Anybody heard anything about this lately? The last I heard, our legislature-as always looking out for our best interests, had passed a bill or something to allow drilling very close to our barrier islands.

One of my favorite ways to spend the day is by taking the trip on the boat to Ship Island and spending some time at the beach. As anyone that has ever been to Dauphin Island or Galveston in the last few years knows, having a rig just offshore does not contribute to the experience! Garbage, "naturally occurring" beach tar, noise, yeccchhh.... It isn't pretty!

Well now... The LA Times picked up the story. More's the pity that we have to rely on a California Newspaper for info on our own backyard:

Link

Ladd- ever consider going statewide? Not a lot of competition out there...

Man, I'm pretty much speechless on this one. This blows!

<<tears fueled by equal parts of sadness and rage>>

Statewide Free Press? We need to get our Jackson ducks lined up well before we spread our wings, so to speak. ;-)

A fun thought, however.

Brittney, why do you feel that drilling off the coast is dooming society? Do you have some stats or environmental studies to back that up? Does your report balance out the (percieved) environmental damage by discussing the jobs that are created or the cheaper domestic gasoline prices?

It is nice to be concerned about the environment, but too often "big business" and "big money" are cop-out scape goats people like to use as a knee-jerk reaction. Brittney I assume you are in college so I might point out that the majority of "regular people" with families, children, and house notes cannot afford to be as idealistic as you might. They are more concerened about how they are gonna pay the house note NEXT MONTH, as opposed to what damage drilling might cause 50 years from now.

Why is it so bad that people are drilling off the coast? What is wrong with people making money (or lots of it for that matter). I would like to make as much money as i can as long as it is made honestly and without directly harming others. I dont think that is wrong.
The simple fact is that if there was no market for oil, there would not be drilling there.

Would it be nice if everyone drove hydrogen cars? Sure, but right now the cost is prohibitive. I did read that by 2015 hydrogen cars will be the norm though.

Jacksun, for goodness sake, make your points without all the friggin' finger-pointing. You don't know anything about Brittney. How about just stating your opinion instead of being a jerk about it!?!

Was i a jerk? hmm, if so i appologize. Lets see, i asked why she felt drilling on the coast was dooming society by asking for any facts she might have to share. And i stated that not everyone can afford to be as idealistic as a college student. I think all college students are known and admired for being idealistic. Its a wonderful time of life before the drudgery and reality of being a "grown up" sets in. I dont think either are jerkish or finger pointing.

Smile Ladd!! not eveyone is a troll, i was just trying to further the conversation by asking questions.

BTW what are your feelings on the jobs vs. environment issue?

I am smiling, Jacksunóit's your posts that are delivered with a hammer. Can you not see your tone in here. She didn't come after you personally, and you respond with condescension:

Brittney I assume you are in college so I might point out that the majority of "regular people" with families, children, and house notes cannot afford to be as idealistic as you might.

This doesn't help your case that you're just a "regular" guy asking questions.

Just lose the sarcastic and play ball. Otherwise, people are going to treat you like the bully on the playground. I'm telling you this to give you some hints on how to engage in a real discussion. I fully realize that you're not aware of your tone and how you're coming across.

Cool, so what do you think about the issue?

I think many people complain about how "regular people" are worried about "paying the mortgage", while completely ignoring the gov't subsidies given to the oil industry. They love to throw uninformed red herrings like that out there, in order to completely dodge the real economic costs of drilling for oil. Is it more important for oil companies to make lots of money than it is to have, for instance, a viable fishing industry along the coast?

On a somewhat related note, I love how it's "too expensive" to develop alternative fuels, but we're happily spending over $200 billion on a war. let's spend 10% of our war budget on alternative fuel development, while dropping federal subsidies and tax breaks for oil companies.

By the way, Jacksun, not "all" college students are idealistic, and many many of them are worried about paying their rent, if not their mortgages. Quit going after broad stereotypes. It only damages your credibility.

Also, it is entirely possible to worry both about mortgages and about the environment.

The LA Times article says that Barbour signed legislation LAST YEAR that transferred authority to regulate drilling from the MS Dept. of Environmental Quality to the MS Development Authority. So how do a bunch of business types know better than our environmental scientists and engineers what is best for our coastal environment???

