Shill Here, Shill Now

The offshore drilling movement seems silly, but could it spark a smarter movement?

David Weigel | August 15, 2008

“I taught in the second Earth Day,” Newt Gingrich recalled in Real Change, published in January, the most recent of his annual, not-quite-consistent handbooks for conservatives. As gas prices hovered around $3 per gallon, Gingrich told good men of either party to look at tax credits for companies that curb their pollution, or for homeowners who slap solar panels on their roofs, or for drivers who get rid of their gas-guzzlers. The former speaker of the House made a soft-focus ad for Al Gore’s WE campaign, sharing a weather-exposed sofa with Nancy Pelosi, fretting about our oh-so-fragile climate. “We have an obligation to be good stewards of God’s creation for future generations,” Gingrich wrote.

Gingrich had one more idea about energy independence, tossed into his book like an afterthought. “With appropriate safeguards to protect the environment,” he wrote, “we can build more refineries and drill oil offshore to lower the cost of gas and reduce dependence on foreign oil.” A 33 percent gas price spike later, that’s all Gingrich wants to talk about. Offshore drilling has grown from one part of an earth-hugging energy plan to a panacea for gas prices. His leadership group, American Solutions for Winning the Future, hit on a slogan for cutting energy costs: “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less.”

It worked. On August 1, the majority party adjourned for five weeks, delaying a decision on legalizing new drilling or (more likely) expanding tax credits until September, when the 1990 ban on offshore drilling will expire. Republicans erupted, giving speeches to an empty (and dark) chamber demanding that they stick around until the ban could be repealed. Arizona Rep. John Shadegg “started typing random codes into the chamber's public address system and accidentally typed the correct code, allowing Republicans brief access to the microphone before it was turned off again.”

Suddenly, the GOP had a message that made Democrats quiver. “They refuse to let us drill here, drill now, and pay less for gasoline,” says endangered Rep. Randy Kuhl (R-NY) in a new ad. ”We need to drill here and we need to drill now,” says longtime anti-ANWR drilling advocate John McCain, flicking the pesky ghost of Teddy Roosevelt off his shoulder.

But what’s been more interesting is the spontaneous order that’s sprung up to support the GOP’s newfound drill-here-drill-now dogma. Because of technical limitations (no cameras are allowed on the House floor), Republican members and their supporters recorded their progress with text messages and Twitter.com. That was the impetus for supporters far outside D.C. to get organized. “I had been following Culberson and [Heritage Foundation web wizard] Rob Bluey on Twitter and was getting overwhelmed,” said Chicago media consultant Eric Odom. ”I started a hash tag, #dontgo, to follow the updates.” Voila: #dontgo took off like a V-2 rocket, spawning a website that drew 10,000 members and tens of thousands of hits within 24 hours.

And then…well, not much. I was out of town for the hottest week of the #dontgo protest, as doughty congressman after doughty congressman took to the House floor to demand a MacArthur-like return from Nancy Pelosi. It peaked on August 6, when Gingrich airlifted himself onto the Hill to praise the movement he’d sort of created. But when I arrived on the Hill this Tuesday, the movement was already dying down. One member was standing vigil; Democratic staffers and tourists didn’t realize the protest was still going on.

I asked a conservative think-tanker who’d been toiling over drill-here-drill-now messaging what, exactly, had happened. “Nancy caved,” he said. He was referring to Pelosi’s statement on CNN that she might allow a vote on drilling after all.

But was that a real victory, or just cagey Democratic politics? Pelosi has been telling Democrats to come out for offshore drilling if it will help them win their races, and the candidates have followed suit. The think-tanker nodded. “We don’t want to get everything this year,” he said. “We want an issue. The Democrats do something this year, just enough to protect their incumbents. They take over next year, and it’s an issue again next year, and in 2010, because they’re never going to do anything serious.”

The rest of the week only strengthened the sense of inertia about this movement: It had risen fast and then plateaued. “They’re not doing anything new,” GOP web consultant David All told me. “It feels like it’s slowed down.”

