Bush approves offshore drilling to spur on Congress
There has been a US ban on offshore oil drilling for the past 27 years, and George Bush Sr. signed off on an executive order echoing the ban in 1990. Originally, the ban was agreed upon to protect the beaches and tourism economies of coastal towns, and now global warming has been added into the mix. With one stroke of the mighty pen, George Jr. has undone his father's order by lifting the ban on offshore drilling, but the move means nothing unless Congress also lifts its separate ban. The Bush Administration is trying to put pressure on Congress to throw out its ban, but so far the Democrat-controlled Congress isn't budging. Sen. Barbara Boxer called the move "something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States."
President Bush has made no bones about his desire to drill for the billions of barrels of oil believed to be hidden beneath our coastlines, and with gas prices at $4.25 per gallon, much of America is on his side. The price of gas is now right up there with the war in Iraq and the economy as the top concern of Americans, so the Congress could be in a similar spot as the Republican controlled Congress was when it backed the Iraq war back in 2006. Many non-coastal Americans are more concerned about being able to afford fuel than they are about terrific views off the coast of Maine or beaches in south Florida. Instead our environment will have to be the rationale for Congress to uphold the ban. Will the Congress bow to public and political pressure and allow drilling, or will they risk re-election and do the right thing for the environment? Only time will tell.
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Hank 8:53AM (7/15/2008)
You'd think after all these years people would realize that it's George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush, no Sr. and no Jr.
That said, Congress isn't going to budge before the election, and it's unlikely either of the candidates will either.
Reply
phil 9:18AM (7/15/2008)
Cars are hard to push, Airplanes even harder.
Reply
Keith_Indy 9:33AM (7/15/2008)
"the ban was agreed upon to protect the beaches and tourism economies of coastal towns"
And now with the price of gas going up, the tourist economy is probably drying up as well.
I say put an additional tax on oil as it's coming out of the ground, say 10%. That would go into a cleanup fund, and 1/2 would be rebated if the oil was sold into the American market.
Reply
tankd0g 3:41PM (7/15/2008)
Most of it isn't coming out of your ground so you won't be getting any of that tax money. Tax it at the pump makes a little more sense, but oh no the voters won't stand for that it would be political suicide. Stick to pissing money away in Iraq and killing thousands, those are the safe bets in US politics.
Joce03 4:10PM (7/15/2008)
Actually, I live in Prince Edward Island (Canada), a province that lives on tourism (and potatoes....) and, surprisingly, tourism is doing well. It seems that people are staying closer to home - like staying in N. America rather than going across the "Pond".
david burgdorff 9:24AM (7/15/2008)
McCain supports offshore drilling but wants to give the states veto power over drilling off their coast. Since the federal government is willing to share 39% of royalties with each state there is a powerful incentive to allow drilling.
Reply
hodad66 9:31AM (7/15/2008)
If you don't live on the coast... what do ya care?
I live on the coast, I care, I know that we COULD have had the answers but for the intrusion of Big Oil into politics and innovation.
Carter set the goals... Ronny erased them...
Imagine 30 years wasted
Reply
Wise Golden 9:51AM (7/15/2008)
hodad66 said...
If you don't live on the coast... what do ya care?
That’s like saying, “if you don’t have cancer, why should you care about cancer research?”
It’s like saying, “if you have a job, why should you care about unemployment?”
I do care. I also live on a coast and I say drill and do it safely.
James bowe 10:13AM (7/15/2008)
he was being sarcastic wise. The one thing your posts are right about is that this has nothing to do with the price of gas. We won't pull enough oil out of there to significantly increase supply, and the price won't budge.
Wise Golden 9:43AM (7/15/2008)
Off shore drilling on the OCS would be performed at least 100 miles off shore and therefore, views of the rigs are not at all the issue of coastal Americans. Rather, some fear oil spills that might damage beaches.
But if we allow statistics and facts to shape our opinion, as opposed to fears and emotions, we learn several things about drilling in deep water.
1. Many countries that are more environmentally focused than the US have drilled offshore for decades without incident.
2. The newest technologies are even safer.
3. Oil spills from transporting oil are far more likely than oil spills from a drill rig.
4. Small oil leaks from ships and personal boats are, collectively, far more of a problem than the spills that have occurred as a result of drilling.
I don’t think this has anything to do with the price of gasoline as many people keep saying. I think it has everything to do with energy security and creating jobs. Failing to allow America to harvest it’s resources in favor of using imported resources causes me to believe that the Democrats are supporting the interest of a different group, most notably the organization OPEC, which contributes mightily to the Democrats.
A more valid argument would be that we should find an alternative to oil, and you’ll find little resistance to the truth of that statement, but again, facts outweigh emotion on this as well. Oil can be reduced most quickly through conservation, but long term, sizable reductions are not yet foreseen. Rather, our use of oil will likely stabilize about where it is now for quite some time (several decades) while conservation is consumed by growth in population. Eventually, real alternatives will come on line, but not as rapidly as any here would like. Those alternatives, like Ethanol will be vilanized by the same environmentalist and Democrats that are getting paychecks from OPEC now. Massive solar projects in California are being stopped by environmentalist right now. Massive offshore wind projects are being stopped, again by environmentalist who aim to see a weakened America.
The oil is ours and we will need it for a while yet to come. The interruption of our oil supply should be the largest fear of Americans at this time as it is a real possibility and the ramifications of such would ripple through our economy like a tsunami.
