« Michele Bachmann: Planned Parenthood is the Wal-Mart of abortion | Main | Barium for Breakfast »

President Bush lifts offshore drilling ban

It's about time:

The White House says President Bush is planning to lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.

In a Rose Garden statement on Monday, the president plans to lift the ban. But by itself, the move will not lead to more drilling off America's coastline.

Congress must still lift its own legislative ban before offshore drilling can happen.


No need for celebrating yet, though. With Nancy "Pioneer" Pelosi & Co., it's highly unlikely that any action will be taken. This new Freedom's Watch ad sums it up well:

Not only is Congress not allowing domestic drilling, they're not offering any other solutions. They're just sitting around doing nothing, letting Americans suffer. We're at least one step closer now, but waiting for Congress to take action to relieve the pain at the pump is like waiting for the Obamamessiah to be frank about what exactly he stands for.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30518.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference President Bush lifts offshore drilling ban:

» Tel-Chai Nation linked with At last, Dubya to lift ban on offshore drilling

Comments (58)

Let me add that this is how... (Below threshold)

Let me add that this is how frakking clueless the Dems are on the issue:

"Even if new offshore drilling were allowed off the coast of California and along the Outer Continental Shelf -- which I wholly and resolutely oppose -- it won't produce oil in time to solve the gas price emergency American consumers are facing right now," Senator Feinstein said.

Well no shit, Di. It's not about today, it's about tomorrow and the future, you witless wonder.

Do ANY of them understand how the futures market operates?

Wait, dumb question. My bad.

Idiots.

"Elect us and we will produ... (Below threshold)

"Elect us and we will produce a common-sense plan to help bring down the price of gasoline at the pump."

Nancy Pelosi in 2006 when gas was about $2.30/gal. How's that working out for ya, everybody?

The Democrats actually beli... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

The Democrats actually believe that they deserve to be running the country.

I still wonder why.

WOW!!! Not even Bush... (Below threshold)
Herman:

WOW!!! Not even Bush Sr., heck, not even Saint Ronnie would be so ravenous for oil as to drill off of America's coasts. But heck, Bush was caught on video as saying he would drill where others dare not to go:

http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/startrek.htm

You'll note in the video, conservatives, that even Chimpy acknowledges that the amount of oil our world has is not, repeat, IS NOT, unlimited. And I was stunned in watching the video that Chimpy knew the meaning of the words, "rubric," and "untenable."

So libs are against drillin... (Below threshold)
gianid:

So libs are against drilling in the US because it doesnt solve the immediate need.

Do they feel the same way every spring when farmers plan their crops?

In a press release dated April 24, 2006, Pelosi said, "Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices....

(Dems and common sense should NEVER be mentioned in the same sentence, proven once again by the attention starved lib nitwits posting here.)

HermanStudy on thi... (Below threshold)

Herman

Study on this table a while, particularly the terms of Bush Sr. (and) Saint Ronnie and tell us what is different from their terms and that of GWB.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp

Hint: it's not a multiple choice question.

The naivete and downright I... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

The naivete and downright Idiocracy of this post is breathtaking.

In 2006 Bush with a submissive republican congress enacted the "Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act" which opened up 8.3 million acres of the outer continental shelf for drilling. Oil price then 60 dollars a barrell. Wells dug Zero.

From the Department of Energy:

"Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

I know most of you guys aren't bright enough to realize that Malkin, Limbaugh and Hannity are feeding you loads of shit. And it's a lot easier to just listen to Hannity and nod your head like a good little conservative drone.... but just maybe one of you would like to get the real info from the Department of Energy:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
depp=true
notiz=Speaking of not being bright, break your broad brush

I know most of you... (Below threshold)
RFA:
I know most of you guys aren't bright enough to realize

And just who the fuck are you? And what gives you the right to make those assumptions about me? SICK or is that PRICK?

dr lavaSpot on. Wi... (Below threshold)
JFO:

dr lava

Spot on. With few exceptions most of the wingnuts here have no ability to do any critical thinking and they wait slavishly for the marching orders of the day.
depp=true
notiz=March on buddy, without your broad brush.

