White House: Bush to lift offshore drilling ban

NOt only our own oil, but our own jobs.
Let's keep our money here, not give it to those that would harm us
They have plenty of money now and could afford to shut us off at will.
What then?

If we find oil, they'll sell it over seas. A lot of oil from Alaska is now going to Japan.

If you want to keep jobs here, you should probably start buying American made consumer goods, as scarce as they are... Oil is not what creates jobs for people in America, secondary industry is what creates jobs in America.

Stop shopping at Wal-Mart and start buying American made.

Freakin right. Wally world forces small businesses out then stocks the their shelves with cheap, low quality crap brought in from the third world. Then Joe/Jane Average shop there and complain about outsourced employment.
Proud to say, have never made a single purchase at WM

You might wish to check the merchandise on the shelves of small businesses to see where much of it comes from.

Use strategic oil supply and put ourselves in a weaker position if the arabs shut us down or threaten to.

wms,
Tell us more about this Alaskan oil field.

The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) is an area of land in the Alaska North Slope owned by the United States Federal Government. It lies to the west of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which is also federally owned land on the North Slope. At a size of 23.5 million acres, it has been described as "the largest tract of undisturbed public land in the United States" (the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 19 million acres). When the Arab Oil Embargo hit in the 70's they were promoting the area and exploring it and leased a little over 7 million acres, but when oil prices subsided, so did the interest and the leases expired. There is supposed to be an estimated 6-13 billion barrels of petroleum deposit. It was set up by in 1923 to convert our Naval ships from coal to oil. The Bureau of Land Management has been leasing small sections of the property till around 2005.

So my thinking is if this area has already been "disturbed" go ahead and plunder this area and leave ANWAR alone. But eventually, whether today or years from now, we are going to run out of oil, we've got to find another way and without destroying our planet and those inhabiting it. I have to think of my 2 small children and their future, not just the time in which I live in... we are stewards of God's creations, how are we to answer our children and our children's children when they ask why we squandered this land?

or you, perhaps.

I agree we need to do more than drill. Why not make this a two part proposal. 1) Drill and 2a) Fast Track 50 Nuclear Power Plants
2b) Subsidise 100 new solar farms

Don't forget energy distribution infrastructure.

In some places that's even more important than base load generation. If we had the infrastructure in place, wind--in some places of the US--could generate more than enough for certain regions.

If we use the same liberal yardstick of "no oil impact for next five years" for alternative fuels...the answer is likely the same....it could take a while. Nobody and I don't know of any democrat or republican who is against alternative fuels...but are we will to stake our entire economy on the potential that a real alternative fuel is discovered in the next five years?

I don't understand why we aren't doing both. As a CEO, I would hedge my bets and do both so that for sure I had one that I could rely on. This does not have to be an either or debate....it should be about investing in both and recognizing that one expenditure results in a write off. Any CEO in the real world would do that....but here we are talking about politics and the hate associated with politics....and the hate is generated from the far extremes of both parties.

Democrats don't want to do anything that improves the economy our outlook until after November. That is sad...but its true....Republicans would do the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. In the meantime, the average American - that's you, me, our kids, grandkids, and neighbors are getting screwed.

I think Bush has made some serious mistakes and hired some bad people. Unless Iraq turns out to be a nice democracy and good ally to the US, his presidency will go down as one of the bigger failures. But, I will give him credit for trying and not being swayed by naysayers who in my opinion spew more hate than they do constructive advice. And if you think Obama is going to have an easy go from republicans when he gets in office...think again....the "Get you back" politics will be in play immediately.

The efficient market theory is in full play today. The stock market is worried about an Obama win. Smart money has gotten out of dividend paying stocks at alarming rates....they are taking money off the table today and letting it sit on the sidelines. If Obama moves to the center, which he most likely will, then the market, during his second year, will make a major run up. And the democrats will have a huge "wind-aided jump"....and don't think they don't know it. I had breakfast with a former democratic senator....I guy a consider a friend..so I won't name him who confided as such to me with the biggest @!$%# eating grin I have seen in a while.

Every American....every single one us should read the book titled the "Economic Gacts and Fallacies by (last name Thomas...I think)....might be a little tough read if you don't have an economics or stats background...but you will get the point of economic and statistical manipulations......RARELY DOES THE MEDIA GIVE AN ACCURATE DEPICTION....some of these stats will floor you and at a minimum make you think twice about what you see and hear in the news.

God bless all of you good americans out there.....you are the majority.....don't be led by the far left or far right.....most of america is smack dab in the middle.....otherwise, you would be arguing with your neighbor everyday of the week.

