Bush Urges Congress to Lift Offshore Drilling Ban

Bush Urges Congress to Lift Offshore Drilling Ban

www.foxnews.com

WASHINGTON — President Bush put his weight behind a move underfoot in Congress Wednesday to lift a 27-year-old ban on oil exploration off U.S. shores as gasoline prices reach ever higher, and he cast blame on Democrats for Americans' pain at the pump in an election year that is focusing more heavily on economic issues.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Some interesting aspects to this story, if only as another example of the political doublespeak we get fed daily.

But Democrats are pointing to 68 million acres of fedederal land, to which they say oil companies hold leases allowing them to explore but are going unused.

"This should not be an attempt to get the goods through customs ... scaring people into offering more leases, more drilling opportunities, when they own 68 million acres, 14 years worth of supply, and are not drilling today," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said Wednesday. It is a sentiment Democrats have voiced repeatedly in recent days.

This is one thing I've been hearing recently - the major oil companies already hold 68 million acres of oil leases with as much potential as ANWR and refuse to drill them. They also refuse to release them so that small operators could go after the oil.

But they're not just going after ANWR, they also want the 574 million acres of coastal areas. Those areas hold less than 3 years supply of oil and natural gas.

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.

And why are these areas off limits to drilling at the moment? Those pesky Democrats? Nope.

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.

But it must have been the Democrats that banned drilling in the first place, right? Sorry, wrong again...

Congress imposed the drilling moratorium in 1981 and has extended it each year since, by prohibiting the Interior Department from spending money on offshore oil or gas leases in virtually all coastal waters outside the western Gulf of Mexico and in some areas off Alaska.

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.

The ban was introduced under a Republican President and a Republican controlled Senate, then an additional executive ban was made by George Bush Senior, carried on by Clinton and again extended by George Bush Jr.

huh... learn something new every day.

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I thought that Bush Sr said no to offshore drilling only, and Clinton said no to ANWR?

Either way, they should drill. Obama was complaining that it wouldn't help for five years, but the longer we wait, the longer we will have to depend on foreign oil.

Why won't they drill the leases they've got though? The exploration's all been done and the permits have all been issued, this is land that's set aside especially for the oil companies and nobody objects to them drilling there. 14 years supply of oil right there vs. 3 years off shore.

I don't think the history dating back to 1981 is the "republican slam piece" that it would indicate. Realistically, it made sense to save our resources for a rainy day during that timeframe. The rainy day is NOW and it's time to use what we have to ease the strain on the average American citizen.

Ok, I can see that things are different now and something needs to be done. Doesn't anybody have an answer as to why the oil companies won't drill the land they're already sitting on though?

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe


i think there is a lag time in getting the offshore rigs built for each unique drill site.
the leases on the tracts were bid and paid for, yes...
but theres a long list of infrastructure needs to be put in place first.


McCain should be emphasizing that this proposal by the outgoing Bush
could very well become a much needed jobs package for the ailing economy...but immediate lifting of the ban will be necessary if the resulting jobs are to be had in the next year or two...

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Ok, I can see that things are different now and something needs to be done. Doesn't anybody have an answer as to why the oil companies won't drill the land they're already sitting on though?

Maybe they are still legally barred from exploiting their leases. Then again, if you're an oil company, why go to all the trouble of drilling when you can just sit back and rake in $35 billion in profits by doing basically nothing?

reply to post by centurion1211


Yep, that would be my thought too. They have no incentive to drill the leases they already have, because their current wells are earning 400% more than a few years ago and the oil is just gaining value by staying in the ground. So what will change if we give them permits to drill off shore and in ANWR? Nothing except they'll then have 100% of our oil reserves locked up.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Maybe they are still legally barred from exploiting their leases.

No, they have all the rights to the oil and can go get it anytime. It's Federal Land managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

Originally posted by St Udio

i think there is a lag time in getting the offshore rigs built for each unique drill site.
the leases on the tracts were bid and paid for, yes...
but theres a long list of infrastructure needs to be put in place first.

They've had these leases for years and haven't done a thing about putting any infrastructure in place. Why should we give these corporations another 574 million acres and the arctic national wildlife reserve?

Bush should Marry an oil bunker. So he can HAVE his oil. Live together happily ever after.

Somebody give him an oil bunker. So he will actually be quiet for the rest of his life.


So we can fix the the world economy and get on with putting the pieces back together. Finding a solution the the worlds energies needs. Everytime Bush is in the news, its about oil, my oil, we need oil, I love oil. Even when hes not talking about oil its oil. When hes talking about the war on "terrorism" its about oil.

reply to post by centurion1211


I'd imagine that there are also many areas where they may have the lease to drill, but drilling simply isn't financially viable for whatever reason. Obviously, they're not going to bother if they're not going to make any money off of it.

Bush and his group of corrupted oilmen are getting away with what has been a very well planned and manipulated way to get what they been wanting to do for years.

Bush will handle then the goodies on a silver platter to his oil corrupted cronies before leaving the white house.

Since Bush has been president he has created an oil crisis allowing no control for oil prices in this nation, a nation that is an oil producing country after all, but no help for the regular citizens but to help the already wealthy oil barons get more wealth.

Now people has been geared to be to the point that they will not complain if the oil barons comes to their back yard and start drilling.

This is the most deceiving and corrupted administration this country have ever seen.

And people will still believe anything this corrupted oil man will tell them.

Wake up America we will pay for all this drilling and still it will be not chance in hell that we are to get any benefits on the oil prices.



[edit on 18-6-2008 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


Bush and his clan to be brought to justice. I'm not even asking the question anymore.

They should be sentence to life on another planet if you know what I mean.. to many died under this administration. If they made the decision to kill saddam for pretty much the same reasons. Why can't they have the same faith.

These people should be erradicated out of society. NOW.

reply to post by mind is the universe


But as usual he is untouchable because we has become a population of compliant, lazy, trusty and gullible people.

Anybody that has followed the Bush administration can tell that he is cashing out before leaving the white house for a life of wealth for himself and his cronies.

The drilling cost will be pass to the tax payer in this nation and we even will pay for the lost of the oil barons if they happen to drill on empty spaces.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe


Some interesting aspects to this story, if only as another example of the political doublespeak we get fed daily.

But Democrats are pointing to 68 million acres of fedederal land, to which they say oil companies hold leases allowing them to explore but are going unused.

"This should not be an attempt to get the goods through customs ... scaring people into offering more leases, more drilling opportunities, when they own 68 million acres, 14 years worth of supply, and are not drilling today," Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said Wednesday. It is a sentiment Democrats have voiced repeatedly in recent days.

This is one thing I've been hearing recently - the major oil companies already hold 68 million acres of oil leases with as much potential as ANWR and refuse to drill them. They also refuse to release them so that small operators could go after the oil.

Repeating a lie often enough does not make it the truth. Just because they have land leased doesn't mean it will produce a drop of oil. If it did, they would still have to fight the enviro-whackos, and the courts to drill for oil on land they already have leased.

Then they can just give it back then huh? There's no oil there just environmentalists, so I'll take the leases thank you.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

They've had these leases for years and haven't done a thing about putting any infrastructure in place.

Drilling cost money, and this oil barons are not going to lose a penny of their outrageous profits to drill.

They are waiting for bush to ome with a budget to pay for the drilling with tax payer money.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by marg6043]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Doesn't anybody have an answer as to why the oil companies won't drill the land they're already sitting on though?

First of all, I have not seen any official documents stating that the oil companies have leases.
Secondly, the article stated that it's only leases to explore. Why spend all the money on exploration when you will not be allowed to drill and make money from the oil.