That was inevitable. It’s hard to keep anger up about high gas prices when they’re heading slightly downhill. In the past few weeks, as Pacific Research Institute scholar Tom Tanton points out, the dollar has strengthened against the Euro. Crude oil demand has plummeted, the biggest decline since the recession year of 1982. And future traders are already expecting Congress to soften up laws against oil exploration. The House protest—and Gingrich’s triumphant messaging—had some impact, but that’s already been priced in. “The ban’s going to expire if Congress simply does nothing,” Tanton says.

All of this—the opportunistic Gingrich slogan work (he’s running a “drill here, drill now, pay nothing!” contest), the Republican gamesmanship—has opened up #dontgo to mockery from the liberal blogs. “They call us ‘twitiots,’ Odom sighs. But I can see #dontgo, or its moveable parts, succeeding despite their origins. David All, who thinks the momentum has tapped out, points out that his fellow Gen X and Y tech consultants—Heritage’s Bluey, Patrick Ruffini—had collaborated for the first time. Odom, a Republican who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and supports Bob Barr in the general election, is lining up new targets for his website and mailing list. One of them is T. Boone Pickens, the Texas billionaire currently flooding your airwaves with ads about America’s wind corridor and the need to get off foreign oil. (Go flick on the TV and wait a bit. You’ll see it.)

”I’m very skeptical of the T. Boone scheme,” Odom says. “It’s one thing to solve this problem by opening up new markets, like new areas for drilling. It’s quite another to lobby, as Pickens is doing, for tax incentives and public money to fund a pet project.” Speaker Pelosi, after all, holds shares in Pickens’ company Clean Energy. California’s Proposition 10, which she supports, would pour $5 billion into wind farms. It’s the sort of rent-seeking that’s awfully easy to sell politically. Evidence? Just look back at the pleasant-sounding tax incentives that Gingrich was pushing eight months ago, in his previous attempt at Republican branding.

The grassroots members of the movement aren't growing wildly at the moment: Odom says his list has added 5,000 members in the week since the initial burst. But they aren't as easily guided or bought. Odom wants #dontgo to be part of something as roiling and proactive as MoveOn.org (complete with dated name—"Yes, I understand the irony of a conservative cause that tells Congress not to go home"), focusing on earmarks, or entitlement spending. David All, the consultant who was skeptical about the House protest side of the movement, told me the same thing: The movement can grow it if it seeks out new political territory.

A populist small-government movement that sticks to principles instead of easy messaging, fads, and the whims of donors? Maybe here, maybe now.

David Weigel is an associate editor of reason.

Comments

|8.15.08 @ 3:27PM|#

David Weigel wounders ...

May Joe's law strike me ded.

|8.15.08 @ 3:35PM|#

I don't get it. What the hell is #dontgo anyway? Is it just a bunch of people twittering each other? How is that suppose to ensure the movement will stick to small government principles? And what's all that superfluous stuff about Gingrich? He's writing about him as if he wasn't dead.

I can't follow the train of thought in this article at all. Is it about off shore drilling? Drilling in ANWR? Does Weigel think "drill here, drill now" is a good idea? An effective political slogan? Is this about grass roots political movements? Small vs big government solutions?

Alan Vanneman|8.15.08 @ 3:35PM|#

Dave,

You should have linked to this earlier H&R piece (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/127978.html) that I sent in showing that T. Boone's enthusiasm for wind power is a simple scam to land him a lot of real estate at public expense.

Republicans should build themselves a mock House chamber so they can give speeches without having to worry about the Democrats. Newt could pretend to be speaker. It would be fun!

ed|8.15.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Newt could pretend to be speaker.