JFO - "Spot on. With fe... (Below threshold)
marc:

JFO - "Spot on. With few exceptions most of the wingnuts here have no ability to do any critical thinking and they wait slavishly for the marching orders of the day."

Assuming that's true for the sake of debate, just how is that different than EVERY dem spouting the line "drilling in Anwar and offshore won't bring down prices."

Does your "critical thinking" allow an acceptance those statements is nothing more than BS and the real issue is drill what we have now and in the future to ween the U.S. off of foreign oil.

In 2006 Bush with a s... (Below threshold)

In 2006 Bush with a submissive republican congress enacted the "Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act" which opened up 8.3 million acres of the outer continental shelf for drilling. Oil price then 60 dollars a barrell. Wells dug Zero.

Sounds convincing, lava & JFO, until you get into the details....how long does it take to get a permit to drill (that's drill, lava, not dig)in the Gulf? Hmm?

The legislation is signed, the leases are now legally available. What's next? Lease acquisition. Engineering. Permit apps. Permit approval. Corporate Budgeting. Corporate Board approval.Asset Deployment and Mobilization. Drill site spudded. Drilling. Hopefully a commercially viable discovery.

lava, you're not bright enough to understand how major private capital projects are planned and executed....they don't just happen in eighteen months. Have you ever been on a rig, lava? Do you really know anything about Oil&Gas exploration? Budgeting and Engineering? Do you know how futures markets factor in energy exploration?

Of course, at $145/brl all of this might be expedited with government cooperation, which has not been forthcoming. Lava, did the DOE know that crude prices would be at 145/brl in July 2008? Of course not. You quote stats and data in a way that would make a Congressman embarrassed.

You are not to be taken seriously here because you have no greater command of facts than the "cut and paste" function.

You'll note in the video... (Below threshold)

You'll note in the video, conservatives, that even Chimpy acknowledges that the amount of oil our world has is not, repeat, IS NOT, unlimited.

Hey, qualified moonbat Herman, nobody said it was unlimited. Nice try.

Wells dug Zero.

You also forget to cherrypick (aka: conveniently leave out) the reason for this from the very article you cite as supporting your point. Oddly, it's right at the top of the analysis:

In the past, Federal efforts to encourage exploration and development activities in the deep waters of the OCS have been limited primarily to regulations that would reduce royalty payments by lease holders.

Made cost prohibitive by--ding! ding!, you guessed it--environmental groups and liberal policies that made it so.

Access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030....

On production. Do you understand the difference between actual production vs. securing a future supply to meet future demand and why that's affecting today's futures' market?

When are some of you liberals going to get that simple economic concept through your thick skulls.

I too want an alternative to fossil fuel, but until such a fuel is developed or discovered, one that's economically viable and not cost prohibitive to produce or implement--and please don't go there with electric cars or biofuels because they're still on the grid or cause more damage to the environment and food prices than anyone ever thought--we have NO OTHER CHOICE but to drill.

Liberals and Democrats oppo... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

Liberals and Democrats oppose all forms of reducing our dependency on foreign oil imports. It would be nice to see them discover just how painful it is with this November when the voting public tells them they're fired.
This issue has the potential to be just like 1994 when the Democrats woke up to see they had lost control of the House and Senate because of their positions on gun control.

I can't wait to see how fast they backpedal now that GWB has recinded the Executive ban on offshore drilling.

When are some of you ... (Below threshold)

When are some of you liberals going to get that simple economic concept through your thick skulls.

Never, Peter F. These guys will never let facts get in the way of demagoguing an issue like energy production. They don't want to dirty their hands with details when they can cut and paste their way through the discussion.

Here, here, HughS. And your... (Below threshold)

Here, here, HughS. And your post at 11 was truly "spot on".

Drilling aside, what about ... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Drilling aside, what about encouraging sensible urbanization, such that people no longer have to commute an hour to get to work from the suburbs? Walking to work saves me about $500/month on gas over what I would pay if I bought a house in a suburb instead of renting an apartment. Sure, I don't have a lawn, but I live next to a park, and somebody cuts the grass there for me.

I realize this isn't workable for many people, especially those with families or those who commute into dangerous urban centers, but meeting energy demands in the 21st century has to entail more creative solutions than finding more fossil fuels to set fire to. They're non-replenishable! At which point do we force ourselves to do better than the status quo? When Saudi Arabia says "Sorry, all gone!"?

