Japan Today
world

Bush urges Congress to lift ban on offshore oil drilling

60 Comments

U.S. President George W Bush on Wednesday urged the Democratic-led Congress to lift a ban on offshore oil drilling as a means of expanding domestic oil supplies. ''There is no excuse for delay,'' Bush said in reference to soaring crude oil prices and resultant spikes above $4 per gallon in regular gasoline.

''For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline,'' Bush said in a White House Rose Garden speech. ''Congress must face a hard reality. Our nation must produce more oil and we must start now.''

There are an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil offshore that have yet to be tapped because of the 27-year-old ban on drilling off the U.S. coast.

Calling the federal ban "outdated and counterproductive," Bush said Congress should lift or modify its ban for the entire outer continental shelf, then he would lift his executive directive. It would be up to individual states to decide whether to allow offshore drilling.

With global crude prices at nearly $140 a barrel, U.S. gasoline prices now average more than $4 a gallon (3.78 liters), a rise of one dollar from a year ago.

Nearly 80% of respondents to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll said soaring pump prices were causing them financial hardship, which the Post said was the highest figure in surveys this decade.

Bush chastised Congress for blocking his Republican administration's efforts to boost domestic oil production, and called on lawmakers to increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf, citing experts who say access the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil.

"That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost 10 years," he said.

Under the 1981 federal moratorium, states are prohibited from allowing offshore oil and gas drilling and exploration, protecting virtually the entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines and sections of the Gulf of Mexico.

Critics of lifting the drilling moratorium say it would jeopardize the environment and that production would take years to get up and running, and thus is not a realistic answer to the current supply crunch.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wanted no drilling off his state's lengthy portion of the west coast, and urged the country to move away from its dependence on oil.

"California's coastline is an international treasure. I do not support lifting this moratorium on new oil drilling off our coast," Schwarzenegger said in a statement.

"We are in this situation because of our dependence on traditional petroleum-based oil. The direction our nation needs to go in, and where California is already headed, is toward greater innovation in new technologies and new fuel choices for consumers."

Bush cited the nation's dramatic shift to dependence on oil imports in recent decades as an economic and security risk.

"Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control, and that puts both our economy and our security at risk," he said.

Bush's call for offshore drilling backed a similar policy statement from the presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Tuesday.

The president also urged Congress to allow exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which McCain, unlike most Republicans, opposes.

With the widely expected announcement, Bush inserted himself directly into the election year debate over painful energy prices and environmental protection.

McCain has drawn the ire of environmentalists and his presumed Democratic rival Barack Obama over his proposal to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

"We need to encourage production in ways that are consistent with sensible standards of environmental protection," McCain said in a speech in Missouri, broadening the debate by calling for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030.

Democratic Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill said McCain was "shilling for Saudi Arabia" with his campaign proposals on energy policy.

"If he were being scored, he would get a 10 for the execution of his flip-flop. He's folded under the pressure of Big Oil," she told reporters in a conference call on behalf of the Obama campaign.

Obama is pushing for a "windfall tax" on oil companies' record profits and for federal investment of $150 billion over 10 years in renewable and green energies.

© Wire reports

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

60 Comments
Login to comment

This I agree with. We need more drilling.

But with conditions:

EPA is totally involved. Congressional Committee to oversee the program. There will be no more proving and capping of oil reserves and controlled by oil magnets or speculators. Federal lands, federal control. And a third group that keeps an eye on the whole operation and answers to the people. It's our land, not some oil barren or 4 sisters, etc.

But we need to do more drilling. We haven't tapped nearly any of the total reserves.

Also, none of it being shipped to Japan or anywhere else. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there were more oil drilling would there be a guarantee of cheaper oil? Or would it just amount to more profits for the crooked oil companies?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I did not realize the US had banned offshore drilling. I guess it was a good idea at the time because now the US has a nice untapped reserve ready to be exploited. It seems like every other country in the world drills offshore, drill away.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GOP - the Gas and Oil Party. Arnold got it right - spend more on weaning us all off oil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Drill away, ya right! The notion that we can drill our way out of the current crisis is idiotic. We need to start looking at alternative sources or we will certainly be revisiting this point in a few years. Moreover, the amount of oil to be delivered from off shore drilling would perhaps not come on line for a few years, and would only amount to a saving of perhaps 4 cents per gallon. Is it worth it!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maybe this adds weight that the high oil prices have been a result of US government manipulation so that off-shore drilling can commence........ The higher profits gained by the companies during the higher oil prices can then offset later the more expensive off-shore drilling.