Just like Nancy Pelosi!

|8.15.08 @ 4:34PM|#

I love how they think that they'll be able to get political capital out of this in 2010. By then, the dollar should be stronger, oil prices lower and people used to higher gas prices. People won't give a shit about drilling by then.

|8.15.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Some outfit called Freedom's Watch robo called my phone today requesting that I call my congressman Chris Carney (D) to tell him that I don't want him taking vacations while energy prices are high. They better get moving on the phone calls now that prices are dropping fast.

bill|8.15.08 @ 8:01PM|#

Let's say the gubmint allows unlimited offshore drilling. What are they going to do when no one takes them up on the offer because it's not economically viable (the reason we barely drill for oil here now)? Force US oil companies to drill? Let's say it's actually worth it to drill here. All the other oil producing countries have to do (Saudi Arabia) is increase their production, drive the price down and US drilling once again is unfeasible. This whole Us drilling push is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

|8.15.08 @ 11:40PM|#

This article's pretty incoherent, but why not just call them "twits" instead of "twitiots"? The liberal blogosphere is overthinking things.

SIV|8.15.08 @ 11:51PM|#

All the other oil producing countries have to do (Saudi Arabia) is increase their production, drive the price down and US drilling once again is unfeasible. This whole Us drilling push is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Lower prices and increased production w/o taking a drop of oil out of now off-limits US Territory.
That sounds like a win for the consumer, a win for consreving our valuable resources, and if the environmentalist wackos are correct, a big win for Our Piece of Gaia.

Alan Vanneman|8.16.08 @ 10:01AM|#

By the way, I ran into Newt last night. He said "Tell your buddies at 'reason' 'thanks for making me look like I'm a hundred years old!'"

I told Newt he just looked Churchillian, but I don't think be believed me.

bill|8.16.08 @ 3:57PM|#

The problem is, is that it takes decades to bring on a new oil field. The US companies know the Saudi's have this power so they won't even begin to make plans to start drilling because it's a complete waste of time. In other words just the knowledge (or threat) that they can drive down the price any time they want prevents US drilling. Oil is a global commodity with prices set on a world market. What happens in the US it a small piece of that. A very small piece.

Chad|8.16.08 @ 6:53PM|#

The problem is, is that it takes decades to bring on a new oil field.

Bull manure. Brazil made a huge discovery in their outer shelf a mere two years ago, and are already drilling.

The only reason it could take the ten years that Democrats love to claim is because of lawsuits thrown by the Democrats themselves.

Between ANWR and our OCS, we could increase global supply by about 1.5% while raking in hundreds of billions or trillions in royalties.

|8.17.08 @ 6:20AM|#

"Reason" should be stripped of it's title if it does not support more drilling (and lots of it) along with investment toward economical alternatives for the future.

Anyone who is against off-shore and Arctic drilling should be immediately and permanently stripped of all their oil based products (and then go live in a cave somewhere cause you won't have a house, a car, a computer, or a job without oil).

Oil makes us all rich in a thousand different ways. It is cheap, pre-made energy and a chemical base for about half of everything we own.

And oil is going to keep coming out of the ground for the next several hundred years, whether enviro-nuts like it or not.

Why shouldn't we be the ones selling oil as much as possible instead only being a buyer? And why isn't it GROSSLY hypocritical to deem one's own land and waters environmentally pure and untouchable while buying oil from dozens of other sources - many of whom trash the environment far more than our highly regulated industry?

|8.17.08 @ 1:19PM|#

All the other oil producing countries have to do (Saudi Arabia) is increase their production, drive the price down and US drilling once again is unfeasible. This whole Us drilling push is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

If $100+/barrel oil isn't enough to make the oil producing countries (magically?) increase their production, nothing is.

Jason Gillman|8.17.08 @ 1:26PM|#

"If $100+/barrel oil isn't enough to make the oil producing countries (magically?) increase their production, nothing is."

Umm Seriously.. MARKET share, delivery expense, securing the supplies in the delivery process.. A CLue: When we started TALKING about it prices began to drop. Leave the speculation of what cause and effect is to those who actually understand it.

Chad|8.17.08 @ 6:17PM|#

"If $100+/barrel oil isn't enough to make the oil producing countries (magically?) increase their production, nothing is."