OBAMA is the one who is pathetic...I suppose you are outraged over the accurate depiction of him on the New Yorker too

So you're not angry at bush, who should have done this years ago but didn't? Why not?

Oh MY!! Jeepcop (I hope he really isn't a police officer) Reverting to racist attacks instead of thinking discourse... Hmmm.. It always reverts to base levels with them....Pathetic.

Jeepcop - You are exactly who The New Yorker is making an example of. The joke is on you.

Gary Lee Connor - Unfortunately, I have a cop friend who buys right into the smears against Obama. His reasoning? They said it, so it must be true. From what I've seen, the general consensus among law enforcement is that Obama is bad. Not necessarily racist, just not educated about him.

or maybe they are and you as naive as the manson girls.

Are you suggesting that when gas was $2.00 a gallon that this would have been acceptable to congress or the average american. The best decisions are made with the latest information...and the latest information says that China and India are going to use a @!$%#load of gasoline in the future.....China is going to DRILL, DRILL, DRILL even if they have to drill inside of your skull to get the oil....your post gives me reason to think there may be some room.....

Don't think in terms of drilling today to reduce gas prices today. Think in terms of drilling today so that in five years if we have not found an alternative source of fuel, then we won't be standing around with our #%$'s in our hands wondering why gas is $12 per gallon. That said, there is much that can be done today on the conservation side....have you checked your tire pressure lately....do you park so that you don't have to use reverse?

THINK BEYOND WHAT YOUR MIND CAN IMMEDIATELY IMAGINE......AND IF YOU ARE UNEDUCATED ON SUCH MATTERS....SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE SO THAT YOU DON'T ERRONEOUSLY INFLUENCE SOME OTHER PERSON.

The price of oil is going up, up, and up on a long term basis. If you were an oil company CEO what would you do today......if you cut your salary and bonus to zero....the price of gas would go down $0.000000000001 per gallon....so quit complaining about that. I am absolutely sick of the uneducated piece of @!$%# know nothing posters on this board who spew out crap as if they know what they talk about.

Just ask them why bush waited until NOW to do what he could have done at any point in his presidency. Bush has blocked this as much as any democrat has, yet they never seem to have any issue with that.

Of course your correct, it's political pandering and the creation of a wedge issue in an election year. And THAT folks is why bush waited until now to do what he could have done months, or years ago.

You make a lot of sense, but I HATE to see the environmental aspect of ANWR drilling come up, just because people automatically tune out when they see that. Most people who are for drilling believe it is an environmental issue, unaware that environment is just a small piece of this puzzle. It's just not worth it drill there, the economic impact would be minimal.

If those millions of acres could be aggregated into a couple sites....it would be economical to drill in those areas....however, as it stands it is not ecomonical to do so.....and because of environmental pressures, oil companies have been reluctant to do so. My brother works at a Chevron refinery and gets threatened at least a couple times a month. He's a big dude that most would not mess with so I can only imagine what it is like for some of is smaller collegues.

On the reason for US auto companies making large vehicles. It is the only way that they can achieve a profit given the rediculous wages and restrictions they face from the UAW.....who are largely democratic voters. They spend, on average $1,500 more per vehicles just on UAW benefits both current and post retirement. That is $1,500 of profit that needs to be made up....so the selling price required is clearly higher...which means you need to give the consumer more vehicle.....a larger vehicle with a big honking V8

And if unions and democrats had their way, we would not have foreign vehicles available to us because the import tariffs would be so high that the average consumer could not afford it and the asian makers would not have factories here.

There are two sides to every coin. for every republican failure that you claim, I have a democratic cause....and I recognize this works vice versa. I am not defending any party....I think they both suck and both candidate are very, very weak. Both depend on hate for the other party to ignite their base.

#38: I'll take a stab.

1.

Why do we have to open more areas for drilling when there is already available areas still to be drilled?

Depends on which side you believe. Every time data is presented by one side, it is refuted by the other. The answer seems to lie in the fact that holding the land (which may or may not be easier to explore, depending on who you listen to) and drilling off the coast stands to make the oil companies a bigger profit.

2.

If Republicans are all about "personal" accountability, then why can't we as a people to take it upon ourselves to be more efficient with our energy resources. Imagine if auto companies, for example, increased the mileages of their vehicles by 5 MPG, then we wouldn't need to drill for more oil. And it is economically feasible to do that -- look at Toyota, they can't keep Priuses on their lots. Or, even easier, what if we has individuals just bought more fuel efficient cars the next time we made a purchase.

