PDA

View Full Version : Offshore Drilling Ban (Possibly) Lifted


Rev7
07-14-2008, 05:44 PM
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling on Monday and urged Congress to follow suit.

Citing the high prices Americans are paying at the pump, Bush said from the White House Rose Garden that allowing offshore oil drilling is "one of the most important steps we can take" to reduce that burden.

However, the move is largely symbolic as there is also a federal law banning offshore drilling.

"This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil reserves is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said. Watch Bush announce lifting of ban »

Bush has been pushing Congress to repeal the law passed in 1981.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement last month. iReport.com: Is drilling the answer?

"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," Bush said, adding that there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices.
***
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/14/bush.offshore/index.html)

Litofsky
07-14-2008, 05:49 PM
As the article said, the move is just for show-- he can't do anything without Congress' approval. It seems as though this is just a last-minute attempt by Bush to reconcile with the people that now hate him so.

Great Scott!
07-14-2008, 05:51 PM
Why can't I watch him lifting the ban? :( I bet it's very exciting!

Anyways, I don't care about anything as long as gas prices go down.

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-14-2008, 05:58 PM
Anyways, I don't care about anything as long as gas prices go down.people like you are killing the planet :/

Rev7
07-14-2008, 06:23 PM
As the article said, the move is just for show-- he can't do anything without Congress' approval.
Of course. I just said that so the thread would be noticed. :)

EDIT: Fixed

EnderWiggin
07-14-2008, 06:51 PM
Jesus Christ.

What is wrong with this man? I really hope Congress doesn't do the same... :disaprove

_EW_

Great Scott!
07-14-2008, 06:52 PM
people like you are killing the planet :/And people like you are killing forum webspace, what's your point? :lol:

It was just a joke you know.

EnderWiggin
07-14-2008, 07:39 PM
Jmac is the uberhacks. He will be the savior of the Internet!

_EW_

Achilles
07-14-2008, 08:57 PM
Thank goodness someone has finally decided to stand up for the interests of the American people.

Our savior, George W. Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EWwrK0VQkY)

Ravnas
07-14-2008, 09:22 PM
Well, we're screwed:disaprove It's always comforting to know that George Bush will remain steadfast in his views.

*Head explodes from sarcasm overload*

Det. Bart Lasiter
07-14-2008, 09:24 PM
And people like you are killing forum webspace, what's your point? :lol:

It was just a joke you know.i see my point still stands.

Litofsky
07-14-2008, 09:38 PM
Thank goodness someone has finally decided to stand up for the interests of the American people.

Our savior, George W. Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EWwrK0VQkY)

Praise be unto our savior, for he has much wisdom in his brain!*

I feel all happy now that our President doesn't know the price of gas. I hope it hits him hard soon enough.

*- You know, the one that doesn't exist! :)

Arcesious
07-14-2008, 10:11 PM
The Almighty Dubya knows all! Heresy! Heresy!!! :xp:

EnderWiggin
07-14-2008, 10:25 PM
Thank goodness someone has finally decided to stand up for the interests of the American people.

Our savior, George W. Bush (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EWwrK0VQkY)


<3 Jon Stewart.

_EW_

Arcesious
07-14-2008, 10:31 PM
Stewart and Colbert vs Bush FTW!

Corinthian
07-14-2008, 11:58 PM
...Hilarious. It's good to know that because he hasn't heard the gas forecasts, he's wrong about decreasing the price of gas...? You know, that really doesn't make a lot of sense. How is offshore drilling a bad thing? None of you have said anything, other than the standard rallying cry of 'Bush sucks'.

Litofsky
07-15-2008, 12:28 AM
...Hilarious. It's good to know that because he hasn't heard the gas forecasts, he's wrong about decreasing the price of gas...? You know, that really doesn't make a lot of sense. How is offshore drilling a bad thing? None of you have said anything, other than the standard rallying cry of 'Bush sucks'.

Okay-- I'll meet you halfway (because I still believe that Bush is a moron). Offshore drilling, in my opinion, only encourages us (being the United States) to continue its unhealthy, and unsustainable desire for oil, which is a supply that, at our current rate of consumption, cannot be sustained. Drilling offshore merely is a way of saying, "We're running out of oil in one location, so let's go to another!" Where the opposition to that would be, "No! Let's find something renewable that will hold long after oil is gone."