I think a bigger danger to the local fishing/shrimping industry on the coast is Asian imported shrimp and fish. that is putting FAR more locals out of work than any damage from an oil rig. I still have not heard what "damages" are being done on the coast from drilling. On a personal note we have several oil wells on our property in southwest Mississippi, and TRUST me there is PLENTY of wildlife around. just ask all the deer hunters ;)

Also its not so much the alternative fuels that are expensive as it is the INFRASTRUCTURE needed to deliver them. (factories, filling stations, etc.)

And it IS possible to worry about house notes and the environment. I personally dont worry that much about the environment. Global warming/cooling have been around far longer than humans. And I dont think Tyranasuars were driving around in BMWs causing the temp change back then.

As far as environmental scientists knowing what is best......well they have never known to be biased now have they ;)

Global warming/cooling have been around far longer than humans. And I dont think Tyranasuars were driving around in BMWs causing the temp change back then.

I don't think you're going to change any idealistic minds with that one, Jacksun, whether with "regular" folk or not. ;-)

I guess all of you read about the campaign by evangelicals against global warming back when it was announced. They make some interesting arguments about the personal responsibility to protect "God's creation"óearth:

A core group of influential evangelical leaders has put its considerable political power behind a cause that has barely registered on the evangelical agenda, fighting global warming.

These church leaders, scientists, writers and heads of international aid agencies argue that global warming is an urgent threat, a cause of poverty and a Christian issue because the Bible mandates stewardship of God's creation.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals and a significant voice in the debate, said, "I don't think God is going to ask us how he created the earth, but he will ask us what we did with what he created."

Here's the actual letter, by the way.

Jacksun, the original point of this posting, I believe, was to point out how little media coverage there has been about this issue in the state. That coverage, supposedly, would include any analysis that's been done about the risks of the drilling, and comparisons and the like. It sounds like to you're just knee-jerking a reaction that because you don't care about the environment, no noe else should. You certainly haven't presented any evidence, or reports or such, that show that the drilling is NOT going to hurt the environment, etc.

You just seem to be complaining about people having opinions you don't like. Why not cough up something substantive yourself, as you so haughtily demanded of Brittney? (And your deer example doesn't quite do it for me.) Or do you not need such trifling information as a cost-benefit analysis in order to make your declarations?

And, Brittney, keep on keepin' yourself; your passion and concern about the earth and your fellow man is refreshing. Cheers.

Jacksun: I still have not heard what "damages" are being done on the coast from drilling.

Philip: Here it goes, Jacksun.

(1)What about the environmental danger an offshore accident devastating the coast's ecology in case of an oil well blowout? (picture the effect on those fishers' livelihoods'!)

Note: Irrelevent parallel with land-based oil wells on your property vs. offshore oil wells. Blowout oil on the land falls on SOILD material (the ground itself). Solids do not have a "conveyor ability" (i.e. have a tendency to flow on its own accord). This keeps the oil at or VERY NEAR to where the blowout occured even if no humans intervene to stop further land-based oil spills. Offshore blowouts, by the very nature of it being offshore, take place in a largely LIQUID environment. Liquids (and gases too) do have the "conveyor ability" I talked of. This means oil can (and certainly WILL) drift all over the place if a blowout occurs. This makes it quite difficult to localize relative to land-based blowouts, and hence eco-damage will be more widespread. The conveyor factor of liquids will necessarily make any spill more expensive to contain besides

(2) Related to this, even if we grant that sufficient measures WOULD, in fact, be available to deal with a blowout/oilwell fire (in the form rapid response teams), can we really be sure the profits from oil will really outweigh the potential costs of environmental cleanup, the costs of maintaining stand-by resources (including clean-up personnel themselves), and so forth?

(3) One of the great beauties of Mississippi's barrier islands is there is NO DEVELOPMENT on them (unlike points from Orange Beach eastward). Would oil wells detract from the aesthetic value (and hence toursitic value) of the Mississippi Gulf Coast?

There are several reasons why this issue is one that really bothers me. I don't have (and don't need) all the statistics as to why this type of drilling may or may not be "environmentally friendly".

All one has to do is to go to the beach!

Start with Ship Island (but you had better do it quickly). Spend the day there enjoying yourself...

The next day either head east to Dauphin Island, or west to Galveston. The contrast in cleanliness will astound and amaze! Say whatever you want, cite any report; you will never, ever be able to convince me that those rigs just offshore at DI and Galveston don't contribute to the trash, "beach tar", and smell.

Not to mention spoiling the view and creating noise...

The next thing that really bothers me is why isn't this getting the coverage it deserves? Those islands off our coast are part of a *National* seashore. Of all the places in all the world that they can do the exploration (and possible exploitation), why do they need to go after the few remaining places that are *supposed* to be immune from that sort of thing?