To 16: Let me see if I unde... (Below threshold)

To 16: Let me see if I understand you...oil will likely someday be used up. Therefore we shouldn't use it. That way it will still be there not being used.

Gotcha.

HBYour comment remin... (Below threshold)

HB
Your comment reminds me of all of my city dweller friends in NYC and Chicago. Sensible urbanization sounds good until you stop and consider what you will do with the tens of millions of suburbanites during the "transition" to sensible urbanization.

Many non city dwellers cannot afford to live in the city and choose the suburbs instead. However, their jobs are in the city, hence the commute. What are they to do while we wait on affordable replenishable energy that we don't "set fire to"?

In the day of $4.00/gallon gasoline everyone realizes that something must change. But denying the citizens of this country the right to exploit known reserves within our borders while alternatives are created is not a step toward solving the problem.

Consider this for a moment. Dallas/FW, Houston, Austin and San Antonio have no light rail. Charlotte, Raleigh, Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami, Kansas City, Phoenix, Nashville, and Memphis ...just to name a few others, have no light rail. How do you propose to transition those commuters to "sensible urbanization" without causing economic displacement?

If building light rail is not an option and walking to work is not an option then how is the transition accomplished?

We already have alternate, ... (Below threshold)
Ama:

We already have alternate, tenable options to oil. We need oil more for polymers and drugs than we do for fuel.
We need to make the switch while the reserves are an option, not before. We could already be using Vanadium batteries in cars but the company that owns them won't use them. It's not just America that's suffering.

"we have NO OTHER CHOICE bu... (Below threshold)
Herman:

"we have NO OTHER CHOICE but to drill." -- Peter F

Oh, how on earth did any human possibly survive prior to the time of oil derricks???? LOL!

Try conserving, conservative.

While you folks fant... (Below threshold)
dr lava:


While you folks fantasize about drilling our way out of this predicament those of us in the reality based world are looking at real solutions.

http://www.calcars.org/epri-driving-solution-1012885_PHEV.pdf

"Oh, how on earth ... (Below threshold)
"Oh, how on earth did any human possibly survive prior to the time of oil derricks???? LOL!"

Herman and folks like him would prefer that we return to the stone ages or live dependent on a socialized government that Obama will provide.

Hey, let's all go back in time and tar and feather Henry Ford for advancing this nations capabilities.


Oh, how on earth did ... (Below threshold)

Oh, how on earth did any human possibly survive prior to the time of oil derricks???? LOL!

In reverse order, Herman, and to make this easy for you, there was:

1) Coal
2) Wood
3) Whale oil
4) More wood
5) Human sweat

Conservation was, in the day, a well defined method that incorporated all five of the above. We are an independent and free country today because some smart and enterprising individuals came up with alternatives that were not mandated by any congressman or politician but were rather the product of their free and and unfettered imginations and ingenuity.

I know I have ... (Below threshold)


I know I have hit a home run when Wizbang censors my post.

No lava, that's called a STOP sign. In school it's called an "F". In real life it's called "don't come back".

Don't mistake being a dissident for being a genius. It works for real smart folks (and they are the exception), but not yet for you.

Here's a suggestion. When you comment here at Wizbang try to hang around and engage in the debate. Stop dropping bombs and flying off. Stay after your comment and engage the commenters here in a real debate.

Hyperbolist - Sen... (Below threshold)

Hyperbolist -

Sensible urbanization... As you said - not everyone wants to live in an apartment. Glad you realize that.

People above you, on either side, below you - noisy neighbors - no thanks! I'm not a claustrophobe, but I lived in apartments for about 12 years and I'm done with 'em.

Re commuting - lucky you that you can do that - the region I live in has a half-assed light rail/bus transport system that on a good day will get you 20 miles in under an hour. If the bus is on time. And you catch the train. If you're looking to go across the city, say from way north down south to the airport, it'll take at least 45 minutes on the train for a trip you can drive in 20... if traffic permits. The transit system consistently loses money, and have forecast another deficit even with the increased ridership since gas hit $4.

