Bush to lift executive ban on offshore oil drilling

OCBob

VIPER POWERED
Joined
May 19, 2006
Messages
10,488
Reaction score
15
Location
splitting lanes at a buck ten
President Bush will announce Monday he is lifting an executive order banning offshore oil drilling, the White House said.
If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.

If President Bush can persuade Congress, more oil rigs like this one off Canada could appear off U.S. shores.

The move is largely symbolic because there is also a federal law banning offshore drilling.

Bush has been pushing Congress to repeal the law passed in 1981.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a Rose Garden statement last month.

"In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home," Bush said, adding that there is no more pressing issue for many Americans than gas prices.

Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, signed the executive order in 1990 banning offshore drilling.

The president plans to announce his decision at 1:30 p.m. in the Rose Garden.

The issue has gained prominence in the presidential race. Sen. John McCain recently announced he supported offshore oil drilling, reversing his previous stance.

Sen. Barack Obama wants to keep the ban in place.

Experts say offshore oil drilling would not have an immediate impact on oil prices because oil exploration takes years.

"If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves," said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.

But it almost certainly would be profitable.

Candida Scott, an oil industry researcher at Cambridge Research Associates, said oil needs to be priced at $60 a barrel or more to justify deep-shelf drilling. With oil now selling for $145 a barrel, companies are almost assured of profiting from offshore drilling, Scott said.
advertisement

In his statement last month, Bush also renewed his demand that Congress allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, clear the way for more refineries and encourage efforts to recover oil from shale in areas such as the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.

The White House estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil offshore that have not been exploited because of state bans, 10 billion to 12 billion in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin.


Oil production cost
Here's what the price of a barrel of oil needs to be for different sources of petroleum to be profitably extracted:

- Accessible land: $19
- Shallow water: $20-60
- Deep water: $60
- Shale mining: $30-50
- Oil sands: $50-60

Current price per barrel: $145

Sources: U.S. Govt. CERA, Rand, EnCana


Wonder if he asked Daddy's permission before lifting the executive order? heheh
 

Does anybody have an answer to this question that occured to me.

High oil prices and the resulting inflation adversely affect the average democrat to a much larger degree than the average conservative.

Also (when pinned down), even the dem's talking heads admit that just the
anouncement that we are going to start drilling here would lower oil prices, never mind
it may take time before oil is actually produced.



Why are the democrats still trying to block drilling here?:dontknow:

(Of course the Dem's doing the blocking are not the dem's trying to decide
between buying gas or food, ie. OBAMA.)








.
 
Last edited:
NOW?

lightningKILLER said:
3 to 5 years huh? Way to look ahead! What about NOW??
There is no short term "NOW" solution. Just think if they would have done this 5-10 years ago - we would have cheaper gasoline. We have to start somewhere.
 
supercar1of1 said:
Why are the democrats still trying to block drilling here?:dontknow:

(Of course the Dem's doing the blocking are not the dem's trying to decide
between buying gas or food, ie. OBAMA.)

It's not only Democrats. Republicans from shoreline states have blocked it as well, choosing tourism dollars from unspoiled shorelines over threat of oil spills tainting the waters. Even W's little brother Jeb opposed drilling off of FL while he was governor.

A question out there for oil companies is why haven't they drilled on land leases they currently have? It's simple economics.....what will give the greatest return. Looking at oil companies record profits, where is the incentive for them to pursue new drilling (cost associated with it) vs. status quo delivery of imported oil at inflated prices.

Finding new domestic oil sources is in John Q. Public's interest to help lower prices, but it's not in the oil companies interests. Bottom line for them is to maximize shareholder wealth. Alternative energy sources such as battery powered autos probably scare the crap out of these companies because then game is over for them.
 
Big deal, the executive order will be lifted. By the time Congress repeals the Federal Law, which IMO won't happen over night, we'll all be driving vehicles powered by something other than gas.
 
Congress on Thursday took a major step toward allowing oil and gas drilling in coastal waters that have been off limits for a quarter-century, but a battle looms in the Senate over the issue.

