BF2S Forums Bush lifts offshore drilling ban...

CameronPoe wrote:

What's the big deal about tapping your natural resources?

breibert.com wrote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will 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.

The president plans to officially lift the ban and then explain his actions in a Rose Garden statement, White House press secretary Dana Perino said.

There are two prohibitions on offshore drilling, one imposed by Congress and another by executive order signed by former 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.

But Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress, noting that no action has been taken on this issue.

"They haven't even held a single hearing," Perino said. "So we are going to move forward, and hopefully that will spur action by the Congress."

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

The president, in his final months of office, has responded to record gas-prices with a series of proposals, including more oil exploration. 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 Continental Shelf for exploration.

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.

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.

Last edited by (T)eflon(S)hadow (2008-07-14 10:30:32)

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

no it will allow the drillers and producers to submit licenses for drilling in areas covered by the ban. Im not 100% sure of where this applies ( atlantic, pacific  or Gulf coasts)

God Save the Queen wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

no it will allow the drillers and producers to submit licenses for drilling in areas covered by the ban. Im not 100% sure of where this applies ( atlantic, pacific  or Gulf coasts)

why dont they drill on untapped oil deposits they already own?

CameronPoe wrote:

I hate to break it to you guys but it ain't going to make a shit of a difference - from the Energy Information Administration branch of the US government:

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.  Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case.  Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

Kmarion wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

no it will allow the drillers and producers to submit licenses for drilling in areas covered by the ban. Im not 100% sure of where this applies ( atlantic, pacific  or Gulf coasts)

why dont they drill on untapped oil deposits they already own?

More refineries are needed also.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I hate to break it to you guys but it ain't going to make a shit of a difference - from the Energy Information Administration branch of the US government:

"With respect to the world oil price impact, projected ANWR oil production constitutes between 0.4 and 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption in 2030, based on the low and high resource cases, respectively. Consequently, ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices.  Relative to the AEO2008 reference case, ANWR oil production is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light (LSL) crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 in the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 in the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the high oil resource case.  Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount."

Then there will be someone to blame other than the elusive speculators won't there? As it is OPEC can claim no responsibility for the prices, they are operating normally, but if they undercut measures taken to ease the burden, they will be baring their asses.

God Save the Queen wrote:

I heard different

CameronPoe wrote:

What's the big deal about tapping your natural resources?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

not a rebuttal.  Im not trying to argue.  Im not debating.  If I had known more about it, I would have said it.  I dont.  Im not going to go google surfing just so i could post something that will make it seem like I know what Im talking about.  I asked questions.

edit: fuck you.

Oil future contracts can be bought relatively cheap due to the weak dollar. There is not a shortage of oil now... there is not a need to drill now. One way to curve the rush to get these contracts is to require a greater initial investment into the contract. Oil prices are driven largely by what might happen. Does that make sense?

Not to mention that drilling now wouldn't really ease prices right now, and it's speculation at best as to what (if any) effect that would have on our (US) gas prices.  Either way you have to make an investment for the future - do you want to focus on offshore drilling and increased production of oil, do you want to funnel money to energy alternatives, or should we do both?  Personally, I don't see any major tangible effect on lifting the offshore ban;  it's more of a move to ease public perception and opinion. 

I would rather see concrete, tangible examples of our government's commitment to alternative fuel and energy supplies.