We also have about a million people in the city (maybe 750k, I forget the exact count), and about 4-5 million in the suburbs. I don't see slapping them all on top of each other in a 'sensible urbanization' scenario. In the real world, people don't want to live in the equivalent of anthills, and increasing the population five times would turn a tolerable city into a friggin' overcrowded nightmare.

My big fear is we're going to get within sniffing distance of mass-producing a REAL alternative - whether it be high-output solar with improved batteries, BlacklightPower's hydrino system (which looks bogus as hell to me, the science doesn't add up at all, but apparently they're shipping 50kw prototypes) or Bussards IEC polywell fusion system - and then the oil ticks will drop the price to $15 a barrel. Alternative funding dries up. Everyone forgets about alternatives - and they slowly ratchet the price back up...

The main problem I see is that the Democrats aren't thinking in anything BUT a short-term mode. Does it help BUSH right now? Then they'll block it, if so. It's dangerously short-sighted, but they're not looking beyond the election.

While you folks fa... (Below threshold)
RFA:
While you folks fantasize about drilling our way out of this predicament those of us in the reality based world are looking at real solutions.

Star Trek reality is what it looks like to me. I can't wait to hear how the Romulins are going to show us how to use their Neoformer nermis framper to pull energy out of a buffalo's butt.

Lava and Hermie Baby are about as shallow as they come. It's just static on the radio really.

Those on the left, liberals... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Those on the left, liberals, marxists (Obama) and other democrats can obsruct drilling all they want right up until November 2nd. When Nancy Pelosi is back in the minority and Reid loses his senate seat, they have no one to blame but themselves. Most of America is not buying the BS that we do not need to drill for our own oil. Anyone capable of rational thought knows just as soon as drilling is approved, the price of gasoline will recede. Speculation is based on limited, not increasing supply. Increase the supply, speculation is the price will go down. There is a tremendous amount of oil shale under Colorado (800 Billion barrels plus) That is more than is in the Middle East. To deny that is a lie.

While some adults try to ha... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

While some adults try to have a conversation, Zelsdorf Ragshaft III teleports in from Bizarro America, where the Republicans have a hope in hell of picking up seats in Congress and hanging on to the White House. Go back to sleep, lunatic! That's where all the pretty ponies are!

Anyway... as for commuting into the city, no, there isn't the infrastructure (light rail) to facilitate any tectonic shifts in commuter behaviour in most urban areas, but there could be. I really don't intend to go off topic, but take twenty percent of what's being spent on the occupation in Iraq, and you would have funds to create 1) jobs in the short term and 2) a more sustainable energy policy in the long term.

For now, though, North Americans are probably going to have to suffer, as transportation on our continent was designed around the combustion engine, and that unsustainable technology doesn't fit with any plausible conception of the future of which I'm aware.

Question for the moderator: if you're going to de-vowel #9, why not #5? That's pretty much that asshole's M.O.

I don't know exactly what technologies Ama (#19) is talking about, but it's a good point to bring up in general (as Jay Tea has before): oil is too valuable to set fire to. Who cares how much is left in the ground right now? Let's stop burning the stuff, as it'll be a few hundred million years before we grow enough dinosaurs for Exxon to harvest once these ones are dried up. Plastics? Medicine? Necessary! Cars? Not so!

How you gonna keep them dow... (Below threshold)
epador:

How you gonna keep them down on the farm after they've seen Pareee?

The automobile represents powerful personal transportation. Freedom from dependance on monopolized rail barons (now nationalized bureaucrats), foot and horse power. Oil also fuels all commercial shipping on air and sea. Sea commerce was previously powered by coal and sail. Are we going to go back to those days? Will the general population in this country ever accept the loss of this one powerful option?

What the city-dwelling apartment dweller also forgets is that all the commerce that supports their "green" living is driven by internal combustion engines. Close down cars and trucks, oil and coal generated electricity, and you are living in an unheated concrete cave without water, food, electricity and sewage. That'll be REAL green.

While some adults ... (Below threshold)
While some adults try to have a conversation, Zelsdorf Ragshaft III teleports in from Bizarro America, where the Republicans have a hope in hell of picking up seats in Congress and hanging on to the White House.

