Bush to Congress: Embrace energy exploration now

With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a statement in the Rose Garden. With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. His proposal echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration

"Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response," Bush said.

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.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's proposals "another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry â?? give away more public resources."

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades.

"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular," said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a "cynical campaign ploy" that won't help lower energy prices.

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

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 â?? 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."

Before Bush spoke, the House Appropriations Committee postponed a vote it had scheduled for Wednesday on legislation doing the opposite of what the president asked â?? extending Congress' ban on offshore drilling. Lawmakers said they wanted to focus on a disaster relief bill for the battered Midwest.

Bush also 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.

With Americans deeply pessimistic about the economy, Bush tried to put on the onus on Congress. He acknowledged that his new proposals would take years to have a full effect, hardly the type of news that will help drivers at the gas stations now. The White House says no quick fix exists.

Still, Bush said Congress was obstructing progress â?? and directly contributing to consumers' pain at the pump.

"I know the Democratic leaders have opposed some of these policies in the past," Bush said. "Now that their opposition has helped drive gas prices to record levels, I ask them to reconsider their positions."

Bush said that if congressional leaders head home for their July 4 recess without taking action, they will need to explain why "$4 a gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act. And Americans will rightly ask how high gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something about it."

Bush said restrictions on offshore drilling have become "outdated and counterproductive."

In a nod to the environmental arguments against drilling, Bush said technology has come a long way. These days, he said, oil exploration off the coastline can be done in a way that "is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills."
Bush to Congress: Embrace energy exploration now - Yahoo! News

Obama and crew are against this and nuclear energy. So how many windmills and solar panels will it take to ease the drain on our wallets?

Do what we need to do today and plan for the future with the other options that the enviromentalists love. It's easy to love the earth so much when your in the 6-7 figures for income. I thought if we bought carbon offsets like Al Gore it made everything alright?:rolleyes:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

---

I actually know something about this since I've worked in the oil industry a good portion of my working career. Not every area is suited to drill. There may be oil beneath it but alot of research is put into place to determine whether it's profitable to drill, the amount it would cost to drill at a certain location, logistics of getting the oil back to shore either through a pipeline or via ships, and most importantly whether it is safe to drill.

Oil companies have tons of researchers and geologists to figure all this out. I'm fairly certain that if it was profitable and safe for them to drill in this 68 million acres then they would probably have set up rigs by now.

Secondly, people.. particularly environmentalists need to understand that the switch to alternative energy is not going to happen over night and that we need SOMETHING to create a buffer until that transition occurs. This is something that is probably going to take a course of a couple of decades to transition to and honestly efforts probably should've began in the 1970's.

With people looking at hydrogen, salt water and other means such as harvesting of Helium-3 in hopes of being able to create cold fusion; we will get there eventually but it will take some time to replace all the oil driven equipment we have and update it to alternative fuel source technology.

Miracles work over time, not over night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daihashi

Miracles work over time, not over night.

---

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline â?? 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

â??With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

â??Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.â?�
Press Release :: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th District

With Democrats controlling Congress in 1980, Jimmy Carter got the windfall profits tax passed and as if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose.
Babalu Blog: Obama - Heir to Jimmy Carter

I guess Pelosi didn't agree with ya back in "06". I think she still feels that a higher tax would do the trick today....not like it worked in the Carter years but what the hell.

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Obama and crew are against this and nuclear energy. So how many windmills and solar panels will it take to ease the drain on our wallets?

---

In regards to windmill and other natural power. You would be surprised how many other nations are running on windmill power. Many nations receive upwards of 40% of their energy through Windmill and Mirror technology (I forget the name of the actual technology but it is an array of mirrors that send beams of concentrated light/heat to a central point to generate energy).

Combine this with the fact that Hoover Dam has a very poor future predicted for it I feel that we do need to do something now in order to try to put things in place to alleviate problems of the future.

While I don't think we can rely solely on windmill and natural power as a means to supply our nations energy, you can't argue that in the long run this will help ease the transition from Oil to alternative energy. There are several areas in the united states that are ideal for very large wind farms.

The problem is that these Windfarms cost alot of upstart money and it is still cheaper for electric companies to use resources such as coal and oil to generate electricity and then just roll over that cost onto the consumer than it would be for them to build these large farms.

Like with most things the benefit is not immediate but rather something that happens over time. That's what we need to be addressing.. what can we do now to help relieve some of this pressure and what can we do in the future to prevent/avoid it all together.