...On the postive side high oil prices in the US is good for the environment. Maybe the US will start to learn that big gas guzzling cars are not the only mode of transport.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Drill away, ya right! The notion that we can drill our way out of the current crisis is idiotic" NO offense, but while it won't replace the sources where we get our oil from, it could help with competing with OPEC. The problem is no oil shortage, you can get a gallon of gas in Kuwait from about 30 cents a gallon. Its called demand. As the global economy become more and more realistic, shippments by sea and road are going up, so we can't just stop dead on. It would actually be faster to drill for more oil and a whole lot cheaper than to convert. We are at least 25 years out, given the current pace - but there is hope it can move faster. Additionally, Americans would have to stop driving their personal cars six days out of the week to make any realistic impact. There is info available, but I can not give it out at this time.

I am in involved the alternative energy business, so I would love to see everything move to alternative energy, but it is not as easy as many want to believe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's going to have to be drilling. I'm sick and tired of OPEC being our petroleum tap. They're dribbling it out because we're not the only buyers.

I'm not for just giving the petroleum companies carte blanche, but they will have to work for us.

We do need to build more refineries. If we can afford to attack a country and stay there 100 years, then the gov't can afford to build refineries. Again, I want gov't control of new refineries and no more of this closing down refineries at the worst opportune times. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama is pushing for a windfall tax on oil companies"

Oh, for cryin' out loud, as though that would produce any more oil or lower the price of oil. He's an idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I support it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who is ths Bush chap? Some politican hack?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

timeborder - Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Obama is pushing for a windfall tax on oil companies"

That is not going to do a damn thing. Getting our oil from somewhere else and then taxing OPEC would do something though.

Damn, I wish I could let you all in on something really surprising. Most of you are so far in the dark.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong - don't keep me waiting. Tell me. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream: Sorry, I can't. But I already told you I am somewhat involved in alternative energy from the high point. Basically, I have very little to do right now until this oil crises blows over or a quick leap into the future using alternative energy.

You are in the dark because you think its the oil companies at fault. They aren't. Not even a tab bit to blame. There is much more to this story, but letting out information that is crucial to the discussion could basically get me not only a lost contract, but in some cases imprisoned.

Additionally, you would be very surprised who really owns these companies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All that's going to happen if the moron bush gets his way is drilling will begin on a MASS scale, the oil and construction companies (who build the rigs, etc.), as well as the investors in big oil, will get billions, and the average Joe consumer will STILL be paying more and more on a day to day basis....... for the next 5 to 10 years, at least. Any dolt who thinks that by starting to drill tomorrow they'll see a reduction at the pumps by Saturday is a complete and utter fool, and the environment will suffer for it (and in turn, their kids).

When the environment is ruined thanks mainly to GOP policies, costs for EVERYTHING will go up. Why doesn't Bush ACTUALLY put some REAL money into alternative energy sources? There is a record one or two hydrogen fueling stations in the US, if I'm not mistaken. Why? because it's too expensive to maintain any regular ones, because the cars themselves cost a fortune. A bit of investment into that area, however, and research and production become cheaper.

But hey, we all know the Republicans with their hands covered in big oil won't make any money off alternative fuel sources, and they'll be dead or drying by the time their kids are dying and grandkids starving to death from the environmental impact... so who cares, right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip: "That is not going to do a damn thing. Getting our oil from somewhere else and then taxing OPEC would do something though.

Damn, I wish I could let you all in on something really surprising. Most of you are so far in the dark."