My two cents. :)

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 01:12 AM
Why can't I watch him lifting the ban? :( I bet it's very exciting!

Anyways, I don't care about anything as long as gas prices go down.

You do realize any decrease made wouldn't take any effect for at least 4 to 5 years, right?

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 01:22 AM
Praise be unto our savior, for he has much wisdom in his brain!*

*- You know, the one that doesn't exist! :)

Haha, I get it.

Corinthian
07-15-2008, 01:35 AM
That's true, Litofsky. What's also true is that right now, we NEED Oil. We need a stopgap measure in place so that we can research, develop, test, and deploy a new system.

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 01:54 AM
That's true, Litofsky. What's also true is that right now, we NEED Oil. We need a stopgap measure in place so that we can research, develop, test, and deploy a new system.
Didn't Bush say something like that? Why not spend funding on new resources instead of something fleeting?

Rev7
07-15-2008, 02:12 AM
Okay-- I'll meet you halfway (because I still believe that Bush is a moron). Offshore drilling, in my opinion, only encourages us (being the United States) to continue its unhealthy, and unsustainable desire for oil, which is a supply that, at our current rate of consumption, cannot be sustained. Drilling offshore merely is a way of saying, "We're running out of oil in one location, so let's go to another!" Where the opposition to that would be, "No! Let's find something renewable that will hold long after oil is gone."

My two cents. :)
I totally agree, but we aren't seeing that much advancement in alternate sources. We are addicted to oil. That is a fact. It will only continue to go up if nothing is going to happen. I personally just don't see much progress. If I could seriously do something to help the advancement, I would. However I can't, at the moment that is. :/

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 02:28 AM
So.....what's stopping the government? If the pukes in Congress want to fund all these "green measures" for renewable fuels, let 'em try. Meanwhile, they shouldn't get in the way of private enterprise. Allow for continued exploration via private funding (ie "big oil"). It's nice that driving the cost of oil up is what it takes to make otherwise noncompetitive fuel sources viable, unless you don't have lots of money to be spending on gas, or anything else affected by the rise in oil prices (too legion to mention, so I won't). :rolleyes:

Who exactly should fund these alternatives? Noone here is seriously suggesting the govt should coerce industry to move in other directions, are they? Let the feds and other levels of govt incentivize business to move in that direction. Afterall, we're not communists, right? I say that we should scrap any incentives by the govt to subsidize inefficient biofuels in the US (corn, anyone?) and stop throwing money down a rathole that needs higher gasoline prices just to appear competitive. Diversification of fuel sources (oil, coal, hydro, nuke, etc..), such as to make the US almost autarkical in that area is the desired goal. If "fossil fuels" have truly peaked and will be gone, that problem will solve itself in a few decades anyway. Another measure would abviously be to signifigantly improve gas milage on all newer vehicles.

Achilles
07-15-2008, 04:10 AM
Okay-- I'll meet you halfway (because I still believe that Bush is a moron). Offshore drilling, in my opinion, only encourages us (being the United States) to continue its unhealthy, and unsustainable desire for oil, which is a supply that, at our current rate of consumption, cannot be sustained. Drilling offshore merely is a way of saying, "We're running out of oil in one location, so let's go to another!" Where the opposition to that would be, "No! Let's find something renewable that will hold long after oil is gone."

My two cents. :)Right. Also the fact that additional drilling here won't affect world oil prices. And El Sitherino's point that it will be 4-5 (or 10+) years before this would have any impact whatsoever.

So in other words, Bush made a blatantly obvious attempt to make the Democrats look as though they're the ones standing between us and cheaper gas when the reality of the situation is much, much more complex. Not that he would ever be guilty of partisan politics or anything.

I totally agree, but we aren't seeing that much advancement in alternate sources. We are addicted to oil. That is a fact. It will only continue to go up if nothing is going to happen. I personally just don't see much progress. If I could seriously do something to help the advancement, I would. However I can't, at the moment that is. :/ Hehe, if we gave the alternative fuels industry the same incentives we gave "Big Oil" (i.e. Bush's family members and friends), I have every confidence that it could compete with fossil fuels. On the other hand, I acknowledge my position is entirely speculative, so take my argument with a grain of salt.

ForeverNight
07-15-2008, 11:35 AM
Well... if you look at it now, the Dem's are the ones standing between us and cheaper gas. Granted its not cheaper gas right now, but it is cheaper gas down the road.