And the Bush administration’s support for the legislation, which was approved by a 232-187 vote in the House, is lukewarm.

The House bill would end an Outer Continental Shelf drilling moratorium that Congress has renewed every year since 1981. It covers 85 percent of the country’s coastal waters — everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico and some areas off Alaska.


Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., a leading proponent for lifting the ban, said he believes a majority of the Senate wants to open the protected waters to energy companies.

Asked about White House opposition to some parts of the bill, especially a provision that would give tens of billions of dollars to states that have drilling rigs off their coasts, Pombo said, “I dare them to veto this bill.â€

“They don’t like us giving money back to the states. I think it’s right,†Pombo told reporters after the vote. Forty Democrats joined most Republicans in favor of ending the drilling moratorium.


Florida filibuster possible
In the Senate, the measure is likely to face a filibuster from Florida senators and possibly others from coastal states that fear offshore energy development could threaten multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation businesses if there were a spill.

The Senate is considering a limited measure that would open an area in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, known as Lease Area 181, that goes within 100 miles of Florida. It is not under the moratorium. Even that is unlikely to pass unless its sponsors get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster from the Floridians.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said he would pursue efforts to open the Lease 181 Area. The committee’s ranking Democrat, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, also of New Mexico, criticized the House-passed bill, saying it would eventually create “a huge hole in our federal budget and undermine environmental protections on our lands and off our coasts.â€

Environmentalists, for their part, turned their focus to the Senate.

“Instead of catering to Big Oil and Gas, the Senate will have a chance to focus on the many faster, cheaper and cleaner ways to meet our energy needs -- renewable sources of energy like home-grown biofuels, greater fuel efficiency in our vehicles, smart-growth policies, and wind and solar energy,’’ said Karen Wayland, legislative director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The group said the bill would exempt seismic testing and individual oil and gas lease sales from environmental impact statements; reduce the amount of royalties that oil and gas companies must pay for tar sands and oil shale development; and no longer require companies to remove offshore drilling rigs when they are done drilling.

The House vote was a huge victory for Pombo, two Louisiana lawmakers — Republican Bobby Jindal and Democrat Charlie Melancon — and Rep. John Peterson, R-Pa., who spearheaded the drive to lift the moratorium.

Only six weeks ago, a proposal by Peterson to open coastal waters to natural gas development fell 14 votes short.

This time, they included a provision that would allow states to keep the moratorium in place if they opposed drilling and changed the revenue sharing so that states’ share of royalties would soar eventually as much as 75 percent.

The Gulf states where most U.S. offshore energy resources are being tapped, now get less than 5 percent of the royalties. For example, Louisiana’s royalties would go from $32 million last year to a total of $8.6 billion over the next 10 years — and even higher after that.

Loss of federal revenue
The Interior Department estimated that the changes could cost the federal government as much as $69 billion in lost royalties over 15 years and “several hundred billion dollars†over 60 years.

The White House issued a statement saying it favors much of the bill but strongly opposes the changes in royalty revenue sharing, which it said “would have a long-term impact on the federal deficit.â€

The Interior Department estimates there are about 19 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 86 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath waters under drilling bans from New England to southern Alaska.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Supporters of the drilling moratorium argue there’s four times that amount of oil and gas available in offshore waters open to energy companies, mainly in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and off parts of Alaska. And they say energy companies are only developing a fraction of the government leases they have available to them.

The country uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day.

While critics of the offshore drilling restrictions argue the additional oil and gas is needed if the country is to move toward greater energy independence, supporters or the bill fear energy development could despoil coastal beaches and threatens their recreation and tourism based economies.

“Our beaches and our coastline is what is critical to Floridians,†declared Rep. Jim Davis, D-Fla. “We should not be sacrificing our economy, our environment for a little oil and gas.â€

Pombo countered that drilling still would be prohibited within 50 miles of shore under the bill and states could extend the ban up to 100 miles. He ridiculed the bill’s critics as “opposing everything†when it comes to increasing domestic energy production.

