Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 17 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Bush looks offshore for remedy to high oil prices
Published Wednesday, June 18, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) — A House panel put off a vote Wednesday on extending Congress' ban on offshore drilling, even as President Bush was poised to publicly renew his call for lawmakers to open U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas development.
Drilling for oil and gas off nearly all the American coastline has been banned over the past quarter-century, in part to protect tourism and to lessen the chances of beach-blackening spills. Now, $4-a-gallon gasoline prices are a part of people's daily lives and motorists are clamoring for something to be done about the record price of oil, much of it produced in foreign countries.
In response, Bush was to call again Wednesday for exploration, arguing that it's high time to battle high prices with increased domestic production. He planned to ask Congress to lift the drilling moratoria that have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80 percent of the country's Outer Continental Shelf and to let states help to decide where to allow drilling.
"The president believes Congress shouldn't waste any more time," White House press secretary Dana Perino told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "He will explicitly call on Congress to ... pass legislation lifting the congressional ban on safe, environmentally friendly offshore oil drilling."
Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said that Bush will lift a parallel executive order banning offshore drilling if Congress does likewise with the law. Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Hennessey said: "He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it tandem."
Bush, in a Rose Garden statement, will also call on Congress to make it easier for oil refineries to be expanded.
Even a quick change in law is expected to have no immediate effect on oil supply. The impact, Hennessey said, "is definitely measured in years." But he said that allowing a greater oil supply in future years could trigger the market to use more supply now and reduce the price of oil.
For their part, some lawmakers had their own plan: Legislation that would continue the ban into late 2009, and which had been scheduled to be considered Wednesday by the House Appropriations Committee. But the session was postponed because the committee was focusing on disaster relief measures involving the Midwest flooding.
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 for 27 years.
On Monday, GOP presidential candidate John McCain made lifting the federal ban on offshore oil and gas development a key part of his energy plan. McCain said states should be allowed to pursue energy exploration in waters near their coasts and get some of the royalty revenue.
Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling and says that allowing exploration now wouldn't affect gasoline prices for at least five years.
McCain called for reform of the laws governing the oil futures trading market, and drew a standing ovation from his audience Wednesday when he repeated his day-old support for an end to the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling. He favors allowing states to decide whether to explore offshore waters.
That drew a rebuttal from Obama, who said his opponent had switched positions from when he first ran for president in 2000. "I think he continues to find himself being pushed further and further to the right in ways that in my mind don't show a lot of leadership," he said.
Obama also said there is "no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, energy secretary during the Clinton administration, called it "another bad idea."
"It's going to take 10 years to fully get that oil out of the ocean. It's a fragile ecosystem," he said on CBS's "The Early Show."
"You know this president, all he wants to do is drill, drill, drill. There is very little on conservation, on fuel efficiency for vehicles. Just last week the Congress failed to pass a solar tax credit — give more incentives to renewable energy, solar and wind. A one track mind — drill drill drill — that's not going to work," Richardson said.
The 574 million acres of federal coastal water that are off-limits are believed to hold nearly 18 billion barrels of undiscovered, recoverable oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the Interior Department. The country each year uses about 7.6 billion barrels of oil and 21 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
In another development, Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida has dropped his long-standing support for the federal government's moratorium on offshore drilling and endorsed McCain's proposal to let states decide for themselves.
When Republicans held the majority, the House twice voted to lift the ban, only to have the legislation die in the Senate. The Senate last month by a 56-42 vote rejected a GOP energy plan that would have allowed states to avoid the federal ban if they wanted energy development off their coast.
Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, issued a parallel executive drilling ban in 1990, which was extended by President Clinton and then by the current president until 2012.
Comments
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
President Bush environment & energy accomplishments: 1, Killed the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty . 2.Submitted a comprehensive Energy Plan. The plan works to develop cleaner technology,produce more natural gas here at home,make America less dependent on foreign sources of energy, improve national grid,etc. 3.Established a $10 million grant program to promote private conservation initiatives. 4.Significantly eased field-testing controls of genetically engineered crops. 5.Changed parts of the Forestry Management Act to allow necessary cleanup of the national forest in order to reduce fire danger. 6.Parts of the national forest cleanup: Restricted judical challenges (based on the Endanged Species Act and other challenges), and removed the need for an Enviromental Impact Statement before removing fuels/logging to reduce fire danger. 7.Killed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off all the electricity surplus to California . 8.Provided matching grants for state programs that help private landowners protect rare species. Now what has your Democratic Congress done for us ?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 12:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
belle, parts 2, 3, 6, and 8 are all part of the plan that came out of Kyoto. Parts 2,3 6, and 8 all work to serve interests expressed by extremists in the Democrat party. GW fully supports Kyoto and has said so, he only wants China to be held to the same emission standards as the US.
Bush's dad signed the Rio Accords. GW just signed the LOST Treaty. I find it very interesting that we consider drilling again now that LOST has been revived and if signed a claim on 7 percent of the revenue can be made by the UN Authority set up by LOST.
The Bush administration has tripled the size of government and spent more in 8 years than all, that means from George Washingtion to Bill Clinton, previous administrations combined.