Well, if we are looking into other fuel sources for our vehicles, then we still need a stop gap measure for the interim, and then we would still need oil and gas down the road to power vehicles built before the Alternate Fuel Sources (Referred to as AFS later) were brought into common usage.

So, even if we develop great AFS, then we still need Oil. Heck, we're still going to need oil down the road for all the petroleum products we use in our daily life, so, I guess you're wanting to do without plastics?

In order to bring this one back on topic, it is a good measure for the interim, but, maybe government should try and use these incentives they've been showering onto the "Green" energy sources... and give some of them to the Nuclear sector.

Besides, I don't think Government wants oil to go away any time soon... After all, they still collect ~18 cents a gallon to spend on things other than roads.

El Sitherino
07-15-2008, 11:41 AM
This whole debate reminds me of crackheads struggling for their next fix.

Get a new source before you die.

JediAthos
07-15-2008, 11:49 AM
I think what might be getting overlooked here folks is that the United States is not the sole source of the world's oil problem. China uses a great deal as well and without actually looking it up I believe it's more than the US.

As for Bush lifting the ban...first of all I don't think a democratically controlled congress will ever follow suit..it's not in their nature. Second, I don't really believe that offshore drilling, if done properly will dramatically change anything that isn't already happening, and neither will drilling in Alaska in my opinion. The so-called environmentalists that oppose these two things have not presented enough evidence to make me believe that we can't drill in these two disputed areas.

Alternatives are coming along, but they are coming along much too slowly, and personally with all they technology available today I would think it would move faster, but I'm a firm believer that the aforementioned big oil will do anything they can to crush any viable alternative. Such is the greed in today's society.

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 12:18 PM
Begs the question of just how much of a speculative bubble there is in the oil market, though. Upward pressure on the future price is part supply and part guesswork about future supply. If the second is increased, what will that do to speculation? Not arguing any kind of spec conspiracy, that's for people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to traffic in to hide their own incompetence and ignorance. If the spec pressure is currently a significant factor, prices will fall (when bubbles break, the drop is substantial), though probably to not much below $50-70 barrel. Still, beats $140+/bl. I think it's funny how the dems in congress think that they can blame the effects of a lack of a clear energy policy on speculators. Scapegoating FTW, it seems. :(

Great Scott!
07-15-2008, 04:31 PM
You do realize any decrease made wouldn't take any effect for at least 4 to 5 years, right?No kidding... :rolleyes:

mimartin
07-15-2008, 04:57 PM
I think it's funny how the dems in congress think that they can blame the effects of a lack of a clear energy policy on speculators. What unclear energy policy are you talking about? Bush had Vice President Cheney set up the “Cheney Energy Task Force” in 2001. Cheney and a bunch of oil company big wigs set up our energy policy. In January 2001 the average price of oil was $28.66 and today the average price of oil is $83.08. Considering who was invited to set our National Energy Policy for the Bush Administration I would say this is the one thing that worked out as planned for President Bush Scapegoating FTW, it seems. :(I completely agree, but I think the person that sets our national energy policy is trying to do the scapegoating with this meaningless display.

Q
07-15-2008, 05:08 PM
With all of the rampant Bush-hate in this thread I can't believe that no one has suggested the possibility that the current administration could have orchestrated the price-hike on oil to use as a pretext for pushing through it's oil prospecting agenda. They certainly have the clout within the oil industry to pull off something like that.[/tin-foil hat-wearing]

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 05:28 PM
What unclear energy policy are you talking about? Bush had Vice President Cheney set up the “Cheney Energy Task Force” in 2001. Cheney and a bunch of oil company big wigs set up our energy policy. In January 2001 the average price of oil was $28.66 and today the average price of oil is $83.08. Considering who was invited to set our National Energy Policy for the Bush Administration I would say this is the one thing that worked out as planned for President Bush I completely agree, but I think the person that sets our national energy policy is trying to do the scapegoating with this meaningless display.

I believe the kind of "policy" you're speaking of here is called a pyrhhic victory. The dems don't have a coherent energy plan, just "green hopes" and a lot of intransigence on accessing resources currently available (over the last 20+ years). Are you suggesting that Bush/Cheney secretly decided going into the 2000 election that they would push the price of oil up ~400+% over 8 years? The fact that we've been disallowed by the govt (at various levels)to expand oil production and processing in a meaningful way underscores the reason that oil has gotten so high. Or do you have some proof of a big oil conspircy to hide behind (even secretly finance) their own opposition so as to not have to spend their profits on growing their companies into even bigger conglomerates? Given that the dems have controlled Congress for the last half of the current administration's tenure, how is that they have failed to do anything remotely constructive to ameliorate the problems of the current "energy crisis"? Or "ending the war", as they have been so vociferous about doing if elected in 2006? You can slap the republicans around all you want, but as I don't consider myself a rep, it won't bother me.