Both parties need to see that the two issues are not seperate but rather one in the same and they should be working together. Not against each other. They both need each other to help America reach it's goals of being independant from foreign oil in addition to preventing the problem in the future by starting NOW to move to an alternative source of energy.

ps: I'm all for the move to nuclear energy. Technology has come a long way and it's used throughout the rest of the world. We are one of the few nations who don't really utilize nuclear power in addition to natural power on the same scale as everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline â?? 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

â??With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

â??Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.â?�
Press Release :: Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, California, 8th District

With Democrats controlling Congress in 1980, Jimmy Carter got the windfall profits tax passed and as if on cue, oil production -- fell. To the tune of 1.6 billion fewer barrels. America's dependence on foreign oil rose.
Babalu Blog: Obama - Heir to Jimmy Carter

I guess Pelosi didn't agree with ya back in "06". I think she still feels that a higher tax would do the trick today....not like it worked in the Carter years but what the hell.

Have a good one!:s4:

---

One thing I have to give republicans; while they do tend to side with oil companies they at least do acknowledge the need for alternative fuel sources and also acknowledge that this change will not be instantaneous. The don't have a fire lit under their butts to make this change occur but at least the do acknowledge it.

The liberal left, not the moderate democrats, have always given me the impression that they expect it to happen over night. Poof it's there!! I admire their passion and initiative to want to make this happen but they need to realize that until we reach the goal of being mostly on alternative energy that we are going to need oil.

More taxation of the oil companies will just further burden the consumer as these costs will just be rolled down onto them; making our efforts to move away from oil that much harder!!

Hey P4B and Daihashi I agree with the drilling on this like you said daihashi we need it to keep all are equipment going until all the other forms of fuel are availible. One thing me and my wife decided on when we built our new house was to use solar panels. Right now we get about 80% of our power from them and we have the grid tie in and its kinda cool to get a check from the power company and the money we save just goes into my tank. I cant drive a hybrid to work it wont pull a 12000 pound trailor so we had to do something now to off set the cost of fuel it takes me to fill up everytime. So I say go for it drill away.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:

ps. We agree on somthing.

Well Bigweed, I'll be damned! I was starting to think the only thing we agreed on was our smoke...LOL. VERY cool about the solar panels and I'm kind of in the same boat regarding the Hybrid....Harley doesn't have one of them yet. :D

After the "70"s gas shortage alternative fuels; wind, solar, nuclear, etc. along with drilling should have ALL been not only "looked at" but put into practice.

30 years later here we are again...."thank you":S4: to BOTH political parties!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:

daihashi,

totally agree with the call for nuclear power. it would take just as long to get going as the drilling efforts or other alternative energy proposals, but it would go a long way towards helping ease our energy dependence on oil.

not to mention, it would give us a viable source for thus plug-in electric cars and/or hybrids everyone's talking about (whats the point in powering an electric car w electricity generated by a coal or oil plant?!)

DrSpiggs

hemp produces a good fuel alternative..better than corn actually. Personally digging off of the coast for a three percent "buffer" when we are using twenty-five percent won't really help that much. Also the risk of transporting oil through our natural coral estates doesn't appeal to me either. This endangers critical wildlife environments that could be more beneficial to us than oil consumption.
Oh well who knows.. After all how much stock does Bush and his folks own in the oil companies??? Just seem like another way to add billiions to their billions to me..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Well Bigweed, I'll be damned! I was starting to think the only thing we agreed on was our smoke...LOL. VERY cool about the solar panels and I'm kind of in the same boat regarding the Hybrid....Harley doesn't have one of them yet. :D

After the "70"s gas shortage alternative fuels; wind, solar, nuclear, etc. along with drilling should have ALL been not only "looked at" but put into practice.

30 years later here we are again...."thank you":S4: to BOTH political parties!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I know I thought the same thing. Im still not cleared yet to ride mine yet buy the Doc or the wife. I will be in a few months. I cant wait to dust off the Goldwing.:rasta::rastasmoke::pimp:


I agree with the nuclear also We have to do something.

We need to move toward alternative energy sources as quickly as possible, and the government meeds to help make it happen, not just sit on their asses and say it's a great idea but too far away. We give huge subsidies to oil companies in the form of favorable leases and tax breaks --- billions of dollars to industries that already make billions of dollars. And those billions do not get us any closer to the day when we will be secure in our energy resources and reponsible to our environment. We need to devote cash money to developing alternative like solar, wind and geothermal for electricity. And we need alternative transportation fuels. There are several suitable renewable transportation fuels that would not need a major re-enginering of our infrastructure. Many of these technologies involve converting solid and liquid waste into fuel --- so once developed, it solves two problems simultaneously, turnring a source of polution into a source of energy. If even half the money we already use to subisdize the oil industry were devoted to developing these alternatives, maybe we'd find a way forward.