Under the Bush administration we have seen the establishment of free speech zones; speech is not free everywhere, only in certain zones where it can't be heard. We have seen the recent approval of sonar-radar scanners for 214 airports that see through clothing and give a full color picture of the naked body beneath with plans to put these scanners in schools. We have seen the establishment of checkpoints on public highways; families trying to enjoy the beach at Galveston who must cross the ferry find themselves in four mile long lines with 2 hour waits. When they finally arrive in sight of the ferry they are given either a cursory search of their vehicle in line one, or directed to line two where they must remove all items from their vehicle and stand in a line while minimum wage TSA agents go through their belongings. We have seen the militarization of domestic police, and an overwhelming support for private security forces and private armies.
But don't take me to be supporting this or any other Democratic Congress. I don't support either side. What we have are two parties dividing the people, two parties both working to make the president's power supreme over the other two branches of government and working to destroy national sovereignty.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 12:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here, belle, read this and ponder how many political parties we actually have in this country:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/...
Why do two supposedly opposing parties support the same treaty that spells drastic change overseen by the UN?
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If california and Alaska are against us drilling there then solution would be to cut them off anything that oil is used for they have no rights to....Let them fend for themselves..Why should they benefit from oil that is drilled elsewhere?
Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 2:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A couple of facts from a news article regarding the current GOP "Let's drill off-shore for oil" chant:
"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 said offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time.
There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by Bush's father in 1990. Bush's brother, Jeb, fiercely opposed offshore drilling when he was governor of Florida. What the president now proposes would rescind his father's decision — but the president took the position that Congress has to act first and then he would follow behind.
Asked why Bush doesn't act first and lift the ban, Keith Hennessey, the director of the president's economic council, said: "He thinks that probably the most productive way to work with this Congress is to try to do it in tandem."
Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed."
Posted by ProNatchez (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I keep hearing the statement that "It will take years to bring the new oil online." This is used by those who don't want to go get this oil. So, in ten years we will still be using this excuse? It's a lame excuse. Yes, it will take some time to get that oil flowing, so let's get it in gear. What are we waiting for?
Posted by bombingeight (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
68 million acres off-shore already under lease...It seems that the oil producers were waiting for $100 - nope, maybe $150 per barrel price before drilling.
Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 6:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm with Newt.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3687...
The Saudis are not the problem. But Newt is right that it is very unbecoming of us to beg the Saudis to increase their production.
Marc ...in Arabia
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 10:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AMEN BLACKWOOD!!!!!
Posted by greenupnatchez (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 11:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem is simply oil is running out. There is only a limited supply. Americans are selfish and spoiled. We can't give up our gas guzzlers which the auto companies have shoved down our throats and we can't give up our cheap gasoline because of the same. The sad thing is that we can't think past tomorrow and get prepared for it.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on June 18, 2008 at 11:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
greenup you are very naive. You are also very well indoctrinated. Why should Americans be any more selfish or greedy than any other people? Is this a multi-racial gene affecting people from all over the world who happen to live in this country?
Have you been reading My Weekly Reader? Your comments seem to reflect what that worthy rag has been printing since 1968.
Automobiles developed so people could save time getting from one place to another to tend to the things they needed to do in other places. If you spend the majority of your time getting to another place you have that much less time to do whatever you went there to do.
Posted by DUCKHUNTER (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 2:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You people and your naive ways. You can rent all the underocean acreage you want to, but just b/c it falls into the 68 million zone doesn't mean it has oil beneath it. One more thing it's not the amount of oil that we "don't" have; it's the amount of refineries that we "don't" have.
Posted by OldGrandDad (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 3:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DUCKHUNTER, how does that explain the soaring fuel costs around the world? Is the US refining for the world fuel markets?
Posted by sparky018 (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 3:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If there is a way for fuel costs to go down and the US to produce its own oil then why have we not started this years ago? My dad always wants things done yesterday. I am like my dad on this part, why was this drilling on the coast not started yesterday? It might take some years to see the outcome but you know what, It cannot hurt. At least my kids might have a chance to see gas prices back down to $3.00 a gallon. I already live paycheck to paycheck so i am not concerned about myself anymore. I want whats best for my child in the future. Lets get it started for the future!!!!
Posted by blackwood (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe environmental vs tourism/beach concerns were the main reasons most of our own offshore drilling was banned. Nowadays, drilling is very environmentally safe with much self and governmental regulations. No company wants to pay out billions for a cleanup and most of the guys working the rigs take their families to the beach just like everyone else. It can and is done cleanly. Most of the spills I hear about are from the tankers.
Marc
Posted by sparky018 (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 5:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you blackwood. I am a driller on a land drilling rig. Most of the spills you hear about now days are from the tankers. I know when I am on the rig almost every day the Mississippi Oil and Gas Board shows up on my rig to look around for spills. They are very strict about that. Any little spill and it could cost thousands if not millions.
Posted by southernbelle (anonymous) on June 19, 2008 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama really shouldn't say anything about the way somebody viewed this world in the year 2000 . I believe there are some things in his past that he says has changed . Quite a few things if I recall correctly . We need help from our government right now and in the future to get these oil prices down . Congress is wasting precious time on this issue . I don't think they care what the American people want . Most of them think most of us are too ignorant to know what is best for ourselves .
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)