Last but not least, if this is such a wonderful thing, why did they have to sneak it into the emergency defense spending bill? Four paragraphs in a 96 page document- easy to overlook, easy to claim later that it was overlooked, and if someone in Congress was at least awake enough to spot it and turn in a negative vote, it would be very easy to point the fingers at them later, claiming that they were "unpatriotic".

This doesn't at least smell a little off to you, Jacksun?

I just looked around, Rico, and there has been some coverage, albeit very recent, and after you started this thread here (way to go). On Saturday, The Clarion-Ledger ran an AP story about it. It is very disturbing that Thad Cochran, supposedly the reasonable one of the two senators (ahem), would spearhead this. And it looks like Babar and Leland Speed have their hands all over it:

"In 2004, the Mississippi Legislature passed a law that stripped oil and gas leasing authority in state waters from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality and gave it to the Mississippi Development Authority. The move was aimed at pursuing state offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling."

The Sun-Herald reported it back on May 6, but with an innocuous headline: "State mineral rights bill likely to pass." (yawn)

There is protest going on on the Coast right now, as this May 25 Sun-Herald story shows:

The Mississippi Development Authority turned more than 100 people away from an informational meeting Tuesday night at the J.L. Scott Marine Education Center. The auditorium was too small. It seated about 350, most of them opposed to drilling near and seismic testing on the barrier islands. Those left out stood in the lobby or outside, some straining at the exits trying to hear Jack Moody's quick presentation on seismic testing, what it might entail and how he believed it would affect the barrier islands, a national park.

"I'm not sure what this means," Moody said of the crowd. He is the manager of the Office of Mineral Leasing for the state, working with MDA. "I appreciate the turnout. Obviously we're talking about something of huge sensitivity here on the Coast."

But later, when the public spoke, they talked of things moving too fast and their frustration with a lack of study on the long-term effects of drilling so close to the islands or the effect rigs on the horizon might have on tourism. ...

Reilly Morse, an attorney, spoke first from the audience.

"What is the extent of the seismic impact?" he asked. "How loud is it? They haven't even told you that.

"They don't want you to be fully informed. They want you to be placated."Then he told the crowd that Rule 14 B in the new regulations gives the executive director of MDA the authority to waive or modify any of the other rules.

"If they want to come on the grounds and do explosions, they can," Morse said. "The seismic agent he referred to that could stop that is not in the regs and if he is, he can be waived."

Morse said the standards presented have language like "usual industry designs" that make them too vague to enforce.

Rich Westphall represented the Isle of Capri, which opposes drilling.

"Our growth is dependent on the natural resources that set us apart from other gaming destinations," Westphall said.

Robert Barq called for a vote on drilling.

Later, Moody warned a woman in the lobby who asked for the same that a vote would be statewide.

She said, "Fine."

A list of pros and cons follow that story, so we can't completely dump on the media, at least not the Sun-Herald. Dump at will on the Ledge, however. That statewide newspaper is useless ... at best.

And whoa, check out this May 24 Sun-Herald story:

Two legislators said Monday they couldn't understand why the Coast would want drilling in state waters of the Gulf, calling it a threat to a well-established, multibillion-dollar tourism and gaming industry.

But they also said that things have moved so quickly toward that end with the state law on drilling last year coupled with U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran's recent federal legislation that the state is heading down a "slippery slope."

The comments came from Rep. Diane Peranich, D-DeLisle, chairman of the House Tourism Committee, and Rep. Bobby Moak, D-Bogue Chitto, chairman of the House Gaming Committee, in the wake of a new push to get the Coast to speak out against the drilling.

The latest push is from a group called the 12 Miles South Coalition, which took its name from wording that the Gulf Coast Gaming Association used to oppose the state legislation last year. The group is a coalition of people involved in local business and industry.

The association said it would support drilling in the Gulf only if it is 12 nautical miles south of the barrier islands. They selected that distance based on the curvature of the Earth and what could be seen from shore, supporters said.

In advertising in the Sun Herald recently, the coalition accuses state Rep. John Reeves, R-Jackson, and big energy companies of trying to turn the barrier islands into an oil field like Dauphin Island. It urges Coast residents to speak out and be counted at a public hearing tonight at J.L Scott Marine Education Center on Point Cadet in Biloxi.

Good for the casinos, seemingly the voice of reason in this one, and let's hear it for a statewide vote. The Coast and our parks belong to ALL of us. We should do a petition. Knol, you out there?