Cost. With the amount I drive, buying a hybrid does not make economic sense until gas prices hit about $7 /gallon, assuming that I would own the car for 3 years (I did the math when I bought a car earlier this year). Not only did I save on the initial cost of the car, but also on the interest that I would have paid on the difference--not to mention I was able to pay cash for the non-hybrid. It just doesn't make economic sense yet for everyone to buy a hybrid or for the government to force car prices up by mandating fuel economy.

3.

How do we handle the refinery situation -- which is probably a more important issue?

This one I don't know much about. I would assume additional capacity would have to be constructed. Of course, if we aren't increasing refining capacity but just replacing imports, no additional capacity will be required. Prices wouldn't change very much then, either.

4.

It is pretty much agreed that it would take 10 years to get the oil ready for production. And someone above said that we are country built on oil. But, don't you think, that if we are the supposed innovative country we claim to be, that in 10 years we could come up with a viable energy technology that would cancel out the effects of the extra drilling for oil?

OK, but how much do you want to bet on the future? Alternative fuels will require proving, engineering accommodation for vehicles, production facilities, distribution infrastructure, etc. I personally think it could happen in that time frame, but do you want to put this issue off again and risk the situation becoming worse? I say let the oil companies drill while other private companies develop these alternative fuels. That way we cover our bases.

5.

Let's take ANWR. I know people could give two craps about the prestine land up there and the wildlife. But let me ask this hypothetical -- would you be willing to give up *your* land, house and everything if it was known that the area where you lived was oil rich?

Who's land are they taking? If they offered me a good price, I'd probably sell. I don't quite see your point with this question.

6.

Can you look me in the eye and tell me that the powers that be that want to drill for more oil don't have an ulterior motive to gain big time economically from the windfall that will occur from the oil companies (e.g., Cheney and Haliburton) if we decide to drill more?

Of course people will profit. Welcome to America. I don't give a damn if Cheney gets more money if it also translates to benefits for the American people. Not that it has really been shown to do so conclusively yet.

7.

And, last but not least, and this really is an important question about your character. Do you think it is more important to solve short-term energy problems vs. coming up with long-term, sustainable energy solutions? In other words, are you more concerned about you or the next 2-3 generations from you?

This isn't an either/or question. Why does everyone make it into this? Both are necessary. We still need oil for many products in the US besides gasoline. What we need is a stop-gap while we ramp up infrastructure and alternative energy sources (alternative fuels, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.). I think it says a lot about your character the way you phrased this question.

Finally, I don't profess to be an expert in these areas. I'm merely answering what seems to me to be common sense... so let the flaming begin!

ANWR is mostly barren tundra - no houses to worry about. It's pretty far from the 'pristine' mountain ranges. Look up google maps or wiki.

The majority of AM car talk shows hit the hybrid/vs SUV questions just as your local newpaper I'm sure does. The cost of selling/trading is not cost effective at this point. The money you save on gas vs the annual cost of payments usually is at a $k mark difference. I'm sure you can find a blog or two on this online quite easily.

Oil leases that would equal current production being sat on by oil companies... Where do you get your news from? The urinal walls maybe?

It is a wasteland that will yield very little economic benefit.

i thik so.

Oh no! I You are posting the same thing you posted about a dozen times yesterday.

And I already said that your numbers are misleading. From its low point somewhere in 2001 to its high point somewhere in mid-2006, the price of gas rose 160% during the Bush administration/Republican Congress.

Since when the Democrats took over Congress in Jan 2007, up until now, the price of gas has risen about 80-85% from its lowest to highest point.

Like I said, neither are good. So, you can either (1) blame both parties and the Bush administration (2) not blame the government at all -- but you cannot just blame one party.

That is one of the most totally ridiculous things I've ever heard. Is there no level you Bush supporters won't stoop to? Blaming oil prices on Congress? Exactly how stupid do you think the American people are?

The Democrats have a thin majority in the House -- too thin to even stop a Republican filibuster. The Republicans know this and have blocked Democrats at every turn. The Democrats have a one vote majority in the Senate AND THAT ONE VOTE IS LIEBERMAN! The same Lieberman you can see accompanying his buddy McCain all over America and the world on campaign tours.

Oil prices, energy prices, the banking failure all rest at the feet of George W. Bush. What ever happened to "THE BUCK STOPS HERE"?!

Oh for the love of god, you were asked a half a dozen times to explain how the democrats could have possibly caused fuel and oil prices to go up, and you never could.

In addition, the current economic downturn started PRIOR to the democrats taking over.

Where is the factoring of when we were sucker into the war? How about the when the value of the dollar declined? What was the price of oil/gas before and after?