The fact that production has been flat for the last three years, despite large price increases, is quite telling about the state of world reserves. There just isn't much easy oil out there to drill.

|8.17.08 @ 8:23PM|#

What are they going to do when no one takes them up on the offer because it's not economically viable (the reason we barely drill for oil here now)?

The US is the 3rd largest producer of oil in the world and the 2nd largest producer natural gas. There are 1,800 active drilling rigs in the US (saudi has only 30) . We drill here a lot.

bill|8.17.08 @ 10:50PM|#

@Chad

That's exploratory drilling. Full blown production is a different matter.

@sahrvey

Again that's a production figure from existing wells. Most of the drilling rigs are used to look for natural gas.

bill|8.17.08 @ 10:58PM|#

"There's a reality out there people don't want to recognize," concludes Kaufmann, of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies. "Clearly technology has improved. Oil prices are higher. We deregulated the industry. We've done almost everything. There are a few areas offshore that are closed off. It's not going to make a difference. The sooner people realize that and stop dreaming about energy independence or one huge undiscovered field that's going to solve all our problems, the better off we'll be."

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/08/18/oil_myths/index.html

bill|8.17.08 @ 11:01PM|#

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011002452.html

TokyoTom|8.18.08 @ 6:16AM|#

David, wouldn't a "small government" conservative movement be trying to deflate the politicized struggle over ANWR by trying to PRIVATIZE it, by rebating royalities directly to citizens, cutting enviros in on the leasing process and keeping royalties out of the paws of our Washington pork handlers/big spenders?

Once we started with a little revenue sharing, citizens would want more, which would greatly improve management of the federal lands generally (by creating pressure to end current sweet deals for timber, grazing and minerals).

I bet there would be alot of enviros willing to sign on if ANWR and OCS leasing were tied in with a rebated carbon tax.

My blog post on the rebate scheme is linked at my name above.

Chad|8.18.08 @ 7:11PM|#

TokyoTom | August 18, 2008, 6:16am | #

David, wouldn't a "small government" conservative movement be trying to deflate the politicized struggle over ANWR by trying to PRIVATIZE it, by rebating royalities directly to citizens, cutting enviros in on the leasing process and keeping royalties out of the paws of our Washington pork handlers/big spenders?

Once we started with a little revenue sharing, citizens would want more, which would greatly improve management of the federal lands generally (by creating pressure to end current sweet deals for timber, grazing and minerals).

I bet there would be alot of enviros willing to sign on if ANWR and OCS leasing were tied in with a rebated carbon tax.

My blog post on the rebate scheme is linked at my name above.

Tom, I generally agree. The drilling question is down to horse-trading now. It is all a matter of what pro-environmental policies Republicans are willing to accept in order to open drilling in the gulf, ANWR, and west coast. The smart environmentalists are starting to realize that drilling can be a winning proposition for the environment if enough (or preferably all) of the proceeds go to policies and programs that benefit the environment.

That being said, we disagree on rebating to the citizens. Simply put, our taxes are too low and our government is broke. The "starve the beast" mentality of the right has been proven an abject failure, and all we have to show for it is even more debt and and bridges falling on our head because there is no money to fix them. But hey, we all got to buy lots of cheap Chinese crap with our rebate checks, eh?

Taxes need go up. Everyones'. That means you. And me. And not just a bit. Something like 20% may get us close to balancing the budget for once. Yes, most taxes are bad for the economy, but drowning in debt is even worse.

|8.19.08 @ 4:49PM|#

I don't understand how increased American drilling will make oil prices go down. Since oil is traded globally, how do you insure that American energy is sold to Americans? The amount of oil we can extract could not make a big enough dent in global supply to lower prices much, correct? And unless we nationalize oil companies (which I would never advocate), why would an American company sell oil for less locally when they could sell it for more globally? I'm all for utilizing our resources, but it doesn't seem like it would fix high gas prices. Am I missing something?