I've been on vacation (in my pop-up camper- see, I really do need an SUV), and haven't kept up with the news.

BTW, know how the beaches around the Florida panhandle are known for their sugar-white sand? Now it can only be described as "salt-and-pepper". Maybe it was from Ivan, I don't know, but I'm laying at least some of the blame on the near-by oil rigs.

Oh, nice to see that the friggin' London Guardian is doing more on this story than our statewide newspaper. (The Brits should know, however, that we uppity Mississips call it it the Cote de Cou Rouge. For the record. <grin>

And here's a petition posted by the Mississippi Sierra Club, as well as reasons to oppose the drilling. You'll need to print it out and get it signed. But we should still do an online one if Knol has time to throw one up.

This "stealth amendment" is amazing, and I personally apologize to Rico for not jumping on this sooner. I must admit that I have been pre-occupied with trying to cover the city elections well here in Jackson. But this is important. I just need to clone Adam, all our problems would be solved. ;-)

I'll put this petition on the top of the site for now to make up for my tardiness, though.

That's OK, Rico. Truth is, they should have been all over it back when you were. You tried. And thank you for posting the L.A. Times link, which is bringing national and international attention, it seems.

Oh and Rich, a pop-up camper sounds SO much hipper than an SUV. ;-)

And, Jacksun, I realize you are not pre-disposed to believe any of it, but it seems a whole bunch of people have done the potential damage analysis you asked for. Just go clicking around a bit in the above links. Try to take an open mind with you.

I've got a bad feeling about this. I feel like they're trying to put one over on us poor, uninformed Mississippians. Grrrrrr. I have a feeling that this thing needs to be stopped from *within* this state. It's our chance to make some noise. I mean, the Sierra Club and the casinos together, oh my.

Anybody have more info on how to join the 12 Miles South Coalition? The rebels could probably use re-inforcements from throughout the galaxy, er, state. (Sorry.)

I don't know too much about the details; but, I would have to at least agree with the 12 miles coalition if we are going to drill. But, what I have found is how Gov Bush dealt with the problem of off shore drilling in 2002.

So, is 12 miles feeling far enough?

Another link from the Fact Check site about the Florida drilling. 100 miles!!! I picked this link not because it contradicts the League of Conservation Voters or the stuff about Kerry. I noticed the map and the analysis of "how" the drilling in Florida came about. There may be new information as these articles are from 2002; but, I only googled so far.

Oh yeah, you can find all kinds of links to Bush and oil and crime; but, that's to blog about later ;-). I digress. I find it most interesting that Florida can have a much larger barrier zone from rig to shore, so why is that not being looked at by the MDA? Yes, our beaches do not have the same luster as the gulf beaches of Florida; but, we have created a tourism industry that centers on the calm waters of our Gulf Coast. Don't mess that up. I'm not saying don't drill; but, let's look at how other more successful states have parceled their oil/gas leases along with a sane environmental fight (sorry ELF please stay out!) - Cause there will be one!

I bet Carnival or Royal Caribbean would love to hear we followed the lead of Florida. Gov. Barbour do you know how much money the Cruise Industry Community Fund, a cruise industry lobby, gave Jeb and the FRP? $500,000 big ones in 2002! The single largest donor to the party that year! It appears our own "cruise lobby" clone the Casinos don't want drilling that close! You guys court some cruise liners, beef up touristy stuff around the casinos - spruce up the area around the casinos, more golf, museums, nicer state parks, better roads, B&Bís and hotel beds. Let's drill further offshore if it is necessary and worth it. If itís good enough to be 100 miles out for "Lower Alabama" then it is good enough for MS!

Summary, "Yo, Haley! Blood is thicker then water!" Guess he doesn't have the clout we had hoped. Come on Leland at least 12 miles, or you can be a Jeb Bush kind of guy and go for 100!

Phillip brings a good point about accidental spillages. That is always a possibility.
As far as factual information i still believe that the Asian imports are doing more damage to local fisheries than any potential drilling.

Also Phillip: (3) One of the great beauties of Mississippi's barrier islands is there is NO DEVELOPMENT on them (unlike points from Orange Beach eastward). Would oil wells detract from the aesthetic value (and hence toursitic value) of the Mississippi Gulf Coast?