Whoa. While you're right that congressional Republicans are going to get creamed this November, it's not so bizarre to think they have a chance of holding on to the WH. Obama is such an empty suit of a candidate, and his spinning and flip-flopping so artless (compared with, say, Bill Clinton, who was a master at it) that even liberal outlets like the NY Times are starting to notice. Outside of a minority of fanatical admirers, Obama's attraction is so weak that even a manifestly unappealing candidate like John McCain has a reasonable shot.

If the Dems keep up the way... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

If the Dems keep up the way they've been, I don't think it's a far stretch to believe they're going to get hammered this year. People can see who's blocking any attempt to get oil prices down - and you've got to wonder just whether it's a politically motivated move or whether they're being bought off by the folks who REALLY love $145/bbl oil.

Rovin and Falze beat me to ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Rovin and Falze beat me to it.

The problem still remains t... (Below threshold)

The problem still remains that it may take up to 10 years before any motorist actually sees any oil production from any of this new drilling. In 10 years, the internal combusion engine could be on the path to going the way out, with advances in fuel cell technology by that time.

Major oilman, T. Boone Pickens is already advancing his own plan to replace much of the oil use in the U.S. as well with other technology or natural gas. This new plan is drawing praise from such environmentalist organizations as the Sierra Club because it is a realistic plan that provides for a switch over to natural gas for many automobiles, and the use of wind farms to provide electricity, freeing up massive amounts of natural gas for use in automobiles. A friend of mine had his truck converted over to natural gas in 1980, and it worked fine for him, with plenty of power.

Certainly the high oil prices are increasing research efforts by the major automobile companies to replace the internal combusion engine as well as a matter of their own economic survival.

This new crisis in oil is not a Democratic or Republican problem, but an American problem that will take the combined efforts of business, science, environmentalists and government to resolve for the sake of the future energy security of this nation.

hyperbolist - "Question for... (Below threshold)
max:

hyperbolist - "Question for the moderator: if you're going to de-vowel #9, why not #5? That's pretty much that asshole's M.O."

Don't hold your breath, hb, the moderation here has an obvious double standard. And they really don't like being called on it.

It'll be interesting to see how long this post lasts.

The problem still ... (Below threshold)
The problem still remains that it may take up to 10 years before any motorist actually sees any oil production from any of this new drilling.

But if the Democrats hadn't been obstructing any and all new drilling for the past 10 years, maybe the current situation wouldn't be so bad. So this argument is a silly one.

Because what you're saying is that no plan should be considered that doesn't provide dramatic increases in the gasoline supply RIGHT NOW. In other contexts, Paul, you'd be delivering a long-winded lectures about the follies of short-term thinking. So I wonder why you think short-term thinking is OK when it comes to energy policy.

Paul -"combined ef... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Paul -

"combined efforts of business, science, environmentalists and government..."

The problem is getting them all to pull together. The environmentalists will block anything, anywhere, for any reason. They want a pristine, untouched environment, and know how to use Government to get what they want. Witness the blockage of oil shale development and the blocking of solar deployment so more environmental impact studies could be done.

Government will look to impose its own set of restrictions on business and science.

Science and Business may work together - but be blocked by environmentalists and government bureaucrats.

If perfect environmental protection is the only acceptable standard - then nothing's going to change, no matter what the needs of the country might be.

If the environmentalists can go "Okay - that's all right for NOW and we'll work on getting things greener in times to come..." then we'll make some progress. But I'm afraid they will not compromise at all.

"Plastics? Medicine? Nec... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"Plastics? Medicine? Necessary! Cars? Not so!"

Cars are not necessary? Easy to say when you don't have to drive to work. For the other 90% of the population, it's not practical. That's the type of enviro-extremist thinking that has helped get us into this situation.

Encourage more people to work from home or walk to work or whatever, fine. But there is still going to be a majority of people who need a car. There is no good reason why our modern nation can't support that need.

"With Nancy "Pioneer" Pelos... (Below threshold)
bob:

"With Nancy "Pioneer" Pelosi & Co., it's highly unlikely that any action will be taken."

Unlike all of the action taken by Denny Hastert & Co. Uh huh.

The question is "Do supp... (Below threshold)
Mike:

The question is "Do supports of lifting the ban understand how the free market works?" This isn't Iraq, where George W. Bush so proudly (and socialistically) pronounced that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people.