Reply
James bowe 10:13AM (7/15/2008)
OPEC contributes mightily to the democrats? Funny, because Republicans are generally much tighter with the oil industry. I know Bush has some Saudi friends in high places who contribute money to him. Why don't you break down the numbers for us and show us just how mighty OPEC's democratic support is? And presumably how measly their support of Republicans is as well.
BlackbirdHighway 10:10AM (7/15/2008)
I'm not buying what you are saying one bit.
The Liberals/Environmentalists have been pushing for higher taxes on oil and and gasoline, and higher CAFE standards for decades. That serves to reduce demand, which directly reduces OPEC revenue. The reduced demand also lowers the price of oil, further reducing OPEC revenue.
It wasn't the Liberals/Environmentalists who thought it was a good idea to give tax breaks to people who buy 6000 pound vehicles. That burns me up every time I think about it. Talk about redistribution of wealth! My government should not take my tax dollars from me, by force if necessary, and give them to someone else, just because they want to buy a "cool" vehicle. Where were the freepers to call out on this! If folks want to buy a Hummer with their own cash, that's there business, but I shouldn't have to subsidize them!
It also wasn't the Liberals/Environmentalists that wanted to go to war in Iraq. Saddam wasn't a good guy by any means, but Iraq pumped a lot more oil then than it does now. The war also uses up 1 billion gallons of fuel a year to power the military, further contributing to the oil crisis we are in right now.
Finally, the Liberals/Environmentalists have been pushing for incentives for alternatives like hybrids and electric vehicles for decades. Instead, most of the incentive money goes to the oil and nuclear industries.
Trying to blame liberals and environmentalists for the oil crisis is totally, completely contrary to the facts.
GoodCheer 10:21AM (7/15/2008)
"Off shore drilling on the OCS would be performed at least 100 miles off shore"
WiseGolden, what is the basis for this statement? I know there are oil rigs 3 miles off the coast of CA (3 miles is the limit of State controlled water).
They can be seen here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=34.369086,-119.574509&spn=0.090825,0.176468&t=h&z=13
BlackbirdHighway 10:21AM (7/15/2008)
I almost forgot, it wasn't Liberals or Environmentalists who removed all government oversight on oil speculators either!
Wise Golden 10:39AM (7/15/2008)
Where do I get my tax credit for the 6000 lb vehicle? It doesn’t exist. Rather, tax credits exist for small hybrids and were approved by both Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly not liberals alone. The creation of our alternative fuels were approved by Democrats and Republicans together, not liberals alone. The higher CAFÉ standards were approved by both Democrats, and Republicans alike. The Energy acts of 2005, and later, the energy act of 2007 were approved by Democrats and Republicans, overwhelmingly, and both acts were approved by President Bush.
This is not about liberal vs. conservative. This is about facts vs. emotions, and statistics vs. fears.
I’m not trying to blame liberals or Democrats for the energy problems that we face today, but rather, I’m pointing out that the next most logical step that we can take to improve the situation is currently being blocked by the Democrats. I’ll say this, the Republicans were originally opposed to raising CAFÉ, but they stepped away from the emotion and they made the right decision to support the CAFÉ standards – they changed their position to support what they came to realize was in the best interest of the country. The Republicans have shown great willingness to compromise towards a solution, and in fact have compromised repeatedly (even while in control of the Congress), but the Democrats have resorted to name calling and subterfuge tactics on the issue of drilling and are steadfastly and stubbornly allowing our progress to stall.
My statement stands – the Democrats are not representing our collective best interest on this issue.
Wise Golden 11:12AM (7/15/2008)
GoodCheer said...
"Off shore drilling on the OCS would be performed at least 100 miles off shore"
WiseGolden, what is the basis for this statement? I know there are oil rigs 3 miles off the coast of CA (3 miles is the limit of State controlled water).
From the Energy Information Center of the United States Government. The OCS is defined as "The U.S. Outer Continental Shelf consists of the submerged lands, subsoil, and seabed in a specified zone up to 200 nautical miles or more offshore from U.S. coasts."
tankd0g 3:43PM (7/15/2008)
While I agree it is lunacy to leave any significant quantity of it in the ground why buying it from foreign suppliers, to basically hand it over to corporations for free just so they can sell it back to you at a hugely inflated price, that's just as bad. It's what Bush promised his campaign contributors and it's what he's delivering before he has to leave.
Serge 9:46AM (7/15/2008)
Federal Offshore Areas in which drilling is prohibited contain an estimated 21% of all undiscovered conventionally recoverable oil. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/analysis_publications/ngmajorleg/moratorium.html
Why not focus on drilling in open areas, which hold an estimated 79% 75 billion barrels of oil (BBO)?
Reply
BlackbirdHighway 9:46AM (7/15/2008)
We will probably need to drill in these areas eventually, but first we need to develop alternatives to oil.
Every time we need more oil, we drill more. When the last oil is pumped out, then what do we do? If the only answer we have is to keep drilling then I say no.
If we have a plan in place to get us off our oil addiction, and we just need a bit more oil to get us through the transition, then ok.
Currently, we have no plan, so there is no transition, there is just keep on drilling, keep on burning that gasoline. Same old, same old. That's unacceptable.
Reply
MikeInNC 9:50AM (7/15/2008)
re: WiseGolden: Excellent post.
Reply