I'm not happy about gas prices or heating fuel prices. No one is. However, the one bright side is that as prices go up, people begin to do the things that we should be doing already for sustainability reasons. The cost makes people start looking for the alternatives. The cheap gas is just plain running out as demand around the world rises for a resource that is getting scarcer and scarcer. We knew this day would come, just not so suddenly. It's time to face reality, adjust, and begin to move aggressivley toward the future. Usually Americans are pretty good about facing a crisis once it actually happens, so hopefully we can do that this time without too much pain or too much delay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonrider

However, the one bright side is that as prices go up, people begin to do the things that we should be doing already for sustainability reasons. The cost makes people start looking for the alternatives.

---

Same thing we thought during the fuel crunch of the "70"s......how history repeats itself. We should have been in better shape!!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

Same thing we thought during the fuel crunch of the "70"s......how history repeats itself. We should have been in better shape!!:mad:

Have a good one!:s4:

---

I completely agree with that --- we should have moved toward alternative energy and sustainable domestic energy sources 30 or 40 years ago when the oil-producing countries showed they could hold our economy hostage. Now we are actually MORE dependent on foreign oil. What a lost opportunity. We have a lot of important reasons to move away from oil --- economic, geo-political, and environmental.

Uh, everyone knew we we going to run out of oil some day. How come no one planned for this shit?

It seems like were all rushing now to save our asses.

No one ever plans for stuff far enough in advance! We haven't done it with money and spending. Millions of Americans don't do it personally, like in the way of savings and retirement planning. The environment. Fossil fuels. Water shortages. Money. It's a huge thing to get an entire world to cooperate, especially first, second and third worlds.

Ah, but wouldn't it be nice if we did!!! Makes me think of the Coca Cola song "I'd like to buy the world a Coke."

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8H5263jCGg[/YOUTUBE]

Rebby, when I was a kid, these ads were big back during the Viet Nam era. I, of course, believed them as I did everything about idealized peace in those days.

Right now, I'd like to buy this political sub-forum a Coke. And also to shake one up and spritz the man I'm married to and one of my fellow mods!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebgirl420

Uh, everyone knew we we going to run out of oil some day. How come no one planned for this shit?

It seems like were all rushing now to save our asses.

---

It's always like this --- plenty of warning and then a big rush to deal with the "crisis" once it finally arrives. It will be the same way with global climate change, Social Security, the national debt, and a thousand other things we see coming down the pipe. You'd like to think we'd get a head start on some of them, but probably not...

If everyone were to stop using petro products for one week, how far would gas prices plummet?

Quote;
"I know I thought the same thing. Im still not cleared yet to ride mine yet buy the Doc or the wife. I will be in a few months. I cant wait to dust off the Goldwing."

Hey Bud, you riding yet? Hope your summer is rocking.

You would think that when we invaded one of the largest petro producing countries that gas prices would go down, not up :wtf:


Nuke Power :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobPA

You would think that when we invaded one of the largest petro producing countries that gas prices would go down, not up :wtf:


Nuke Power :thumbsup:

---

Well then I suppose that would throw a wrench in some people's ideas that say we went there for the oil.

Ooh, a two-month old thread... This reminds me how back in 1999 Bush was knocking Clinton about letting oil prices reach $30 a barrel. :stoned:

When oil prices go up, everyone blames everyone else. Scapegoats abound. But the only real solution is to stop using so much freaking oil.

Wind and hydro are nice, but we're already using about 75% of our hydro capacity. Solar is expensive, but feasible. The only trouble is that all of these sources vary depending on the weather, and we need a power source that can be adjusted. So yeah, nuclear power FTW. I'm glad Obama got the nod and not John Edwards. Obama's always been pro-nuclear to the point where he's taken flak from the left. Edwards wanted to put a moratorium on nuclear plant construction though. Apparently 20+ years of accident-free operation isn't enough for him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by khronik

Ooh, a two-month old thread... This reminds me how back in 1999 Bush was knocking Clinton about letting oil prices reach $30 a barrel. :stoned:

When oil prices go up, everyone blames everyone else. Scapegoats abound. But the only real solution is to stop using so much freaking oil.

Wind and hydro are nice, but we're already using about 75% of our hydro capacity. Solar is expensive, but feasible. The only trouble is that all of these sources vary depending on the weather, and we need a power source that can be adjusted. So yeah, nuclear power FTW. I'm glad Obama got the nod and not John Edwards. Obama's always been pro-nuclear to the point where he's taken flak from the left. Edwards wanted to put a moratorium on nuclear plant construction though. Apparently 20+ years of accident-free operation isn't enough for him.

---

He also wanted to put a moratorium on a succesful marriage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobPA

You would think that when we invaded one of the largest petro producing countries that gas prices would go down, not up :wtf:

---

That would only be true if production actually went up, which it has not, due to chaos and sabotage. If cheap oil was the plan, it didn't pan out. Or it might be that cheap oil was never the plan --- oil companies make more money with expensive oil than with cheap oil. Just because the war was about oil does not mean it was necessarily about getting YOU cheap gas.