This statement confuses me. Why is no development good? I can give several substanative (Donna ;) ) reasons that developmant IS good:

1) More Jobs created for middle and lower class
2) Increased tax bases
3) Increased tourism (read more tax income)

As far as media coverage Donna, are you really thinking the Clarion Ledger is EVER gonna give complete coverage of anything?? That paper is a JOKE. Hell I had rather read The JFP and Northside Sun and gather my info from the two of them as opposed to the "Crayola Illegible" LOL
2) In

Just curious: JacksunGuy, what do you think should be done with our barrier islands? Think we should build a causeway, divide 'em into parcels and start in on the high-rises?

The thing is there is already plenty of that- Pensacola to Panama City is already turning into one long development, creating plenty of jobs- construction, maids, etc. for those people wealthy enough to spend millions on a second home there.

But shouldn't the rest of us, the majority of the people that will never be high enough on the economic scale to afford one of those places, be able to enjoy the beach too? And I don't mean by looking out the window at the ocean while changing the sheets in the rich folks condo...

Something should be set aside for everyone to use and enjoy, not just those who can afford it.

And even if my Florida Lottery ticket comes in tonight (keep your fingers crossed!), I will *always* choose an unspoiled sand beach with its dunes, sea oats, and sand fleas to some Stepfor... I mean Seaside style fake reality...

Rico: "Something should be set aside for everyone to use and enjoy, not just those who can afford it."

EVERYONE - including the fish, the birds, sea turtles, dolphins...........

Any interest in an organized protest in the Jackson area?

Hmm Rico, firstly i dont think it is practical to build a causeway to the barrier islands. I know one just out to Deer Island would be over 10 Million dollars. Secondly the state now owns all of the Islands except Round Island. Deer Island, which my family owned for many years was sold to the state in 2001 and will never be developed. So i dont think you need to worry about condos on the islands.

Now please clarify if your problem is with development or with the wealthy because they are two different things. If you simply resent the wealthy then that is your opinion and I respect it. BUT the last time i went to Orange Beach i saw a lot more minivans than i did Limos and Ferraris.

I am sure there are a lot of "non wealthy" who are very greatful for the jobs provided by investment and development. See the Nissan Plant in Canton as an example.

I like quiet natural places too, but I am also for capital investment, job creation, low unemployment and a healthy tax base.

Steph, I would be happy to organize a protest against the protest :). It would be fun. We could make signs and stand on opposite sides of the street and call each other names like "capitalist pig" and "environmental wacko" (of course i am joking about the name calling) and then afterwards we could all go get a beer at Wild Wings or something. Anyone else game? Or maybe just a debate over a beer? whatcha think?

1)More Jobs created for middle and lower class.

True, but of questionable extent and degree. Would the money that goes to paying for salaries and equipment be better spent promoting the barrier islands? Promoting the very offshore beaches as it now stands to attract entrepreneurs to live on the Gulf Coast?

I can think of a few things that might work in combination:

*Change the state tax laws so that first-year through 3rd year entrepreneurs business income taxes range from absolute 0% in the first year, 1/3 the usual taxes for such businesses the second year, 2/3 the third year, and the full tax rate from the 4th year onward - especially for production-oriented concerns.
*Play up the very lack of development on the barrier islands! Escape to the pristine is only a boatride away!

2) Increased tax bases
A natural resource tax base tends to be untrustworthy at best. Look no further than Missís next door neighbor to the southwest. Oil especially tends to be a very volatile commodity. Louisianaís swimming in oil! Yet itís not like it turned into North Carolina or Colorado on account of it -- prosperity-wise. If and when the price drops again, those oil wells will be just metal towers in the Gulf. BUTÖif we are to have them, keep them at least 12 nautical miles offshore so the tourists canít see the unsightly structures.

3) Increased tourism (read more tax income)
Addressed above. How does oil increase tourism? Midland, TX (near the New Mexico border) has loads of oil. Yet itís not like it became a Florida, or even a northern Arkansas, on account of it.

Your diss of the Ledge is well taken, Jacksun. We Mississippians may disagree on a lot, but if there is one thing most of can come together on, it is that the local outlet of the Virginia-based mega-chain sucks.

As for jobs: It seems that the gaming industry is pretty concerned about how this will affect their business. It strikes me that you could be trading some low- and middle-class jobs for others.

I've seen nothing yet that recommends this mess as a good idea. In fact, it seems sneaky and asinine to me. I'm sure they're just assuming that Mississippians won't give enough of a damn to speak up about it.

couple of quick thoughts from me:

The best "development" for the coast is probably not oil wells. The area's already fairly developed, with lots of jobs and tax dollars from the tourists. Oil wells ain't gonna bring more tourists, so, Jacksun, why are oil dollars better than tourist dollars?