Only one in the dark here is you, my friend. Yeah, impose a big tax on OPEC; let's see it. When OPEC says the next morning, "Okay, no more oil for you, PERIOD!" what do you think the Skippy lead government would do? Crumble and offer even LESS of a tax for OPEC! You're a joke, my friend. OPEC has the US by the short hairs, and drilling off shores isn't ever going to change that. The oil companies in the US have the consumer by the short hairs, but THAT can be changed domestically, and part of that would be done through punishing them with windfall taxes when they reap 'unnecessarily huge' profits off the money earned by regular citizens at the pumps.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Polls indicate American consumers are on to the Democrats' shameful election year ploy to keep gas prices artificially high.

We either get cheaper gas or a Republican Congress.

The majority of us don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Explain how the democrasts will keep oil prices high, RedMeatKoolAid. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The majority of us don't care what the rest of the world thinks. And there in lies the problem!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"If there were more oil drilling would there be a guarantee of cheaper oil? Or would it just amount to more profits for the crooked oil companies?" As you imply, the latter. They're already sitting on lots of places they could be drilling, but would rather wait until the price of oil goes wa-ay up. W/Cheney selling the country to their oily friends.

WASHINGTON (May 29, 2008) – More than 44 million acres of public lands are leased for oil and gas development, according to a new Wilderness Society analysis of Interior Department data. The analysis points to an explosion of drilling on federal lands, with 7,124 drilling permits (APDs) issued in 2007, a new record for the Bush Administration. Nationwide, the leasing is outstripping the oil and gas industry’s capacity to drill, as industry is drilling on only a quarter of the leases they hold.

“We are seeing gas drilling on public lands at a magnitude greater than anything we’ve experienced, and it threatens to forever damage many of our most treasured Western places if not done carefully,” said Dave Alberswerth of The Wilderness Society. “Oil and gas development is a legitimate and important use of our public lands, but it is equally important to have oil and gas program that is balanced with other uses of those lands, such as protecting fish and wildlife, cultural values, and the air we breathe and the water we drink.”

Summary: Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) Approved by BLM, 2001-2007

Colorado: ...... 2,909 Montana: ...... 843 New Mexico: .. 7,606 Utah: ........... 2,955 Wyoming: ..... 18,613 Rocky Mtns: .. 32,926 Nation-wide: .. 35,106

0 ( +0 / -0 )

References: How Many Oil Drilling Permits Have Been Given in the USA? Oil Permits Requests To Drill Are Way Up Over The Last 5 Years. ... purchase and hold on to leases to claim them as an asset to boost stock prices. ... forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=2816

Marketplace: Why aren't oil execs drilling in the U.S.? 23 May 2008 ... This week in Congress, executives from big oil companies have been ... can't keep up with the government drilling permits they already have. ... marketplace.publicradio.org/ display/web/2008/05/23/untapped_us_oil

0 ( +0 / -0 )

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wanted no drilling off his state’s lengthy portion of the west coast, and urged the country to move away from its dependence on oil, in other words develop alternative energy.

Okay, that's fair enough. But this technology may be about twenty years away from mass use. In the mean time, we need to find and tap more sources of oil, and if those sources are American the better.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the Gulf of Mexico isn't offshore USA where is it. They have drilled for oil there and are producing loads. They need to increase the price of gassoline in the USA to European levels, that wuld cut their comsumption and getting rid of those big car gas gusslers would help

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smitty, thanks for the completement, I guess we are back to the slinging mud.

First of all, if you got your head of your butt, and re-read my post, you will see that what I posted "That is not going to do a damn thing. Getting our oil from somewhere else and then taxing OPEC would do something though." implies that once the need for them falls, we tax their, basically only, export and as other countries follow suit, would bring gas prices down. Equally, you have placed a hurt on for the oil companies, when really all they do is deliver a product - why should they sacrifice to bring you something you are accustomed to taken for granted?

BTW, again, the same tired Dems are great and repubs are bad conversation keeps spurting out of your mouth. Have you taken a look at who has been members of the boards in many of those companies, including non-American ones? Have you actually sat down and listened what forces are blocking speculators? Have you witnessed calls made at the hours? Oh, and lastly, as you, even you, are aware, that this problem is not something that happened once Bush got into office. The problem has been there potentially for over 25 years. Do you know the exact people who have block legislation in boycotting certain OPEC countries? Or are you just so stuck in this lets' hate GWB scene that all you can think about is him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smitty, when was the last time you tried having solar or wind generation systems placed in Democrat controlled locals; even for the poor including Katrina trailer parks in N.O.? Do you know the difference there now that a Republican has taken the action?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I tend to agree with the above. It would be nice to have more sources for oil, and it would be even better if those sources were domestic. Lower price or not it would be good to eliminate some of the dependence the US has on other governments. The high prices now (which won't be going down in the future, most likely) will continue to push investment into alternative energy sources and technology, so I don't think there's the danger of cheap oil pushing that to the sidelines. Naturally there should be oversight in terms of environmental conditions.

I'm sure I'm missing a downside or two, so if anyone can bring them up I'd like to her them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Message to Sarge and Skipthesong:

I am not an Obama supporter, but I think the reason he wants to have a windfall profits tax is to invest the money in developing alternative energy.

Anyway, I still agree with you that it's a bad idea.

First, the oil companies will just pass on the cost of the tax to the consumer.

Second, it's a dangerous idea for the U.S. federal government to get involved in subsidizing industry. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of solar, wind, and other alternative energy companies. How do you decide which companies to subsidize, all of them or pick a few? The latter smacks of Japan's industrial policy of the late eighties which led to a long recession. Government anywhere doesn't have a good track record of picking winners or losers. If any kind of alternative energy is the future, the free market will allow it to happen.

James Graziano La-Giglia Hong Kong

0 ( +0 / -0 )

prgue: "I think the reason he wants to have a windfall profits tax is to invest the money in developing alternative energy." I have not heard with any proof that is going to happen, but I would then welcome the idea for obvious reasons. There are times when governments need to subsidize industries, letting them fail would prove catastrophic. But, there do need to be caps but then again, when you see how many bottom line people are employed by them and townships that are basically being dependent on them, what better will the tax do for them than them not having jobs? Airlines, farms, etc... I don't like it, but the opposite can be worse too.

Second, there is no logical way we can move from oil in the immediate future, again, I wish we could because I can reap it in, so we all are basically arguing about something that should happen in the future, and much further than many realize.

So since we can't move from oil and we are being basically held at the neck by oil producing countries, the only short term alternative is to drill ourselves. Now, do we have the capabilities to convert that said oil in a quick manner? Currently, we don't. But, we do have the oil.

the best thing you did put forward "the free market will allow it to happen"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Naturally there should be oversight in terms of environmental conditions." Now we reach part of the main problem. If we want to use our SUVs, have global market goods transported around the world, refrain from using electric transportation such as street cars, buses and trains, have nice comfty houses in the winter using natural gas, cook on gas burning stoves, I hate to say it, at the moment, we can't have it both ways. If we work too hard to strive to save the environment while getting that oil, we will be falling into the same problem - high gas prices.

Amazing how long we lived using horses and in less than a hundred years, we have screwed ourselves with oil.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Amazing how long we lived using horses and in less than a hundred years, we have screwed ourselves with oil.

Not that amazing. Some might attribute it to greed, lack of foresight, selfishness and sheer stupidity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not that amazing. Some might attribute it to greed, lack of foresight, selfishness and sheer stupidity." Have you ever traveled to South America, South Europe, namely Greece? So people I seen have decent comfortable lives, yet so many of them didn't have a car, just a small horse or Donkey pulling their gear. I saw this in Korea and the Phillipeans too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not that amazing. Some might attribute it to greed, lack of foresight, selfishness and sheer stupidity." Have you ever traveled to South America, South Europe, namely Greece? So people I seen have decent comfortable lives, yet so many of them didn't have a car, just a small horse or Donkey pulling their gear. I saw this in Korea and the Phillipeans too.

I am not exactly sure what your point is, but I have travelled all over the world . . .

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sorry. My point was that I get a bit upset when I hear about people complaining about not being able to drive away for the weekend or how much their lives are wrecked due to the high gas prices. I was just bring up those places because it seemed to me that most of those people were going about life with ease.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Some might attribute it to greed, lack of foresight, selfishness and sheer stupidity."

Hey, it is the corporate whores at Bush Co we're discussing here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Q: How is exploiting more oil going to mitigate the worldwide threat of global warming?

Bush, nor anyone on this board, has answered this question.

This 'Let's drill for oil at all costs' mindset is extremely narrow-minded and will only fuel the greater problem of climate change.

Then where will we be?

Very likely with cheaper gas ......and a ravaged environment, dirtier air, hotter mean temperatures, more droughts, flooding and crop failures, even crazier weather patterns and more environmental destruction like the Americans, Chinese, etc. have been witnessing first hand with increasing frequency over the last 6 months.

People need to get a grip - higher gas prices are likely here to stay, and the quicker they force us to develop new and more environmentally friendly renewable energy sources, the better.

It is now pretty much accepted among oil industry execs that $200 a barrel oil will be on us soon.

That means likely $6-7 a gallon of gas.

It's going to get nasty - unless we develop renewables mighty quick.

Skip, I'm VERY interested in what you know, but I fully understand your inability to share it at this time.

(I'm looking at investing in renewable energy companies right now....)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Q. How is exploiting more oil going to mitigate the worldwide threat of global warming?"

A. It's not.

Q. How would shutting down all industry and stop all man-made CO2 emissions mitigate the threat of global warming?

A. It wouldn't. I know you think humans can control the temperature on the planet, Sushi, but, you see, Mother Nature is, like, WAY more powerful than man.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SArge - "A. I know you think humans can control the temperature on the planet, Sushi, but, you see, Mother Nature is, like, WAY more powerful than man."

Sarge, you seem to think mankind has no impact on the weather.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: "(I'm looking at investing in renewable energy companies right now....)"

My advice - Don't! Not yet at least. It is too much out of control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oil is still a GREAT investment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - pray tell why?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

From TIME magazine:

"But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer Continental Shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best."

www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1815884,00.html?cnn=yes

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The president has been buying gas for the U.S. reserve every Friday since entering office, to intentionally run up the price(as reported by analyst Wayne Rogers on Fox TV). Now that the price has surpassed $100 a barrel, the president has signed contracts with 3 oil companies to supply 70,000 barrels a day (12.3 million barrels) for six months to the reserve. The administration is violating a 1995 energy law, passed by Congress, that requires the government to minimize the cost of acquiring the oil for the reserve, including oil that energy companies turn over in lieu of paying cash royalties for drilling on federal leases. Adding oil to the reserve at this time also violates the Energy Department’s own guidelines to avoid affecting heating oil, gasoline, and other petroleum product prices paid by consumers.

There is no shortage. The chaplain on the trans-Alaska pipeline (that was built specifically to reduce gas prices in the U.S.) wrote a book at its completion, to let the American people know what was really going on (“The Energy Non-Crisis”; amazon.com). There are 3 oil wells in the North Slope of Alaska, already drilled and capped, that have enough oil to supply the U.S. for the next 200 years! They are: Kuparuk, Prudhoe, and Gull Island. Gull Island has an oil-pool depth of 1,200 feet, and its field is 400 square miles. The other 2 are slightly smaller; check them out on Google.

Whining about the "shortage" now is nothing more than a "dog-and-pony show" to con the American people into believing that he "cares", and pushing Congress at the same time to allow the oil companies to drill on our shorelines.

It is all a major conspiracy to corner the market and control prices worldwide--and has been since the Nixon administration. Bush, by the way, has been in "oil's pockets" for many years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq oil production is only 1/3 of before War! let US army retreat from Iraq, oil price will gradually go down to 60.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Until they get their internal squabbling over with, Iraq won't be pumping much oil. And it's not decided whether they will deal with the USD or go to the euro. If Iraq sells for euro, we ain't getting any of it.

Unless someone comes up with some wonderful fuel sourse that is relatively cheap, portable and green, we're back to fosselfuels. But we have the technology to do it right, but to do that means that the auto market has to change.

Until then, we're tied to the petroleum corp. But we need to rein them in. That means collecting royalities that we've waived for years, keeping the oil industry under the thumbs of a watch dog groups and require that they release information about proven and capped oil fields.

We could use what we have drilled right now and not drill a well for 20 years.

I'm not for just giving the oil industry the keys to the shed, but going in the shed with them and keeping an eye on them. Never trust'em. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sushi.... You've established that drilling won't lower prices. I happen to agree with that.

So if higher prices are here to stay regardless of drilling...and if higher prices spur the need to invest in alternative technologies...where do you find the link between drilling and less investment in alternative technologies and more damage to the environment?

If anything you're saying that drilling won't change anything on the price side, so drilling won't change demand to invest in alternatives, so there's really no reason why the US shouldn't drill for oil, especially when we get the benefit of being less dependent on foreign governments. It seems that you and I agree on the facts but we don't agree on the conclusion...?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's what I did the last time I heard about the magical "Gull Island":

Eulji_Mundeok at 06:47 AM JST - 11th June

I've been google-ing "Gull Island" for the past hour and all I've gotten are individual blog posts, Alex Jones-style conspiracy sites and various rants in the comments of some major news articles. Apparently: 1)this island is off the coast of Alaska 2)it's so named for the "rare seagulls" that inhabit the island 3)it's claimed that it holds "more oil than Saudi Arabia" 4)oil is apparently not being pumped out of the field either to protect the "rare natural habitat", or to serve the Carlyle Group 5)Gene Kelly once visited Gull Island while searching for Brigadoon

My brain hurts- can I go now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To: Eulji Mundeok It's mighty strange that YOU can't find anything on Google about Gull Island. I thought that they might have removed it from Google, since there's been some rumblings about their political motives lately. But, 'lo and behold, the very first item that popped up when I went there was "Gas Price Manipulation and Gull Island Oil" and it's located at http://www.rense.com/general82/gull.htm. Why don't you, and the other "oil boys" try looking again. This is the first paragraph in the article: "It's well and good that Congress vote to stop filling the US Strategic Oil reserve because the US already has billions of barrels in the ground in Alaska--entire oil fields capped and drilled, but kept off the market. The filling of the Strategic Petroleum reserve is merely one more attempt to keep fuel in short supply. I will be blunt. There is a conspiracy to raise fuel prices and it is pernicious. No one is targeting the collusion we see daily between the oil companies." HAVE A NICE DAY!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ezonner - you can only find something if you want to find it.

I've been talking about this for a month at least.

Bet if I buried a tax break on Gull Island, he'd find it.

Gull Island has the capacity of oil to supply the US for the next 200 years. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib - "drilling won't lower prices"

If the Democrat-mis-lead U.S. Congress can ever get its act together and get rid of this silly ban on oil drilling and allow U.S. comapnies to start drilling for our own oil, it'll be interesting to see what happens to world oil prices.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hear that Gov. Arnold Swartenagger (sp) is fighting the drilling. Until Gov. Chrisp (sp) fell into line with george bush, just this week, now he's on the bandwagon.

It's easy to cry that the democratic congress can't get anything done. What happened to the republican congress. Your boys had 6 years to do something and did nothing.

It's the republicans fault. They had 6 years and couldn't fix it. Don't blame the democrats for republican failings. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"your boys had 6 years to do something and did nothing"

When the Republicans had the majority in Congress, oil wasn't $130 a barrel.

And, anyway, it's the Democrats who have been gumming up the works and standing in the way of America becoming energy-independent, not the Republicans.

And you know what's funny? Obama claiming McCain has "flip-flopped" on this issue. Being against oil drilling when oil is $50 a barrel ( I guess I can forgive that ) and then supporting oil drilling when oil is $130 a barrel is not flip-flopping, it's common sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the very first item that popped up when I went there was "Gas Price Manipulation and Gull Island Oil" and it's located at http://www.rense.com/general82/gull.htm.

As I was saying- [in my hour-long google search for info on Gull Island] all I've gotten are individual blog posts, Alex Jones-style conspiracy sites and various rants in the comments of some major news articles.

Unless you can provide me with something a bit more authoritative (hell, even The Nation, Mother Jones or The New Republic would be a step up), you'll just continue embarrassing yourself (but don't let me stop you).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

When the Republicans had the majority in Congress, oil wasn't $130 a barrel.

LOL!!!

When President Squander declared his "strong dollar policy" in December of 2004, the smart money started shifting to Euros. (And what a smart move that was.) He's the closest thing I've ever seen to Colonel Klink.

Bush and the Republicans were handed a strong dollar and projected 5 trillion dollar surplus in 2000. And what did they do? They squandered both!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Eulji_Mundeok - Here's a few links for you. If you think that the oil industry is just going to put information out there that they have reserves that they refuse to pump, don't be silly. But there is enough information to soundly conclude that it's being manipulated right under our noses.

But you believe what you want. I'm still looking into it but I think I've located the owners of the oil field.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/gull_island_oil.html

http://www.newswithviews.com/Monteith/stanley1.htm

http://www.reformation.org/energy-non-crisis-ch17.html

http://www.rense.com/general69/noncrisis.htm < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Some of that energy comes from unstable regions and unfriendly regimes. This makes us more vulnerable to supply shocks and price spikes beyond our control, and that puts both our economy and our security at risk,” he said.

Some??? More like just about all. And the uncertainities associated with these places have long been factored into the cost so it doesn't account for the 40% increase in price over the last few months. Most analysts assign a large portion of the blame to speculators who have driven the value of the dollar down. Speculators tried to do that to the Hong Kong Kong currency in 1997 after the Asian financial crisis broke. But the HK govt was able to thwart them owing to its large reserves. By contrast, all Uncle Sam has to offer is debt and that's what made the greenback vulnerable to such speculation in the first place. GWB has to take some responsibility since USD 5 trillion was added to the national debt during his watch.

Instead, the man who campaigned he could "jawbone OPEC" is now claiming it'll be the Democrats fault you have to pay higher prices unless they pass legislation lifting the ban on offshore drilling by the July 4th recess. As Gail Collins observed in her NYT's column today, watching the president speak in the Rose Garden was akin to "some half-forgotten celebrity popping up out of nowhere and announcing that he wants an Academy Award. By Tuesday. And if he doesn’t get it, he cannot be responsible for the consequences."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush chastised Congress for blocking his Republican administration’s efforts to boost domestic oil production, and called on lawmakers to increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf, citing experts who say access the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil.

“That would be enough to match America’s current oil production for almost 10 years,” he said.

Then what? Well, that's somebody else's problem. Just like how to pay off the national debt. That seems to be GWB operationing motto, "Let somebody else deal with the consequences of our choices."

Getting people to believe domestic drilling is the solution is an attempt to put off hard choices about conservation. Environmentalists are often portrayed as wackos who care more about polar bears than people. But it's only partly perservation of natural habitat for the sake of wildlife that motives the opposition; the only is what spills do to affected communities. Many in Alaska never recovered from the Valdez tanker spill back in 1989 which devasted the economies of water-front towns. While technology can be improved, it's only as good as the humans at the controls.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Being against oil drilling when oil is $50 a barrel ( I guess I can forgive that ) and then supporting oil drilling when oil is $130 a barrel is not flip-flopping, it's common sense.

Years ago I remember reading about this and the main argument was that it was cheaper to import that oil than to spend the investment in getting our own. I think that was when oil was $20 to $30 a barrel. I remember the cost of getting it ourselves was several times higher....so it made no economic sense then. With the new price of oil it starts making sense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thomas Friedman puts it beautifully in today's New York Times:

Two years ago, President Bush declared that America was “addicted to oil,” and, by gosh, he was going to do something about it. Well, now he has. Now we have the new Bush energy plan: “Get more addicted to oil.”

Actually, it’s more sophisticated than that: Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

It’s as if our addict-in-chief is saying to us: “C’mon guys, you know you want a little more of the good stuff. One more hit, baby. Just one more toke on the ole oil pipe. I promise, next year, we’ll all go straight. I’ll even put a wind turbine on my presidential library. But for now, give me one more pop from that drill, please, baby. Just one more transfusion of that sweet offshore crude.”

It is hard for me to find the words to express what a massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for an energy policy this is. But it gets better. The president actually had the gall to set a deadline for this drug deal:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

NY Times is saying Obama is in the pocket of Big Ethanol -

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol By LARRY ROHTER Published: June 23, 2008 The ethanol industry has provided some top advisers to Senator Barack Obama, who has delivered ringing endorsements of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites