I thought maybe Pit would post on this. It would be a chance for him to say something good about President Bush. After all Pit isn't a liberal (Wink, Wink)
President Bush lifted the ban on drilling offshore. I'm not sure about Shale and Anwar. Now it is up to Congress to give the American people what they want. If Congress gives the OK its full speed ahead, or will they play politics. I'm not holding my breath because I already heard a Democratic congressman on the news saying the same old BS. You know, They already have X amount of acres they are not using, The Caribou can't get across the pipeline. I'm sure they can figure a way to get the Caribou over or under the pipeline. If they can't, let em stay on this side. Dennis Kucinish is against drilling. Need I say more?
Lets all write our Congressmen or women and demand they drill. And don't believe that stuff about 10 years. This is America.
I've been waiting for someone to post this - really not sure why, though.
1/2 of it is done - now congress needs to do their part. If the caribou thing is a problem, maybe we should send some hunters up there with a no daily bag limit. Heck, I'd go.
Actually, from what I have heard so far, which isn't much I'll admit, this is for drilling in the outer continental shelf. I don't believe it has anything to do with the ANWR.
Regardless, I get a kick out of the people that say things like "it won't do anything for 10 years", which has now been cut down to "it won't do anything for 3 to 5 years".
When in the hell ARE we supposed to do something? Should we wait another year? Or 5 more years? The sooner the process begins, the sooner we reap the benefits.
On a side note, I wouldn't mind using up all the oil in the middle east and south america, canada, and russia first.
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Putting pressure on congressional Democrats to back more exploration for oil, President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling that has stood since his father was president. But the move, by itself, will do nothing unless Congress acts as well.
ADVERTISEMENT
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by the first President Bush in 1990. The current 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 in a statement in the Rose Garden. "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."
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.
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.
"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."
Environmental groups, too, blasted Bush's move.
"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."
The president, in his final months of office, has turned to increased oil exploration among other options amid record gas-prices. None would have immediate impact on prices at the pump, according to White House officials, who say there is no quick fix. But starting action now would help, they say.
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," 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 have rejected the push to lift the drilling moratorium, accusing the president of hoping the U.S. can drill its way out a problem.
Bush says 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."
Do you even know anything about the oil in the U.S? we have more oil than most of the world!, yet we have NO! place to store it,and are just dumping it! Now when Bush can make a dime! he is all for it?
Quote: Do you even know anything about the oil in the U.S? we have more oil than most of the world!, yet we have NO! place to store it,and are just dumping it! Now when Bush can make a dime! he is all for it?
And why is that ol Wise One? Yes , we need more refinerys and Nuke power plants. Everytime someone mentions it the Dems start crying. Bush has been trying since he went into office to drill. Now when we are in the situation we are in now its the same ol crap from the Dems.
One question for you Shooty, and Ammo and Phil, and some of you others,
If we had started drilling 8 years ago, When Bush wanted to, and building Refinerys and Nuke Power plants. Would we be in better shape than we are now?
I'm not saying we should give up on other sources of power but I'm tired of the Arabs controlling our Econamy. If Obama and the rest of the Dems continue to run things , it will be more of the same.
Quote: I have posted that I support off shore drilling and disagreed with the Dems on this one before. Just an FYI.
This should really make Maxine Waters happy. When the democrats nationalize the oil industry (they just approved nationalizing the housing industry), it will mean more money into the coffers of the government to supply cash for welfare for more illegal immigrants who will themselves be given citizenship (and a voter card).
Quote: I have posted that I support off shore drilling and disagreed with the Dems on this one before. Just an FYI.
This should really make Maxine Waters happy. When the democrats nationalize the oil industry (they just approved nationalizing the housing industry), it will mean more money into the coffers of the government to supply cash for welfare for more illegal immigrants who will themselves be given citizenship (and a voter card).
Why don't they just take over everything and make us call eachother "Comrade"?
Quote: I have posted that I support off shore drilling and disagreed with the Dems on this one before. Just an FYI.
This should really make Maxine Waters happy. When the democrats nationalize the oil industry (they just approved nationalizing the housing industry), it will mean more money into the coffers of the government to supply cash for welfare for more illegal immigrants who will themselves be given citizenship (and a voter card).
Why don't they just take over everything and make us call eachother "Comrade"?
That's what they intend on doing. They are just doing it slowly.
I would support this if the oil is ONLY used for this country. Absolutely no export. But drilling alone will not solve this problem and if the market states that oil goes for 145 dollars a barrel, I would think that they would sale this oil for the same price. I would hope that more supply would drop the price, so why don't we release some oil from the strategic oil reserve right now; wouldn't that provide a small short term fix?
Robert F Kennedy was on CNN last week and he had some pretty stunning statements.
A) If we raise the CAFE standard 1 mile per gallon, it would save twice as much oil as we are able to drill on the continental shelf and ANWR.
B) If we raise the CAFE standard 7.6 miles per gallon, it would offset ALL of the oil we import from the whole Persian Gulf region.
C) We can do that in this country, too, using shifting to electricity and electricity gives us a lot more versatility, it allows us to harness wind. We have -- the Midwest this is the Saudi Arabia of wind. We have enough harnessable wind energy in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas combined to supply all the electrical needs of our country, even if every American were driving an electric car.
D) We have the "Scientific American" just published a report that shows in 19 percent of the most barren desert lands in the desert southwest, we have enough solar energy to provide all the electrical needs of our country.
Nice post. I'm for all this stuff including drilling. I think we all agree, well most of us agree that it is time to move away from oil as much as possible. I even heard of a guy in Cincinnati ( I know ) putting on a show for investers. He has a electric car that has a range of over a hundred miles and for trips hooks up to a Monorail. You key in your distination and it takes there or in the area at 100 mph. And while you are hooked to the rail you can nap, work on computer, play with Mama or whatever. It also charges your batterys so when you get to the area you can then drive to yourexact distination. Just something to think about. Bill Cuningham is all excited about it.
Quote: I would support this if the oil is ONLY used for this country. Absolutely no export. But drilling alone will not solve this problem and if the market states that oil goes for 145 dollars a barrel, I would think that they would sale this oil for the same price. I would hope that more supply would drop the price, so why don't we release some oil from the strategic oil reserve right now; wouldn't that provide a small short term fix?
Robert F Kennedy was on CNN last week and he had some pretty stunning statements.
A) If we raise the CAFE standard 1 mile per gallon, it would save twice as much oil as we are able to drill on the continental shelf and ANWR.
B) If we raise the CAFE standard 7.6 miles per gallon, it would offset ALL of the oil we import from the whole Persian Gulf region.
C) We can do that in this country, too, using shifting to electricity and electricity gives us a lot more versatility, it allows us to harness wind. We have -- the Midwest this is the Saudi Arabia of wind. We have enough harnessable wind energy in North Dakota, Kansas and Texas combined to supply all the electrical needs of our country, even if every American were driving an electric car.
D) We have the "Scientific American" just published a report that shows in 19 percent of the most barren desert lands in the desert southwest, we have enough solar energy to provide all the electrical needs of our country.
I think the perceived saving are in the fact that they are not buying oil on the market as they are doing now. Currently something like 70 or 80% of the oil used for US markets is purchased from outside sources.
If the refiners could provide their own oil, it lessens the cost of business, and will lower the world market price as well as demand decreases.
It's the same concept as a small company getting bigger and begins making some of their own parts in house rather than purchasing them fro outside sources, if done properly it can be a huge cost savings.
Now whether or not it works out this way is yet to be seen, but that is the fairy tale being presented.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Quote: One question for you Shooty, and Ammo and Phil, and some of you others,
If we had started drilling 8 years ago, When Bush wanted to, and building Refinerys and Nuke Power plants. Would we be in better shape than we are now?
I am a huge proponent of nuclear power.
As far as oil, in the course of this whole drama - and I'm not even talking recently, but going back to when people freaked at $2/gallon - I have never once heard a strong outcry for what needed to be said - stop driving so damn much and don't drive impractical cars.
Quote: When the democrats nationalize the oil industry (they just approved nationalizing the housing industry), it will mean more money into the coffers of the government to supply cash for welfare for more illegal immigrants who will themselves be given citizenship (and a voter card).
Congress is "nationalizing the housing industry"? I believe you have that backwards. It is The White House who is pushing this bail out. Where do you get your info? ___________________________________________________
Treasury Acts to Shore Up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
WASHINGTON — Alarmed by the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration on Sunday asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject billions of federal dollars into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.
You're already in a semi-Orwellian society brought on by this administration. And what choice do we have on immigration? Both candidates offer what you propose. Congress deserves its share of the blame here. But let's not pretend this bail out isn't sought by this administration. Because it is.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: Bush has been trying since he went into office to drill
I don't doubt that you may very well be right. But I can't seem to see one example of where "Bush pushed Congress on offshore drilling" before now. Do you have a link or something?
I mean, if he could do this now, why did he wait seven and a half years to do it?
I agree that offshore drilling is a very good thing. As long as the oil companies are held 100% liable for spills and or accidents. And that they be held on criminal charges for not cleaning up such situations in a timely manner.
But I just don't understand how one can say "He's been trying to do this since he got in office", when he has had the authority to do this very same thing from day 1?
See, here's the kind of thing that worries me.......................
Exxon Valdez Spill, 15 Years Later: Damage Lingers
Stefan Lovgren for National Geographic News
March 22, 2004
It was 9:12 p.m. on March 23, 1989, when the Exxon Valdez left the trans-Alaska pipeline terminal in Valdez, Alaska, carrying more than 53 million gallons (200 million liters) of crude oil bound for Long Beach, California.
It seemed like a routine run. Ships had safely transited through the area more than 8,700 times in the 12 years since oil began flowing through the pipeline
But this evening, the 986-foot (300-meter) Exxon Valdez encountered icebergs in the shipping lanes. Capt. Joe Hazelwood, who later admitted to having had several alcoholic drinks that day, ordered a helmsman to go around the icebergs. After leaving instructions on when to steer the ship back into the shipping lanes, Hazelwood retired to his quarters.
That was a terrible mistake. The helmsmen failed to make the turn back into the shipping lanes. Three hours after taking off, the ship ran aground on Bligh Reef, rupturing 8 of its 11 cargo tanks. The ship spewed some 11 million gallons (40 million liters) of crude oil into the pristine Prince William Sound, causing the biggest environmental disaster in United States history.
Fifteen years later, a visitor to the area will be hard pressed to find evidence—on the surface—of the oil that once soiled 1,400 miles (2,250 kilometers) of shoreline. The spill prompted a massive cleanup effort over four summers, involving at its peak some 10,000 workers, 1,000 boats, and 100 airplanes and helicopters.
The disaster directly led to the 1990 passing of the federal Oil Pollution Act, which seeks to diminish the environmental consequence of spills, and it prompted essential changes in industry safety standards and emergency-response planning.
"As the most studied oil spill in history, it has become a blueprint for how we're going to look at spills in the future," said Jeep Rice, who supervises the habitat and Exxon Valdez oil spill studies at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminstration's Auke Bay Laboratory in Alaska.
There's a lot more to the article, but I believe you can see where my concerns lie. Once again, just say "drill" doesn't really cover all the bases. Done responsibly, it makes a lot of sense IMO
Last edited by PitDAWG; 07/15/0803:59 PM.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Quote: Congress is "nationalizing the housing industry"? I believe you have that backwards. It is The White House who is pushing this bail out. Where do you get your info?
Only Congress can make that move. Bush and the Fed can ask, but they can't do squat about it.
Congress approved the nationalization of the housing industry. It's something they want anyway. They want to establish their little fiefdoms in the states they pretend to represent and let their serfs toil away to pay for their largess.
Quote: But let's not pretend this bail out isn't sought by this administration. Because it is.
I'm not pretending anything. I have repeatedly stated that I don't like Bush and his domestic policies.
Quote: Do you even know anything about the oil in the U.S? we have more oil than most of the world!, yet we have NO! place to store it,and are just dumping it! Now when Bush can make a dime! he is all for it?
And why is that ol Wise One? Yes , we need more refinerys and Nuke power plants. Everytime someone mentions it the Dems start crying. Bush has been trying since he went into office to drill. Now when we are in the situation we are in now its the same ol crap from the Dems.
One question for you Shooty, and Ammo and Phil, and some of you others,
If we had started drilling 8 years ago, When Bush wanted to, and building Refinerys and Nuke Power plants. Would we be in better shape than we are now?
I'm not saying we should give up on other sources of power but I'm tired of the Arabs controlling our Econamy. If Obama and the rest of the Dems continue to run things , it will be more of the same.
Ya know, I'm getting tired of being lumped in the "Democrat" crowd when in reality I think both parties are Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber...I just think the Republicans are Tweedledumber.
And before you think I support the Dems on this topic, i sure as hell don't. I want cheaper gas, I want nuclear power, etc.
But I do think it's important that every dollar we spend drilling, we spend $2 for alternative fuels.
I agree Pit that there is some danger in offshore drilling, Nuke power and in fact there is some danger in almost everything. But tell me who ever got anything done sitting around crying about what might happen.
And about Bush and the Repubs having the ability to start drilling at any time is not true and you know it. Bush can lift the Ex ban but he can't lift the Congressional ban. I think it takes 60 votes to do that or we would be drilling and building right now.
Quote: I agree Pit that there is some danger in offshore drilling, Nuke power and in fact there is some danger in almost everything. But tell me who ever got anything done sitting around crying about what might happen.
I agree with you 100%. I'm all for offshore drilling. But as I posted and as was seen with the Exon Valdez, at the same time, I believe the oil companies must be held accountable for quickly and safely cleaning up any "oil accidents" in order to keep our waters and shorelines clean and safe in return for being able to drill offshore.
But I'm all for both drilling off shore, nuclear power and investing in alternative fuels. I believe every available resource we have will help lessen dependancy on foreign oil.
But how many electric companies "use oil"? I mean wind and nuclear power are wonderfull things. And I do think they are necassary parts of our future energy plans. But nuclear power, and wind, as best as I know, would be used for electric power.
I don't really see either power source as "lessening our dependancy on foreign oil", since most of our electric is hydro and coal. I support using it but feel it will have basicly zero effect on oil consumption. It would take electric cars or possibly even natural gas vehicles to do that IMO
Quote:
And about Bush and the Repubs having the ability to start drilling at any time is not true and you know it. Bush can lift the Ex ban but he can't lift the Congressional ban. I think it takes 60 votes to do that or we would be drilling and building right now.
Yes, I most certainly do know that. But that brings me back to my question.
Bush has had the power to lift this "presidential moritorium" since he first came into office. From day 1. Your assertion was that Bush has been trying to drill since he took office.
I think we both know, that by lifting this "presidential moritorium" it does apply the pressure for Congress to act, one way or the other. It puts the ball in their court.
My question was, why, since this action does force the hand of Congress, has Bush waited for over seven and a half years to do this, when he could have done this from the very beginning?
IMO- If he "seriously wished to push offshore drilling since the very beginning of his administration", he would have done this seven and a half years ago.
And, why did he wait untill after it was a "Democratic majority" Congress to do it? He had six years with a GOP majority in Congress and did not do it.
I'm very glad he did it and I hope he succeeds. But I find it hard to believe he considered it much of a priority "from the beginning" since it took him over seven and a half years as president before taking such an action.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I did find something I found to be quite interesting. There is a Texas oil tycoon by the name of T. Bone Pickens, who has invested in a 4000 acre wind farm.
He has a plan to help ease foreign oil dependecy by about 300 billion dollars annualy. It's a pretty interesting concept that I found quite informative watching and thought I would provide the link for anyone interested in seeing it.
Heck, I'd go.