Drilling may (or may not) be 'less harmful' than asian fisheries to our local fishing economies. But that doesn't make drilling a net positive on the local fisheries, or the local economy. The Gulf is already under stress, with the 'dead zone' from the MS river getting bigger, etc.

Jacksun, have you read the LA Times article, or anything else? In there it says:
As a preliminary step to drilling, the rider permits seismic testing, which involves detonating sound-wave explosions to locate oil and gas deposits in the park. Two of the five Mississippi islands are wilderness areas, and the environs are home to federally protected fish and birds, a large array of sea turtles and the gulf's largest concentration of bottlenose dolphins.
Those explosions are associated with the deaths fish and marine mammals.

Jacksun, as to the expense of alternative fuels and their associated infrastructre - why do we insist on federally subsidizing the oil and gas industry, and the roads and highways without blinking an eye. But balk at doing the same for alternative fuels that can be cleaner and can make us less dependent on oil from the middle east?

Kate,good point, it seems like subsidizing infrastructure for alternative fules would make sense. BUT i am sure there are some "back door deals" you and i dont know about that keeps that from happening.

Phillip, GREAT idea about giving entrepenuers a tax break!! Now do you think we can get Tabbaco..err i mean Haley to go for that?

Donna, as far as the Crayola Illegible is concerened.... well they are not even worth the wasted space here. (Gotta LOVE that two-page sport section huh?)

I am not so much pro oil wells as i am pro development. Maybe I was not clear enough on that.

Well Jacksun, perhaps I should clarify. I have nothing against the wealthy. I do have a problem with the greedy- so shoot me...

OK, so you are pro development. My question to you is where do we actually draw the line? If we can't even see it in ourselves to protect the National Parks and Seashores, just what else is there?

Rico's right: Wealthy, cool. Greedy, gross.

I'm pro-development, too. Pro-smart development.

Yup im in agreement with both of you, donna and rico. Greedy sux. Like that airline that dumped its pensions, thats unconsionable.
Yes a line needs to be drawn, and as far as the barrier islands i believe it has. All but Round (which is not truly a "barrier island") and maybe a part of Cat are now state owned. We used to own both Petit Bois and Deer island but both were sold to the state in 81, and 01 respectively, so those along with ship and horn are state owned now.
And to be honest Deer island was the only one that could have ever been truly "developed" because the others are so dang far out.

Not to nitpick, but I thought that the islands were now owned by the Feds, with the state retaining the mineral rights. And that the Feds have made them part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore.

Do I have my facts mixed up?

If they are part of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, I still wonder where the line is being drawn.

If you can't protect a National Park, what is left that can be protected?

Rico you may be right about the barrier islands. The state owns Deer Island. Of course Deer is not a "true" barrier island. Those are Cat, Horn, and Ship.

Keep an eye out for an official roll out on 12 Miles South Coalition. It is coming soon and people will be amazed with the composition of the board of this coalition. The address to correspond or send contributions is 12 Miles South Coalition P O Box 1842 Gulfport MS 39502.

The most information available on line at this time is at gulfislandsconservancy.com, a group I represent and helped to found years ago.

The CL will have a pro-con op-ed piece published June 26. I will contribute the No Drilling side.

I also have blogged this issue since mid-May and included things like transcripts of hearings and PowerPoint presentations (actually Keynotes) used at hearings and meetings.

Here is a link to the blog.

Official roll out was Monday.

You can see information on the coalition at this link

Now the governor is beginning to backpedal

I hope I don't offend anybody here with these comments, but it seems the people I have personally heard complaining about this are more upset that it's in their own backyard and not so upset about drilling in general. A lot of the same folks opposed to drilling along the MS Gulf Coast supported Bush and Company when it came to drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.

This hypocrisy is what bothers me. There is no difference except drilling on the coast will destroy a place they enjoy vacationing, while drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge destroys a place they never see (out of sight, out of mind).

Both ecosystems could be ruined by greedy, greedy people.

Remember, this is not just the Coast's back yard, it is a national seashore. In fact Horn Island is listed among our nation's top ten beaches in Men's Journal Magazine July 2005. More than just coast people use it.

RM

Quote:

I hope I don't offend anybody here with these comments, but it seems the people I have personally heard complaining about this are more upset that it's in their own backyard and not so upset about drilling in general. A lot of the same folks opposed to drilling along the MS Gulf Coast supported Bush and Company when it came to drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.