The oil beneath American soil does not belong to the American people, it belongs to the companies that drill it. And because every incorporated company's primary duty is to maximize profits for shareholders, the oil these companies produce will be sold onto the world market and will come back to us as gasoline at the going rate.

It is beyond stupid for people to think this new oil production will somehow be set aside and sold only to Americans. We'll not see a penny of savings, unless the amount we'd produce is huge enough to be a significant amound of current world production. That seems doubtful.

This whole move is about politics and money---not about savings Americans money at the pump. If you believe that's what it's about, then how "frakking clueless" are you?

This entire subject is noth... (Below threshold)
John C Atlanta Georgia:

This entire subject is nothing but a cheap political trick from a party that is desperate to change the subject away from their dismal failures. It is a marketing campaign designed to create "outrage" among the ignorant. The facts are 1. Big oil is hurting our economy right now with high gas prices. 2. Big oil is getting record tax breaks from this administration. 3. Big oil profits are currently higher than any company in all of history. 4. Big oi is sitting on millions of acres of available oil. 5 Anwar and offshore represent less than 1/5 of the oil they are sitting on and not pumping right now. 6. Anwar and offshore are areas we, as a nation decided were a last resort place to drill for oil. 7. Anwar and off shore are cheaper for the oil companies to drill than their existing pelentiful sources of oil. 8. There is no shortage of oil available right now to these oil companies. 9 Drilling in anwar and off our coast will only increase oil company profits, it admittedly will do nothing to effect gas prices. 10. When someone tells you "it's simple supply and demand" what they are telling you is "you're and idiot who will believe anything as long as it is oversimplified."
Drill here is a cheap political stunt, not a solution. No more political stunts, no more oil running our country!

<a href="http://www.tbnweek... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

Oil drilling ban lifted
Local gas prices hovering around $4

"The national average for a gallon of unleaded gas set a new record of $4.109 on July 14, the same day that President George Bush lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling.

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) issued a statement in response to the president's actions claiming that "The president cruelly is misleading Americans for attempted political gain. He knows ruining our coastlines won't bring down gasoline prices nor solve our energy challenges. In fact, a recent report from inside his administration's own energy office found that increasing offshore drilling will have no impact on gas prices."

Nelson said the solution to lower gas prices was to "reign in greedy speculators who have been able to bid up crude oil prices to unrealistic and shocking highs largely because of a legal loophole that, in effect, unleashed insider trading since 2001."

Nelson also said that recent congressional testimony by a leading industry executive had revealed that the "price of crude should be no more than $55 per barrel, given the rules of supply and demand. That means pump prices for regular unleaded should be about $2.28 a gallon - not more than $4."

Nelson has introduced legislation that would ban all unregulated speculative trading in oil futures, according to a press release."

"Do ANY of them understand ... (Below threshold)
John C Marietta, GA:

"Do ANY of them understand how the futures market operates?

Wait, dumb question. My bad.

Idiots."


Kettle meet pot.

You should do a little more research beyond litening to Rush limbaugh before you use the word idiot.

JohnC Atlanta Georgia,... (Below threshold)

JohnC Atlanta Georgia,

Go take Econ 101 before you hurt yourself with your ignorance.

I also wanted to add, that ... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

I also wanted to add, that although I commend Senator Nelson's legislation, Falze and Rovin are still correct. This is the present day, and it's okay if we drill our own oil.

As I see it there are three... (Below threshold)
scottsg57:

As I see it there are three major problems with all of the talk about drilling in the gulf.

First, we need to break our habit of oil (see Brazil).

Second, the price of oil is mainly due to speculation and deregulation (see Enron). We need to add the words 'and energy' back into the commodities act.

Third, and most important, there are 1000's of unused oil permits already given to the oil companies that aren't being used currently. They are just trying to get all they can while they have an oil man for president. Supply and Demand could never account for $5-9$ shifts in the price of a barrel of oil in one day, people are playing games.

More drilling won't solve... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

More drilling won't solve the problem, just ask the biggest consumers of oil:

U.S. airlines condemn oil speculators

This point needs to made ag... (Below threshold)

This point needs to made again and again here because it is still not understood by many, as in #40 above.