With all of the rampant Bush-hate in this thread I can't believe that no one has suggested the possibility that the current administration could have orchestrated the price-hike on oil to use as a pretense for pushing through it's oil prospecting agenda. They certainly have the clout within the oil industry to pull off something like that.[/tin-foil hat wearing]

Just saw your post after posting my own. Does make one wonder why that hasn't been the case here. :lol:

Q
07-15-2008, 05:34 PM
Yeah, they could've done it. With a Democratic Congress they certainly weren't going to get it done any other way. :p

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 05:38 PM
I actually meant the accusation being leveled in this thread. Still, you're probably right about the other. If one assumes they had the juice/diabolical foresight to do that. ;)

mimartin
07-15-2008, 05:39 PM
I just find their choices of advisors for a National Energy Policy suspect, the same people posting record profits due to oil prices now were a part of the group. I believe their plan was to open up ANWAR to drilling, when a Republican controlled congress did not approve that, I do speculate that they tried to increase prices enough to make the American people put pressure on Congress to open up ANWAR. The problem is, their talk of oil shortage not only has spooked the American people, but speculators. Again, that is complete speculation on my part. I have no proof other than the names of some of the secret participants in Cheney group, why would the administration fight so hard to keep the names of those on the Energy Task Force secret? National Security?

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 05:44 PM
Probably for the same reason Hilary et al didn't want to release any info about their big "socialized medicine" powwow during her husband's administration.

mimartin
07-15-2008, 05:55 PM
What reason was that?

I also remember the participants of her ill advised quest represented the insurance companies, the health care providers, lawyers and the patients. The energy group was rather one sided. The only advocacy group I’ve seen on the list was the Council of Republicans for the Environmental Advocacy (sound like a contradiction to me).

Totenkopf
07-15-2008, 06:06 PM
Probably the arguable dodge that revealing such info publically might discourage others from providing advice. Who wants the PR headaches.

Achilles
07-15-2008, 07:12 PM
Considering who was invited to set our National Energy Policy for the Bush AdministrationYou mean Ken Lay of Enron? Of course you do. :(

EnderWiggin
07-15-2008, 07:21 PM
Well... if you look at it now, the Dem's are the ones standing between us and cheaper gas. Granted its not cheaper gas right now, but it is cheaper gas down the road.

Well, if you look at it now, the Republicans are the ones that are standing between us and the rest of the intelligent world.



So in other words, Bush made a blatantly obvious attempt to make the Democrats look as though they're the ones standing between us and cheaper gas when the reality of the situation is much, much more complex. Not that he would ever be guilty of partisan politics or anything.
QFE.
take my argument with a grain of salt.
:xp:

_EW_

Jae Onasi
07-16-2008, 02:25 AM
So in other words, Bush made a blatantly obvious attempt to make the Democrats look as though they're the ones standing between us and cheaper gas when the reality of the situation is much, much more complex. Not that he would ever be guilty of partisan politics or anything.
You've not seen partisan politics until you've read how LBJ manipulated the Senate as Majority Leader and then the entire Congress when he was President. Bush wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to Johnson in politicking. :D

Partisan politics is nothing new, folks. I'd be surprised if Bush hadn't tried to take advantage of the situation in some way, to be honest. Pelosi hasn't done anything to help the situation, either. I'm quite disappointed with both their 'leadership'. I'd like to see more real action on both their parts on this issue, and less of them trying to find ways to make each other look bad. Of course I'd also like to see a million bucks in my bank account. I'm not holding my breath for either to happen any time soon.

Q
07-16-2008, 02:51 AM
You've not seen partisan politics until you've read how LBJ manipulated the Senate as Majority Leader and then the entire Congress when he was President. Bush wouldn't have been able to hold a candle to Johnson in politicking. :DQFT. The man was the absolute master of Washington. I'd venture to say that he was one of the most, if not the most, powerful American politician of the 20th Century, and that's saying a lot.

