at FSU Center for Professional Development.
It is also why Gannett Florida newspapers and TV stations are working together to produce a comprehensive-coverage project on this issue scheduled for release at the end of November.
Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, took part in our debate. Despite that, the Legislature isn't going to decide whether to lift the ban on exploration based on any one event. Nor is this issue going to be decided purely based on public opinion polls, and that is good.
Yet all of these things must be considered.
This might be the most important public debate going on in Florida over the last decade. The outcome may affect future Floridians for years to come. If you are not yet tuned in, now is the time. If you have not yet started to do research, now is the time. FSU is doing what an educational institution of higher learning ought to do: providing opportunities for greater public understanding of vital issues.
This much is clear: At some point, the Legislature will take up the issue of whether to lift the ban on drilling off Florida's coast, and whatever lawmakers decide, you will be personally impacted.
We applaud Haridopolos and Cannon for listening, for attempting to become better educated on the issues as seen by citizens. We urge them to continue to stay involved in public events, to keep listening and ultimately to do what is right for Florida and its future.
Our Opinion: Complex issue
Tallahassee Democrat, 10/30/2009
Our Opinion: Complex issue | tallahassee.com | Tallahassee Democrat
A public forum at the studios of 4FSU on Wednesday on whether Florida should lift its long ban on drilling for oil and natural gas off our coastline was good conversation and debate. Thousands of people tuned in on radio, TV and the Internet. Hundreds posted comments on our live interactive blog and still more followed the debate on Twitter.
The point is this: Both sides of this debate have the attention of many Floridians; but every Floridian has a stake in this debate.
Conversations like the debate sponsored by the Tallahassee Democrat, Gannett Florida properties and Florida State University are good, but can only go so far in finding answers to the hundreds of questions presented by our readers and viewers. That can be frustrating to time-starved citizens who want all the answers in one neat setting.
But this issue is too complex for that.
That's why Florida State University has a second local event planned for Monday. FSU will a present a symposium featuring some of the foremost experts and academics on this topic in the world. It will begin at 2:30 p.m. at the University Center Club. Gannett Florida State Editor Paul Flemming, who moderated our debate, will also moderate this event. A complete list of panelists is available at Http://www.ieses.fsu.edu. Online registration is available at FSU Center for Professional Development.
It is also why Gannett Florida newspapers and TV stations are working together to produce a comprehensive-coverage project on this issue scheduled for release at the end of November.
Sen. Mike Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, and Rep. Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, took part in our debate. Despite that, the Legislature isn't going to decide whether to lift the ban on exploration based on any one event. Nor is this issue going to be decided purely based on public opinion polls, and that is good.
Yet all of these things must be considered.
This might be the most important public debate going on in Florida over the last decade. The outcome may affect future Floridians for years to come. If you are not yet tuned in, now is the time. If you have not yet started to do research, now is the time. FSU is doing what an educational institution of higher learning ought to do: providing opportunities for greater public understanding of vital issues.
This much is clear: At some point, the Legislature will take up the issue of whether to lift the ban on drilling off Florida's coast, and whatever lawmakers decide, you will be personally impacted.
We applaud Haridopolos and Cannon for listening, for attempting to become better educated on the issues as seen by citizens. We urge them to continue to stay involved in public events, to keep listening and ultimately to do what is right for Florida and its future.
Thread locked
This conversation is read-only until a moderator unlocks it.