This hypocrisy is what bothers me. There is no difference except drilling on the coast will destroy a place they enjoy vacationing, while drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge destroys a place they never see (out of sight, out of mind).



Yes, the "not in my backyard" thing is pretty bad. But what bothers me more is that on a national level, Alaska gets all the press. No one seems to care what happens here...

Let's keep one thing in mind. . . we are all addicted to oil, no matter where it comes from. All aspects of our industrial and agricultural society depend on it. We simply have to have it, and in huge (and increasing) quantities. That is a fact, but that is not an endorsement of Dick Cheney's pronouncement that (paraphrasing) "high energy consumption is the American way of life."

That being the grim reality, the MS Gulf Coast is probably much like the Alaskan Wilderness Refuge or any other site, whether it has aesthetic or any other kind of value: if there is oil in the ground, you can bet that it will come out, sooner or later. I recall reading some commentary on the Alaskan site exploration with a pundit saying "You couldn't possibly think all that oil is going to stay in the ground?!?" And, sadly, I think that his sentiment is correct, if not admirable.

So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, as far as domestic oil production. Nobody (except the Bush family oil investments/the Carlylye Group) likes the idea of buying from the Middle Eastern oil cartels. . but. . again . . our thirst for oil, any oil, is ravenous and growing.

Recognizing the problem is the first step. But be careful of criticizing domestic oil exploration if you drive an SUV! You know what they say about those who live in glass houses . . .

This thread could NOT have come back to life at a better time!! Experimental Nuclear FUSION reactor to be built in France.

FYI: FUSION is said to be much cleaner than FISSION (the type that causes so much nuclear waste now). So what's the difference, you ask? Fission is splitting uranium atoms to gain energy (which creates so much solid waste products). FUSION is the..well..fusion of Hydrogen atoms to gain energy (the same process that powers the sun itself). This releases MUCH more energy than fission. Furthermore, Hydrogen is a practically limitless source of energy since it's such a common element. It's only waste product that I know of is common Helium.

So yes, between this and the hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells you've heard about (the waste product is common everyday water)..it looks like our actual children might spend their adulthood saying "OIL?? that is SOOOOO Turn-of-the-Millenium!!!!"

Let's keep one thing in mind. . . we are all addicted to oil, no matter where it comes from. All aspects of our industrial and agricultural society depend on it. We simply have to have it, and in huge (and increasing) quantities. That is a fact, but that is not an endorsement of Dick Cheney's pronouncement that (paraphrasing) "high energy consumption is the American way of life."

I certainly agree. We are way too dependant on the stuff...

That being the grim reality, the MS Gulf Coast is probably much like the Alaskan Wilderness Refuge or any other site, whether it has aesthetic or any other kind of value: if there is oil in the ground, you can bet that it will come out, sooner or later. I recall reading some commentary on the Alaskan site exploration with a pundit saying "You couldn't possibly think all that oil is going to stay in the ground?!?" And, sadly, I think that his sentiment is correct, if not admirable.

Maybe I'm being a little too suspicious here. It just seems strange that the only places that seem to have the potential of producing oil seem to be in National Parks/ Wilderness areas.

Have they already looked everywhere else?

Why would someone even look in the areas that are supposed to be off limits anyway?

My own take on it is that perhaps the government might presently give a sweeter deal on oil leases and such than can be found in the private sector. I know that sounds ridiculous- but you probably don't believe that my tin foil hat keeps out the alien radio waves either...


Recognizing the problem is the first step. But be careful of criticizing domestic oil exploration if you drive an SUV! You know what they say about those who live in glass houses . . .

I do drive an SUV (sometimes through Belhaven- I get a better signal for my cell phone there). And I can still be critical.

I have to haul catalogs and samples on a daily basis. And sometimes I haul a trailer. An SUV happens to be the vehicle that is best suited to what I need a vehicle for. When they come up with an affordable alternative that can do these things, I will buy one, but for now I'll continue to drive my SUV as both my mother and father did- of course in their day it was called a station wagon.

there are hybrid SUV's now, cost more but worth it if you put on lots of miles,
at these gas prices.
Meanwhile, lots of good books out now - Powerdown, Peak Oil, and
James Kunstler's Long Emergency, perhaps the most pessimistic.
(No more school buses , or trucks to carry produce- grow your own, etc.
some of these people have interesting radio interviews at this site:
http://www.suesupriano.com/article.php

But of course the news of a NUCLEAR FUSION REACTOR THAT WILL SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS will turn heads for awhile. Don't know the timeline.
Eventually, maybe. meanwhile, get that hybrid and learn how to garden.
And I think we should get Starhawk here to lead a ceremony to protect
the Gulf Islands.