Chad|8.19.08 @ 5:42PM|#

I never claimed that it would only make American prices go down. It will make world prices go down, for the very reason you said.

Between ANWR and the OCS, a million barrels per day during the 2020's is a very reasonable estimate. We are currently drilling 86 million barrels per day world-wide, and this number has essentially been flat for three years and is unlikely to increase much at all. Therefore, the oil we are considering drilling would conservatively represent a 1% increase in world oil supply - definitely a non-trivial amount. Anybody with half a brain should have realized that small changes in supply or demand correlate to fairly large changes in price. The recent 15%+ decline in oil prices largely hinged on a "mere" 1% increase in world-wide consumption rather than the expected 2% or so.

I am not claiming this will have a huge impact on prices. We might be paying $4.75 rather than $5. My point is that this oil is worth TRILLIONS, far more than any potential environmental damage that could result. We should drill this oil and harness this massive windfall profit to build our renewable energy and public transportation infrastructures, thereby offsetting any potential damage in the drilled areas a thousand-fold.

Chad Sexington|8.19.08 @ 6:36PM|#

Chad-
How do you propose we get the profit from the oil in ANWR? Do you advocate taxing the windfall profits of oil companies like Mr. Obama? Or do you advocate having a national oil company?

Chad|8.19.08 @ 8:42PM|#

Well, even if we were stupid and signed leases like we did in the past, we would get 15% of revenues in royalties and then 35% of their profits as taxes. Assuming 10 billion barrels (a low estimate for ANWR) at $120/barrel, we are already talking about a half a trillion dollars or so. Now assuming we get smarter about our lease deals, which we absolutely can do, or that there is more oil up there (estimates range up to 20 billion) we could definitely push a trillion from ANWR alone. Throw in a nearly as large total from the gulf and California coasts, and we are talking about serious money.

We shouldn't worry about "windfall taxes" on the oil companies. They have been paying 35% just like everyone else. The problem is not their taxes, but the lease deals we signed. Not only were these deals nearly criminally negligent in allowing the oil companies to keep far too much of any potential price increase, but they were often "negotiated" by ex-industry employees taking temporary stints in the government, who would promptly return to industry a few years later.

|8.20.08 @ 5:06PM|#

The payoff from domestic energy production is that we stop subsidizing the Iranian nuclear madness.

Preventing a nuclear holocaust is good for the environment. And for children and other living things.

jackman|8.20.08 @ 5:52PM|#

It'll take over ten years to start getting the oil from ANWR and the offshore sites. The investment will be enormous. By then the far-sighted (and less rich) countries will have developed better alternatives because oil supplies are declining and prices overall will rise in response.

We should put American know-how and money into new sources of alternative energy now, to meet not only our needs, but inevitable and global demands when oil really starts to decline in production and increase in price.

It doesn't make sense to spend that sort of money, and wait ten years to get a return, with minimal benefits when it does come online, in the face of clear evidence we have to reduce dependence on oil much sooner than that. Those tax returns and profits you talk about are hypothetical and too far away.

|8.21.08 @ 10:52PM|#

"But what's been more interesting is the spontaneous order that's sprung up to support the GOP's newfound drill-here-drill-now dogma. "

Ah. This would be called a lie. Support was there before the GOP did this. Polling showed more than 70% of Americans thinking we should drill.

If you have to lie to support your premise, it's not worth supporting.

"It'll take over ten years to start getting the oil from ANWR and the offshore sites. "

False.
Oil is a commodity traded years in advance.
We start getting serious about drilling and the price will drop to $60/barrel GLOBALLY by the next day.

jackman|8.22.08 @ 5:00PM|#

"Oil is a commodity traded years in advance.
We start getting serious about drilling and the price will drop to $60/barrel GLOBALLY by the next day."

What's your evidence for that number? Our offshore plus ANWR sites will produce no more than 2 million barrels per day, which won't make prices drop for long (if at all) when the traders realize it's so little and so far away.

And it will make not one whit of difference to global demand, which is why the price is up in the first place.