And then the Vietnam War destroyed his career... and him.

Totenkopf
07-17-2008, 10:57 AM
So....a proposal by Bush to lift the offshore drilling ban has caused a 2-3 day drop in the price of oil by ~10%. If Congress followed suit, how much farther down might it go? Even if you assume that speculators are a big part of the problem, a major shift in energy policy vis-a-vis drilling would cause a tumble in the price in fairly short order. Wed this to a Manhattan Project/Apollo Space Program approach to the energy situation by the govt and I suspect that prices would take a huge hit.

Rev7
07-17-2008, 01:39 PM
So....a proposal by Bush to lift the offshore drilling ban has caused a 2-3 day drop in the price of oil by ~10%. If Congress followed suit, how much farther down might it go? Even if you assume that speculators are a big part of the problem, a major shift in energy policy vis-a-vis drilling would cause a tumble in the price in fairly short order. Wed this to a Manhattan Project/Apollo Space Program approach to the energy situation by the govt and I suspect that prices would take a huge hit.
Very interesting thinking that you have there. Is it really about 10% though?

Totenkopf
07-17-2008, 05:26 PM
Part of it is predicated on the idea that there's a (growing) bubble in oil prices. Once the bubble bursts (housing, commodity prices, financial markets, etc...), prices have tended to drastically reduce in a short period of time (days to months). I saw that oil had reached ~$147 and had dropped to around $134 +/- (~$12-13) the past few days. That's probably ~8-10%. If downward pressures were to continue to mount, speculators would jump ship so fast you'd wonder if they'd been there in the first place. At least then we could get a truer picture of near to medium term supply-demand factors. The key to solving the current energy problem is not "either/or" but "and".

Darth_Yuthura
07-22-2008, 04:01 PM
I'm for using what sources of energy are available. Coal is the most abundant and reliable, but is dirty. Oil is scarce and also dirty, but should be extracted if it doesn't cause damage to other natural resources in the area where it's drilled. Offshore drilling is only a quick fix... for later.

Arátoeldar
07-22-2008, 04:59 PM
Okay. Let me give you a story. 1981 secretary of interior proposed opening almost the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling. The environmentalists, surprise, surprise back in 1981 went crazy. California congressional delegation slipped in a provision into a bill the same year that placed a moratorium on drilling off of the California shores. Congress enacted separate moratoriums for Cal Florida, California, New Jersey, North Carolina. None of these bans covered what is called the Destin Dome. Destin Dome is a formation in the Gulf of Mexico. It's about 25 miles off of Pensacola, Florida. Experts say it has enough natural gas to supply a million homes for 30 years, this one place.

Well, under Reagan, 1981, Chevron leased this dome. It's federal land. They have the lease for the dome, 1981. They drilled three wells to explore, one in 1987, one in '89 and one in '95. They found an estimated 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So story ends. We're pumping the gas, right? No, no. The lease only gave Chevron the right to drill, not to produce the gas. They could drill. They just can't take it out. The lease that they had on the Destin Dome, they could find it but they had to go back and get federal approval to actually take it out. In 1996 Chevron submitted a developed plan to the state and interior department. They proposed drilling 21 different wells. They said as few as 12 but maybe as much as 21. Florida officials took their time dragging their feet deciding whether or not to grant Florida's -- grant Chevron's request. Eventually two years went by and they were denied. Chevron appealed the decision to the department of congress. Congress sat on the appeal. Eventually in 2000 -- remember this started in 1981. In 2000 the commerce department, doing nothing on the appeal, Chevron said, okay, what are you guys doing to us. They sued the federal government in order to compel it to act. While the lawsuit was pending, Bush met with his brother Jeb, who was the Florida governor if you remember right. They agreed to have the federal government buy back the leases for $115 million and place a moratorium on the drilling in this dome until 2011. Now, why did that happen?

There are over 140 actual leased tracks right now that these oil companies have that they cannot drill in. They have the leases. They can drill in some of them but they can't produce. In others they can look but they can't drill. So when people come out and say, these oil companies already have these giant tracts of land, ask yourself and ask them, do they have the right to drill and produce on those lands. By the way, what did Chevron do? It took the refund from the government, it took the $115 million. Instead of the 2.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough, for 30 years of natural gas, they took the $115 million refund and they invested it in a project in Angola where they're currently producing liquefied natural gas that has to be shipped from Angola to us.


Source (http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/12393/)