There is a bill being submitted that would force Oil companies to use or lose current leases they are sitting on that would double US production.. Come back from La La land before it is too late Oh Delusional One..Lol.

What about the profits the government is making on oil,cigarettes,alchohol? All the things they say are EVIL and BAD!!!!!!!!!

Hugh, the fact that bush could have reversed this executive order at any point in his presidency, but waited until a few months before a pivotal election tells me that he's just doing so to increase pressure on a wedge issue.

Mscottring - BINGO.

Doom and gloom... Boy i feel sorry for the people who interact with you on a daily basis.. America is the greatest country yesterday today and tomorrow.

Phil, it is very true that China is on the fast track to overtaking us as the world's super power. Another reason why we should again be a *leader* and not a reactor. Can you imagine the power this country could have if we were the ones to develop the sustainable energy sources and technology for the future? But, it seems like all we want to do is more of the same, sit on our laurels and delay the inevitable.

I argue that I am looking out for the best interests of this country *long term* by willing to take the hit short term.

Phil - Can I have those glasses you are wearing? You know, those rose colored ones? I would like to be oblivious to reality, too.

PleaseSaveAmerica - You are right on. Most of these people only care about RIGHT NOW. They've stopped caring about future generations. They just want to put a little band-aid on this huge, gaping wound and call it good!

I am a single mother and gas prices hurt me tremendously; but I look at my son, and I want to fix it so that he doesn't have to deal with it when he grows up. My first thought is NOT: Let's drill drill drill!

We have been dependent on oil for such a short period of time and we have already had more than one crisis. It is clear to me that we need alternatives. Gas prices will continue to rise regardless of what we do. I almost want them to drill, just to prove it.

Actually I am a very positive person who calls it as I see it. Drilling is not going to change the current gas prices. We need to get away from our dependency on oil. Why is that so hard for you to accept? If a lot of you pro-drillers have it your way, we would drill, perhaps find oil and then what? When that is all used up then what do we do? We have got to find alternative technologies. Period. We should have been looking into alternative technologies years ago and now here it is 10-20 years later and we are still in the same place we were with nothing really viable. Wake up America.

Alternative fuel, lets try this, if some backyard mechanic can do this in Ontario Canada, how about the brilliant minds of the world?
A compressed air engine, works on the same principle as a steam engine, with 7 forward gears and 4 air tanks on the underside, has a huge compressor in his garage, fills up in one hour and drives for a few days before re-airing and has had it up to 120 KPH, about 72 MPH

So then you must be at least a little angry that bush didn't do this much sooner, right?

Or Clinton!!!

That's not the point. The point is bush and some republicans are attempting to sell the idea based on the fact that it will help ease pain at the pump NOW. And it won't.

You lose all credibility when you start resorting to name-calling.

nat,
You also lose all credibility when you whine about being a single mother. Oh wait, that's bushs fault also. Not yours.

We have had a couple years in a row of major hurricanes, yet there were no oil spills.

My brother-in-law works on a rig off of Louisiana. The Hurricanes do not effect the oil because it is stored way below the sea surface. The rig itself can be damaged (above water) but you won't lose a drop due to a hurricane.

Just a little FYI.

PRECISELY!

Are you describing Bush? Or are you jumping ahead and describing your vote for Obama? Bush 41 was in the military then the CIA. When was he a oil man?

OMG Phil you are just like the rest of the braindead Bush voters..Here is the info that you obviously can't be bothered with to look up..
Zapata Oil, founded in 1953 by George H. W. Bush, along with his business partners John Overbey, Hugh Liedtke, Bill Liedtke, and Thomas J. Devine. Bush and Thomas J. Devine were oil-wildcatting associates.[citation needed] Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil.[1] The initial $1 million investment for Zapata was provided by the Liedtke brothers and their circle of investors and by Bush's father and uncle—Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker Bush—and his family circle of friends.

Hugh Liedtke was named president, Bush was vice president; Overbey soon left. In 1954, Zapata Off-Shore Company was formed as a subsidiary, with Bush as president. He raised some startup money from Eugene Meyer, publisher of the Washington Post, and his son-in-law, Phillip Graham.[2][3]

Zapata Off-Shore accepted an offer from an inventor, R. G. LeTourneau, for the development of a mobile but secure drilling rig. Zapata advanced him $400,000. The sum was to be refundable if the completed rig did not function. If it did function, LeTourneau would get an additional $550,000 together with 38,000 shares of Zapata Off-Shore common stock. Zapata split in 1959 into Zapata Petroleum headed by the Liedtkes and Zapata Off-Shore, headed by Bush, funded with $800,000.[4] Bush moved his offices and family that year from Midland, Texas to Houston. Zapata Petroleum merged in 1963 with South Penn Oil and other companies to become Pennzoil.

obviously phil is a follower, who follows blindly.

Put an idiot in the white house and what do you expect?
What will you expect from the son of a man that abandoned him and his mother when he was 2yo?

And you can thank George W. Bush and the Republican Party for all of the above.

It has nothing to do with Environmental Kool-Aid. It has to do with being smart and thinking long term. It has to do with personal accountability and responsibility, which is, ironically, a supposed Republican trait. At some point in time, oil will run out; that is an undeniable fact. And at the rate the world is using it, that will come sooner rather than later. There will be nothing left to drill. Whether it is tomorrow or 200 years from now, at some point we are going to have to move to a sustainable energy resource. Period.

The question is, do you have the balls to be the generation that takes a hit for the future generations? Or are you just expecting that Armageddon will come sooner than that, so who gives a crap what we do now?

Pleasesave, you sort of hit the nail on the head. The latest group of republicans appear to only come up with short term solutions to long term problems. Which is sort of the opposite of the republican platform.

No, it has to do with facts. Something that appears to be lacking. These activists dominate debates with intolerance, and anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-business attitudes. There are few issues epitomize this depressing state of affairs better than the debate over oil development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Ex.: Bush, the Eskimos who live there and many unions want to drill in ANWR. They know the energy potential is extraordinary, the environmental risks are minimal, and the benefits to the Eskimos and American workers, consumers and taxpayers could be significant. Geologists estimate that ANWR could hold 6-16 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's 22-58 years' worth of imports! Turned into gasoline, it would power California's cars and trucks for 18-50 years. Midrange estimates put its natural gas potential at 4 trillion cubic feet -- enough to fuel millions of homes, hospitals, schools and businesses for years. ANWR is the size of South Carolina, 19 million acres. Of all this land, only the Delaware-sized coastal plain along the Beaufort Sea would actually be opened for leasing -- and only 2,000 acres would actually be disturbed by drilling and development.Nevertheless, the activists still want ANWR placed off limits on top of all the other areas where they have succeeded in banning oil and gas drilling: most of California, Alaska, the western states and our Outer Continental Shelf. Apparently, most politicians would rather let their impoverished constituents freeze in the dark than bend on environmental purity. As to ANWR being a crown jewel, the beautiful Brooks Range mountains seen in all the anti-drilling photos are actually 50-100 miles from the coastal plain. The potentially oil-rich area is just flat, treeless tundra.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what bush did today. Bush finally decided to reverse a ban on OFFSHORE drilling that his father signed an executive order to put into place. Now bush could have done this at any point during the past 7.5 years, but he didn't.

So what do the republicans, like yourself do? They complain about the democrats.

I would argue that the "activists" as you call them (you can argue that those who want more drilling are also activists, but from the opposite spectrum) are not anti-technology, anti-trade, anti-business. In fact, I would say that many are just the opposite. Many believe that we can grow the economy by becoming the world leader in sustainable energy policy. I tend to agree. We will take a hit near term, yes. But the long term benefits for this nation cannot be explained in words.

It is very possible that there would be no environmental impact to ANWR if we drilled there. But, I am sure that is what Exxon said with the Valdez when they left port that fateful day. The point is, problems can and do happen. I guess my feeling is that where does it stop? If we open ANWR, what's next? Yellowstone? Yosemite? The land under my house?

YES, the land under you house, if need be. Please reply with address.

Thank you

See Rick, I try to have a rational debate and you start with sarcasm. I find that the reason people do that is because they can't have reasonable and intelligent discussion, so they resort to negativity and sarcasm to try to make up for it. Oh well.

Republicans keep showing a lack of ability to carry on reasonable debate. They either start making stuff up, start attacking and name calling, or just cut and run.

Rick - you really need to educate yourself on what this argument is about instead of buying into the political mumbo-jumbo.

The environmental concerns comprise an extremely small portion of the argument against it.

What market have you been following? The markets and economy in this country have been going down for several years now, long before the democrats took over and Obama started running.

The market reads company health not the nations health..When these companies have all their employees in China how is their health doing us any good...The last 8 years of outsourcing jobs is only a small part of the large mess ..Even with W spending 6 trillion dollars we have a rotten economy.. At least when Ronnie Reagan spent us up from 280 billion to 4 trillion dollars we had a good economy to show for it...I KNOW!!!! Let's blame Clinton...or Teddy Roosevelt maybe..Lol.

Take a look at the actual studies. People aren't pulling this 8-10 years out of their rears.

So then you must be angry at bush for not lifting this "band" sooner, right?