Big Oil is not Exxon Mobil, Marathon, Conoco or Hess.

Big Oil is Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Libya, Algeria, Nigeria, Angola, Venezuela and Ecuador and Indonesia. And Russia.

These Big Oil companies, which are in fact state controlled and state operated monopolies, control the global petroleum market. To suggest that Exxon Mobil has any influence over prices is ludicrous. These international monoliths dwarf the US oil companies, they pay no taxes, and they drill anywhere and everywhere they choose (including off the coast of the United States).

The United States should encourage its limited oil and gas industry to fully exploit domestic drilling opportunities. That polict is in the best interests of our national security, the value of the dollar and the stability of our economy.

Go take Econ 101 before ... (Below threshold)
Hansel2:

Go take Econ 101 before you hurt yourself with your ignorance.

Peter F. - you obviously are one of the 23% still left that believe this lying sack of a President. Economics have never been a factor with this guy. He simply wants to play politics once again by trying to suggest he's doing something.

Bush has spent the last 8 years signing policy after policy that benefits no one but big business. His dad did the same thing in his 4 years. These people are cut from the same cloth - and unless you own a large corporation and can help finance his interests, he could give a damn about you.

Don't expect you to believe any of this - and that's why you'll continue to see this man's proven lies as something other than. Get your head out of the sand. The rest of the country has.

Speaking of lying sacks:</p... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Speaking of lying sacks:

"Bush has spent the last 8 years signing policy after policy that benefits no one but big business. His dad did the same thing in his 4 years. These people are cut from the same cloth - and unless you own a large corporation and can help finance his interests, he could give a damn about you."

"Don't expect you to believe any of this - and that's why you'll continue to see this man's proven lies as something other than. Get your head out of the sand. The rest of the country has."

Uh-huh. What proof? Yours? Some left-wing rant site? "Objective" journalists? Democrats who hate his guts because the US Supreme Court stopped the rogue Florida Supreme Court from changing the rules after the election? Incorrect intelligence re:Iraq that the whole freaking world believed, including Democrats and the previous administration?

You know, it really cracks me up when people like you claim that certain Republican politicians only want to benefit "big business," even though those same "big business" types donate far more money to Democrats and liberal causes.

Try naming the "big businesses" that have benefitted exclusively because of Bush and Papa Bush. Ten to one those same businesses benefitted because of Clinton. You libs really need to get a new playbook, because the class warfare stuff is so old school.

And by the way, I thought you libs praised dissent. I'm a dissenter because I dissent from the majority opinion of Bush. How come you don't hold me up as and example to be praised? Isn't dissent patriotic?

This is crazy!Geor... (Below threshold)
Jon Schmo:

This is crazy!

George bush doesn't want anyone to drill in the areas that he already has clear for oil drilling, so what the hell is he yapping about? He has a place to drill for oil, so if he wants to, he should start the fucking drilling, instead of whining about areas that he doesn't have cleared yet.

Give him 2, he wants 4. This is the weirdest "energy policy" i've seen. He's making americans suffer, while he pretends that he's trying to help.

Analysts say that if bush were to begin drilling on these new, currently protected areas of the coast, for example, California's coast, it would be at least 15 years before ANY oil came out of the ground. And by then, we'd probably be near OUT of oil, so why bother with drilling? What if he gave money to alternative energy sources? They already have many electric-only cars, and now someone has even created a SOLAR powered car.

Link to a CNN - Featured video:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/05/19/davis.solar.car.ktvb?iref=videosearch

We have the technology - Bush just doesn't want to explore it. I don't see where he's going with this, unless his plan is to have an oil rig wall off the west coast to protect from an invasion of some other country ;).

I just can't believe this. Sure, conservative's think one way, liberals think another - but if you have to change something for the better, like create an energy source so that when the oil is gone, people can still drive to work, then by god damn you should do it!

This man, Mr. Bush, has gone off the deep end. He's turned into a complete nut!

This is really good news. t... (Below threshold)
crazy repubs:

This is really good news. that means in ten short years, we will finally start to reap the rewards of the oil off the coast that the first president Bush made off limits. I can't wait, just ten short years!