Ladd, your Sierra Club petition link above, May 31 , is not working.
I sure wished I'd noticed this thread. I do recall seeing Mr. Speedo
being in favor of it, and our Senator people pushing strongly to have it
under State control and not park service. This is so typical of the Bush
Admin. (sorry if I am repeating here, have not read all the messages)

And, I am so tired of JOBS and TAX BASE being used to justify everything.
Of course we need that, but we need a planet as well. Barrier islands are
especially protective and wonderful .. maybe we need someone like that young woman who sat in the redwoods for years, so they wouldn't cut them down?
Greenpeace boats.. Just thinking here..not all that well, but . Who else has ideas ?
Once those wells are there, they are there. And what they do to that fragile
ecosystem, well, I will stop soon. It's like what's happening in the Brazilian
rainforest - and I do not vacation there.. but what happens there affects the
whole planet.
I'll ride a bike if I have to.

try this link, sunshine. go down about midway for downloading the petition.


http://www.gulfislandsconservancy.com/whatdo.html

Thanks RM, looks good.

anyone with views about offshore drilling can express their opinion on a poll at the Magnolia Report . This poll is probably more watched by politicos and business types than regular citizens, and it certainly does not have a high profile on the coast, and thus does not necessarily reflect coast views. It is showing about an even split, currently weighted in favor of drilling. Speak up, whichever way you want.

FYI City of Gulfport, a pretty strong GOP stronghold, voted to endorse 12 Miles South position. Also, city of Pascagoula is expected to do so shortly if it hasn't already. This will soon make a virtual clean sweep of local Coast governments.

At Gpt Businessmen's Club Rep. Ishee was asked if he could assure us that the statute, regs, or the leases would in fact limit drilling to shallow gas wells. He said no, they would not. So the whole pitch of O&G proponents is based upon a false presentation of low-profile, quick-to-drill, environmentally benign shallow wells.

Sunday, August 21 at 3 pm at the Biloxi Coliseum is the public meeting and rally on the drilling issue.

Speakers will include Rep. Gene Taylor(D), Atty. General Jim Hood(D), Sen. Billy Hewes (R), Supervisor Connie Rockco (R), and a number of others. Before the event there will be an art show and music, and at the end of the presentations is an open mike for people to express their views.

Anyone interested can go to

www.gulfislandsconservancy.com
or
www.12milessouthcoalition.com

Senator Cochran announced today that he was going to take steps to obtain a buyback of federal leases in waters off the barrier islands, to get a moratorium on any new leases in federal waters up to 12 Miles South of the barrier islands, and to cooperate fullly if the state legislature by joint resolution requests a federal buyout of state mineral interests.

This news has not yet hit the wire to my knowledge. It is a major advance for the coalition.

"Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world - Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has". - Margaret Mead

Link to Related Thread, this one about
[http=www.jacksonfreepress.com/forums/threads.php?id=8066_0_17_0_C] linking oil exploration off Florida to Hurricane Aid [/url]

Sorry, HERE is the link http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/forums/threads.php?id=8066_0_17_0_C

maybe america should think about drilling on our own soil for a change. cut down on a lot of casualties of war, that's for sure.

So would cutting down on oil consumption.

ladd - I'm not sure I follow you.

America needs the oil, that's a fact. I just don't feel america needs to invade foreign lands to get it. we have a nice amount in reseerves and also have the land of our own to get it from. alternative energies are a great science project on paper but will never benefit us in the ways we need it like oil can. I also think it's selfish for america to appear to hoard oil at the expense of innocent lives.

When are we going to make the serious shift from an Oil Based Economy into a Tech Based Economy? The Fossil Fuel tech is sooooo Barbaric and outdated. Yes to Hydrogen and Electric Cars.....the very Best Holidays to you all at JFP and Merry Christmas to. It has been a very hard year for you Guys in Mississippi. YOur commitment to your fellow citizens has not gone unnoticed. This Blog has been a great inspiation to me and has put me onto the pulse of My hometown. Be safe....Be Merry......better in 06////

IMO, Tech Based is way too dangerous and costly if a single glitche or worm strong enough is created to bring it down.

Merry Christmas

and don't forget to celebrate in the dark. don't want expend to much electricity or gas cooking all that good christmas dinner. you know how those transformers can act during a power overload...ZAP!..