“You can’t say no on everything,†Pombo proclaimed.

Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., said states would have to overcome numerous hurdles to continue the drilling restrictions, including having state legislatures and the government seek such protection every five years.
 
The article I just posted is a little over 2 years old. Seems that the Bush administration thought at the time that getting their cut was more important than us getting the oil we need.

When it comes to politics things are often (read mostly) not what they seem. Every one of these bastards talks out both sides of their mouths.

If this would have been passed and initiated when it came up 2 years ago we would be close to seeing this oil at the pump now.
 
Florida filibuster possible
In the Senate, the measure is likely to face a filibuster from Florida senators and possibly others from coastal states that fear offshore energy development could threaten multibillion-dollar tourist and recreation businesses if there were a spill.

this is bull,even with all the damage from hurricanes there never has been a spill. i think those states that opt not to drill off their shores should pay a surcharge.
 
Ya, Im just saying there's people in Washington, D.C. that get paid to look at long term stuff like this. These gas prices, food prices, etc didnt happen over night. Its taken 4-5 years to get to this point. As the consumer we cant stop buying these items, so why would they cut prices anywhere?
 
they know where the oil is... (we just need to go get it)this 3 to five year before we receive a barrel of oil is bunk too. i follow drilling rigs around on the shelf as they punch new holes..takes about 3 months (depending on the depth). what takes sometime is installing platforms and/or pipelines. 3 to five years? if we ramped things up we could have the oil and gas a LOT sooner.
 
I tink they should drill off-shore and in our country. Big oil companies will always want to make as much as possible, but it would lower the cost of oil, which in turn will help the consumer. As far as running out of oil...we have about 50 years before we would have to think about an alternative.
 
BurntRubber said:
I tink they should drill off-shore and in our country. Big oil companies will always want to make as much as possible, but it would lower the cost of oil, which in turn will help the consumer. As far as running out of oil...we have about 50 years before we would have to think about an alternative.

Big oil companies are not the problem! They have made their fortune on a mere 10% gross profit margin. They make their fortune by volume!

I wish people would stop blaming the oil companies and look closely at our elected politicians, both Dem & Rep. Within lies the problem to our gas prices.

As was stated earlier in this thread, just the news of drilling to start will cause prices to go down!!
 
Marc T said:
Big oil companies are not the problem! They have made their fortune on a mere 10% gross profit margin. They make their fortune by volume!

I wish people would stop blaming the oil companies and look closely at our elected politicians, both Dem & Rep. Within lies the problem to our gas prices.

As was stated earlier in this thread, just the news of drilling to start will cause prices to go down!!

My point came accross wrong about oil companies, i meant that they (like any other company) will want to make as much as possible, they are not responsible directly for the price of oil.

we have plenty of oil and need to get started on it.
 
BurntRubber said:
My point came accross wrong about oil companies, i meant that they (like any other company) will want to make as much as possible, they are not responsible directly for the price of oil.

we have plenty of oil and need to get started on it.

Sorry,

I didn't mean that as an attack on you! :eek: I am just frustrated with our politicians and our situation!!

You are right, we need to start tommorow!!!!! The longer we wait the more it will cost us tax payers!!
 
Marc T said:
Sorry,

I didn't mean that as an attack on you! :eek: I am just frustrated with our politicians and our situation!!

You are right, we need to start tommorow!!!!! The longer we wait the more it will cost us tax payers!!


no worries, i agree with what you said:)

:D
 
Marc T said:
As was stated earlier in this thread, just the news of drilling to start will cause prices to go down!!

I will believe it when I see it. The lowering will take far longer than it takes them to raise the price 10 cents a gallon when a report of 180 per barrel oil is announced. They have always been happy to make their money quickly off of speculation. They will take there time and do research and studies before dropping the price 10 cents. I am all for drilling, drill, drill, drill
 

Latest posts

Support Us

Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Back
Top