Of course, I'll probably be dissapointed by the fact that oil is a global commodity and the U.S.'s increase of production won't really affect the price of oil, and of course we will be adding to our addiction to oil which is bad for the environment (if your a democrat and beleive in all that science Bullshit)

but hey why complain. this has no effect for ten freaking years and is a bad solution but it does help the republicans who caused this mess demagogue on the issue in an attempt to steal an election. Gotta love 'em.

Bush has spent the la... (Below threshold)

Bush has spent the last 8 years signing policy after policy that benefits no one but big business. His dad did the same thing in his 4 years.

I can think of some Big Businesses that didn't like these laws:

Americans with Disabilities Act - George H W Bush

Clean Air Act Ammendments - George H W Bush

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 - George W Bush

Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 - George W Bush

Do-Not-Call Implementation Act - George W Bush

But don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.

This is really good n... (Below threshold)

This is really good news. that means in ten short years, we will finally start to reap the rewards of the oil off the coast that the first president Bush made off limits. I can't wait, just ten short years!

The ten year time frame is a myth, just as Speaker Pelosi's estimate of what any new drilling will do to lower the price of gasoline. But it's fascinating how these myths gain traction in the blogosphere and get repeated as fact so quickly.

If Congress mandated the streamlining of the oil and gas drilling permitting process via emergency order there could be rigs in the OCS in two years. Machine and tool yards in Texas and Louisiana would spring up over night to meet equipment demand. This has happened several times through the energy exploration cycle of the last thirty five years.

The ten year argument is a straw man.

The question is "D... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
The question is "Do supports of lifting the ban understand how the free market works?"

Yes. Maybe the price of oil won't go down too much because the increases domestic production, but for every barrel we produce domestically that's one less barrel's worth of oil that the U.S. goes in the red regardless of where that domestically produced barrel of oil is eventually used. If you go to PickensPlan web site you see why, for financial reasons, we must reduce our dependency on foreign oil. I don't agree with Pickens' Plan for a number of reasons, but the motivation beyond the price we pay at the pump is the financial health of this nation.

If you check the Drill here, Drill now FAQ page you get a different perspective on how much oil the U.S. has available.

Democrats have kowtowed to unelected environmentalist groups for years and consistently use the argument that drilling won't reduce gas prices any time soon. It's that failed policy that's responsible for transferring 600 billion a year of this nation's wealth to foreign nations who then use it against us. It's time for change. It's time to vote out the no drill, no nuclear power crowd. Drill here, drill now, open Yucca mountain, fast track the nuclear power plant permit process, promote wind, solar and bring to market the battery technology that will make electric cars not only practical, but desirable.

Once we get serious about reducing or eliminating our dependence on OPEC oil you'll see the price of oil fall quickly. OPEC is already worried that the high price of oil is spurring widespread oil exploration and development of oil replacing technologies. Their response will be to use the oil weapon, but this time it will be greatly increased production in hopes that cheap oil will undermine efforts to make their only product obsolete. The question is, will we fall for the cheap oil trick again and stop our alternative energy efforts?

First, we need... (Below threshold)


First, we need to break our habit of oil (see Brazil).
scottsg57

Brazil has significant advantages, and continues to exploit them:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/business/oil.php

We should do the same.

Crude-oil futures for Augus... (Below threshold)
Big Mo:

Crude-oil futures for August delivery plunged $9.26, or 6.3 percent, almost immediately as Bush was speaking Tuesday, bringing the barrel price down to $136. Bush was right -- AGAIN. It won't produce an immidiate change at the pump, but it will start to change attitudes and perceptions, which IS WHAT MOVES MARKETS -- and the price of oil.

http://kudlow.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjMyNDljNTQ5MThjNWE3YTAzYWYzMmZmNDVmMjA0ZWY=

Wow, I can't wait until the... (Below threshold)
Joe Schmo:

Wow, I can't wait until the Chevy Volt comes out. I'll get some solar panels (and take out a second mortgage on the house - when the economy gets out of the recession), and i'll be set!

Or i'll buy a scooter and work locally :)

Any benefit derived from of... (Below threshold)

Any benefit derived from off shore drilling would not be felt until 2030, and even then, it might only give us a 7% price break.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy