Bush calls on Congress to lift oil drilling ban

 

White House also wants plan to develop oil shale, speed refinery permitting

 

updated 4:02 p.m. ET, Mon., July. 14, 2008

 

WASHINGTON - Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday promised to lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president.

 

But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well to lift its own drilling ban. There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by the first President Bush in 1990.

 

When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition, Bush said in a statement in the Rose Garden.

 

The president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.

 

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court."

 

Bush criticized Congress for failing to lift its own ban on offshore drilling.

 

"For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump."

 

The issue of offshore drilling has been debated by Congress in each of several rounds of deliberation over national energy policy, which culminated in passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

 

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush's father -- George H.W. Bush -- to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

 

But since oil prices have surged above $140 a barrel in recent months, the White House believes that the political mood may have shifted since Congress last took up the idea of lifting the drilling ban. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center found that 47 percent of respondents said energy exploration and drilling were a top priority up from 35 percent in February. Other polls have also found increased popular support for expanded drilling since oil prices have surged.

 

The bid for expanded drilling has also gained momentum last month when the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, said that states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to permit drilling in their coastal waters. Offshore drilling had been opposed by his predecessor, former Gov. Jeb Bush, the presidents brother.

 

Given its proximity to existing oilfields in the Gulf of Mexico, and the pipelines and other infrastructure already in place in the region, Florida offers some of the more promising lease prospects for new oil development.

 

Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.

 

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

 

Congressional Democrats Monday renewed opposition to lifting the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.

 

"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas."

 

"This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee. "The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy."

 

Its not clear how much oil and natural gas lie offshore in areas currently covered by the drilling ban. In any case, it would be years before new production would be brought online, offering no short-term relief to high gasoline prices. Bust also called for a streamlined permitting process to help speed construction of new refining capacity in the U.S.

 

Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other lawmakers have backed legislation to allow offshore exploration. Their measure would pursue other ways to expand energy sources, too.

 

"Now the only thing standing between consumers at the pump and the increased American energy they are demanding is the Democrat leadership in Congress," McConnell said. "We should act and act now."

 

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called Bush's move "a very important signal" and said his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, should drop his opposition to offshore drilling.

 

Environmental groups repeated their opposition to expanding offshore drilling.

 

"President Bush has once again ignored the wise precedent set by his father and taken reckless action that has neither hope of reducing gas prices nor concern for long-term consequences," said Gene Karpinski, president of The League of Conservation Voters.

 

Asked if Bush's action alone will lead to more oil drilling, White House press secretary Dana Perino said, "In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not."

 

Link

This whole issue is a bunch of garbage.

 

First off, the administration makes it seem like the government/environmentalists have been the ones blocking oil drilling. The reality is, the government has been giving out permits for oil drilling like free candy, and yet the oil companies have not been doing anything except sitting on these oil permits. Few of them are actually being explored by their owners. Almost certainly the companies would prefer to wait for their potential profits from this kind of operation to increase before they would finally start to drill.

 

Next, Bush tries to say that oil refineries aren't being built because of, again, environmental concerns or government reasons. However, the EPA has only received one request to build a refinery in the last 25 years, and that request was approved. Once again, the oil companies have no interest in building more refineries, because it is not in their interest to do so. Having more refineries would get more gasoline onto the market faster, and almost certainly lower the price as a result.

 

Third, even if we wanted to launch a massive offshore oil drilling operation off of our coasts, the special vessels that are used to transfer oil from the rigs to land or shore based refineries are currently booked up across the planet for the next 3-5 years. This makes it impossible to actually get the oil drilled from beneath the sea onto the domestic oil market.

 

All of this doesn't even consider the awful environmental impact that can quickly result from an accident on or around these offshore rigs.

I support this, but I am not enthusiastic about it.

Boo! Don't drill off mah coast!

 

I don't care if other states want to, but keep this sh*t out of Florida.

Boo! Don't drill off mah coast!

 

I don't care if other states want to, but keep this sh*t out of Florida.

Hey, we agree on something! :thumbup

Boo! Don't drill off mah coast!

 

I don't care if other states want to, but keep this sh*t out of Florida.

 

Crist used to agree with you until he saw an open VP spot out there.

Boo! Don't drill off mah coast!

 

I don't care if other states want to, but keep this sh*t out of Florida.

 

Crist used to agree with you until he saw an open VP spot out there.

Yes, just like John McCain used to be against torture until he decided not to be while running for President. Amazing the things you will give up to move into that Oval Office...

Boo! Don't drill off mah coast!

 

I don't care if other states want to, but keep this sh*t out of Florida.

 

Crist used to agree with you until he saw an open VP spot out there.

I was a huge supporter of Crist but I turned on that guy when he decided the VP slot was more important than the state he runs.

other countries are drilling off the florida coast.....

 

 

I hate the idea, but its necessary irght now. We shouldn't break into reserves yet, incase of emergency so see what we can do.

other countries are drilling off the florida coast.....

That's actually not true.

Bush calls on Congress to lift oil drilling ban

 

White House also wants plan to develop oil shale, speed refinery permitting

 

updated 4:02 p.m. ET, Mon., July. 14, 2008

 

WASHINGTON - Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday promised to lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that his stood since his father was president.

 

But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well to lift its own drilling ban. There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by the first President Bush in 1990.

 

When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition, Bush said in a statement in the Rose Garden.

 

The president, trying to ease market tensions and boost supply, called last month for Congress to lift its prohibition before he did so himself.

 

"The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress," Bush said. "Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court."

 

Bush criticized Congress for failing to lift its own ban on offshore drilling.

 

"For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production," Bush said. "Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump."

 

The issue of offshore drilling has been debated by Congress in each of several rounds of deliberation over national energy policy, which culminated in passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

 

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, from Bush's father -- George H.W. Bush -- to Bill Clinton, have sided against drilling in these waters, as has Congress each year for 27 years. Their goal has to been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies.

 

But since oil prices have surged above $140 a barrel in recent months, the White House believes that the political mood may have shifted since Congress last took up the idea of lifting the drilling ban. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center found that 47 percent of respondents said energy exploration and drilling were a top priority up from 35 percent in February. Other polls have also found increased popular support for expanded drilling since oil prices have surged.

 

The bid for expanded drilling has also gained momentum last month when the governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, said that states should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to permit drilling in their coastal waters. Offshore drilling had been opposed by his predecessor, former Gov. Jeb Bush, the presidents brother.

 

Given its proximity to existing oilfields in the Gulf of Mexico, and the pipelines and other infrastructure already in place in the region, Florida offers some of the more promising lease prospects for new oil development.

 

Bush's proposal echoes a call by Republican presidential candidate, Sen. John McCain, to open the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. Democrat Barack Obama has opposed the idea and instead argued for helping consumers with a second economic stimulus package including energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels and more fuel-efficient automobiles.

 

"If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither. It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for thirty years."

 

Congressional Democrats Monday renewed opposition to lifting the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.

 

"Once again, the oilman in the White House is echoing the demands of Big Oil," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "The Bush plan is a hoax. It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence. It just gives millions more acres to the same companies that are sitting on nearly 68 million acres of public lands and coastal areas."

 

"This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee. "The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy."

 

Its not clear how much oil and natural gas lie offshore in areas currently covered by the drilling ban. In any case, it would be years before new production would be brought online, offering no short-term relief to high gasoline prices. Bust also called for a streamlined permitting process to help speed construction of new refining capacity in the U.S.

 

Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.

 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other lawmakers have backed legislation to allow offshore exploration. Their measure would pursue other ways to expand energy sources, too.

 

"Now the only thing standing between consumers at the pump and the increased American energy they are demanding is the Democrat leadership in Congress," McConnell said. "We should act and act now."

 

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called Bush's move "a very important signal" and said his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, should drop his opposition to offshore drilling.

 

Environmental groups repeated their opposition to expanding offshore drilling.

 

"President Bush has once again ignored the wise precedent set by his father and taken reckless action that has neither hope of reducing gas prices nor concern for long-term consequences," said Gene Karpinski, president of The League of Conservation Voters.

 

Asked if Bush's action alone will lead to more oil drilling, White House press secretary Dana Perino said, "In terms of allowing more exploration to go forward? No, it does not."

 

Link

This whole issue is a bunch of garbage.

 

First off, the administration makes it seem like the government/environmentalists have been the ones blocking oil drilling. The reality is, the government has been giving out permits for oil drilling like free candy, and yet the oil companies have not been doing anything except sitting on these oil permits. Few of them are actually being explored by their owners. Almost certainly the companies would prefer to wait for their potential profits from this kind of operation to increase before they would finally start to drill.

 

Next, Bush tries to say that oil refineries aren't being built because of, again, environmental concerns or government reasons. However, the EPA has only received one request to build a refinery in the last 25 years, and that request was approved. Once again, the oil companies have no interest in building more refineries, because it is not in their interest to do so. Having more refineries would get more gasoline onto the market faster, and almost certainly lower the price as a result.

 

Third, even if we wanted to launch a massive offshore oil drilling operation off of our coasts, the special vessels that are used to transfer oil from the rigs to land or shore based refineries are currently booked up across the planet for the next 3-5 years. This makes it impossible to actually get the oil drilled from beneath the sea onto the domestic oil market.

 

All of this doesn't even consider the awful environmental impact that can quickly result from an accident on or around these offshore rigs.

 

Drill away!!!!!!!!! The more the better!!

other countries are drilling off the florida coast.....

That's actually not true.

China, India and Russia are all drilling off the coast, they are in Cuban water, but they are drilling. They are also using slant drilling which increases the possibility of crossing over...

Today was the largest dollar drop in the price per barrel of oil in history. Now that is sort of misleading, because percentage wise it wasn't the largest, but still a significant drop.

 

Drilling offshore buys us time to continue developing alternative energy sources.

Been away for awhile. Happy to see an energy thread.

 

Anyway... I don't think some of you are being realistic. Some of you seem to think that this crisis is fueled entirely by greed while letting government regulation, foreign&monetary policy, and adherence to environmentalist regulations off of the hook. From an engineering standpoint we are going to be on fossil fuels for quite some time.

 

I don't have a definite solution but I do have some ideas on what we should be trying. People are certainly panicking and are demanding immediate solutions. The best course of action would be to lift the federal and state taxes that account for somewhere in the range of 40% of the price of petrol. I say lift them and cut wasteful spending elsewhere. This is a short term solution.

 

I believe energy independency in the long term could be achieved through a free market initiative through domestic oil reserves (inland and offshore), coal to oil technology (the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal, embracing this technology could make us an oil exporter), and a long overdue acceptance of nuclear power. Anyone who knows an ounce of thermodynamics and basic engineering would tell you that developing a long-term, sustainable energy source is extremely difficult. We would be able to quench the needs of current Americans through domestic fossil fuels and then inevitably supply a power source (via nuclear reactors) to charge batteries in electric vehicles, which some major car companies are said to be unveiling in the not too distant future.

 

What we do not need is the federal government offering its 'solutions' like it did with the ethanol subsidies. The major hurdle of coal to oil technology is the fact that we would not be removing ourselves from a fossil fuel and thus would be releasing greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, there is a camp of individuals in this country that dictate policy decisions upon questionable science. Nevertheless, if we gain confidence in our ability to sustain ourselves we no longer have to engage in petro/petrodollar warfare that is the current aim of the military-industrial complex.

 

As for some of the other points raised in this thread, let's think for a moment. Are oil companies not drilling at certain sites or building new refineries just because they are greedy and are trying to exploit the American public. This is a rather naive and inane accusation when you don't look at the facts at hand. New refineries have not been constructed but concurrently several have been decommissioned over the last several decades. Initially this was the result of decreased consumption after the last crisis that forced a dip in profits, but at the same time it is naive to overlook the environmental regulations that have not only discouraged companies from attempting to not only build new refineries, but also expand those already are in existence. The constraints and regulations are perpetually evolving, which places heavy cost burdens upon refineries in attempting to keep up to code. This is an engineering nightmare and costs billions and billions of dollars to constantly redevelop technology that does not radically upgrade efficiency but only makes delicate changes to the process, which could often be unwarranted. These costs could be so astronomical that investing in expanding refining capabilities is completely discouraged. Just this past spring there were expectations that the new 'environmentally safe' additive, resulting in benzene reduction, would be in such a low quantity that it would influence energy costs.

 

In short, lift the taxes and accept nuclear power. It's a marvelous thing.

Since three mile island people are scared of nuclear power and it should be something that we should be giving serious consideration and eventually using once more people get on board.

Using coal-to-oil as power is an awful idea, not just for the environmental reasons. We should have gone the route of Brazil years ago and moved our vehicles over to sugarcane based ethanol, which is far more efficient than corn based ethanol, and cheaper. That country has almost completely stopped using oil to fuel their own vehicles.

 

But, thanks to guys like Reagan, we moved backwards in energy technology when other nations were moving forward. Brazil started this project in the 1970s, and now it is paying dividends in lower importation of foreign oil.

Care to explain why coal to oil is such a bad idea? With the current cost of petroleum it is easily cost effective in the marketplace.

 

It is laughable to assume that sugarcane ethanol would have matched any success in this country compared to Brazil. This is obvious by looking at production and demand differences alone. The only lesson to be taken there is an issue of exploiting the resources available and will meet the greatest demand.

 

Re: Reagan...

 

The energy market ideally would not be manipulated by one man or one administration. The fact that this mentality even exists is proof that this country is headed in the wrong direction (too much bureaucracy). Reagan at least was a proponent of nuclear energy, which is the cleanest, most efficient, source of energy known to mankind. Our reluctance to accept this at multiple levels of our government has cost us dearly.

 

Re: Three Mile Island...

 

If anything, the incident tells us that safety protocols do in fact work. This was not the case with Chernobyl, where sufficient measures weren't even put in place before the accident. By the way, I'll be visiting there in the Spring.

I agree, I think nuclear with safety is a great way. Also, the coal to oil measure both Italy and Germany are now producing 60% of all energy from coal to oil. It is the best thing that many countries can do. Italy is having a lot of problem with Naples and OC and this was a way to rebuild some of its structure by saving money and restructuring.

I think that nuclear power is probably where we're going to have to go, but I would like to see vehicles running on something besides oil or coal oil.

Where does the nuclear waste go? Or can it processed and reprocessed so that only a small amount comes out? But even then, where do you put it?

 

And as for coal-to-oil, Penguino, climate change isn't the only thing to worry about (even as you're ever so dismissive of it). Coal contains high concentrations of mercury and arsenic, which more often than not go into the water supply. Not to mention the belching smoke (unless coal gasification is the clean technology that it's hailed to be) (and I do care about that b/c my mother, sister, and brother are asthmatics, and my great-grandmother died from asthma complications when my grandfather was 4).