Congress must still lift legislative ban before offshore drilling can start

 

BREAKING NEWS

updated 31 minutes ago

 

WASHINGTON - In another push to deal with soaring gas prices, President Bush on Monday will lift an executive ban on offshore drilling that has 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 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.

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25674571

I do know that there are many larger oil companies that hold leases in many areas within the Contenental US, but have not chosen to drill in many of these areas for various reasons. Congressional Democrats have proposed that these companies loose thier leases if they don't drill, and some claim that drilling in new areas, such as offshore or in ANWAR, makes no sense when land that is avaliable to be drilled, is not happening. For example, land in and around Morgan and Fentres Counties in Tennessee fits into this category for many larger companies.

In 10 years when this would actually matter it will be a good move, I guess.

Just like drilling in ANWR, this is a red herring. There is not enough oil in either ANWR or offshore areas to materially affect the global price of crude. The U.S. government estimated that ANWR, at best case full forecast output, would only reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by $1.44. That is about 1% of current cost (or roughly 4 cents on a $4.00 gallon of gas). There seems to be a belief that if we produce oil from U.S. locations, we will somehow be insulated from events in the rest of the world. That is not the case. Even if new domestic areas such as ANWR and offshore areas are brought online, we will still pay the global price for a barrel of oil. The best way to insulate our country and our economy from global oil price volatility is to decouple ourselves as much as possible from the use of oil.

Just like drilling in ANWR, this is a red herring. There is not enough oil in either ANWR or offshore areas to materially affect the global price of crude. The U.S. government estimated that ANWR, at best case full forecast output, would only reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by $1.44. That is about 1% of current cost (or roughly 4 cents on a $4.00 gallon of gas). There seems to be a belief that if we produce oil from U.S. locations, we will somehow be insulated from events in the rest of the world. That is not the case. Even if new domestic areas such as ANWR and offshore areas are brought online, we will still pay the global price for a barrel of oil. The best way to insulate our country and our economy from global oil price volatility is to decouple ourselves as much as possible from the use of oil.

 

Price aside, there is something to be said for being oil independent in today's volatile world.

Price aside, there is something to be said for being oil independent in today's volatile world.

 

How oil independent will this really make us though? (BTW, I'm not against this drilling, just raising the question) The stats seemed to reveal it won't do much to replace what we HAVE to import.

I am glad that he did, now I just hope that congress steps up and goes along. I heard small piece on the news that they (congress/dems) are crying that it would hurt the enviroment . Just one example imo....Maybe bc it s so dangerous to the enviroment is the reason why fish are attracted to oil rigs and fishing charters will go in these areas. Seems to me that if it was so dangerous that these areas would be void of any type of fish or other aquatic life and not be a major fish attractor. Fishing guides/charters who's living depends on producing for their customers use these areas.

 

I also believe that it would not take as long as some may think before oils/gas prices start dropping should we open up offshore drilling. IMO just the thought that the U.S. was going to make a legit effort to free any dependency (no matter how much, just a start) of foriegn oil and it all of a sudden be amazing how much and how quick that the prices drop . I would also hope efforts will continue to drill Alaska and some of these other areas......tust me big Al (Gore) and P.E.T.A., the caribou will adapt, animals have the ability to do this and they do all the time, it is radical idiots lke yourself that can't adapt.

How oil independent will this really make us though? (BTW, I'm not against this drilling, just raising the question) The stats seemed to reveal it won't do much to replace what we HAVE to import.

 

Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the

stated reserves of Saudi Arabia.

This issue has closed the gap in the polls, in my opinion.

The Dems don't really want any new drilling or exploring. Obama is opposed to it.

Each day the average American driver sees the gas prices, and one party is opposed to the drilling. That party is going to be punished, so to speak.

We are a long ways off, and there are no quick fixes.

Saying conservation is the key, isn't going to cut it in the political spectrum.

McCain is getting a bump out of this and he hasn't even gone into attack mode on Obama's philosphical flip-flops since he garnered the nomination and is now trying to move to the center.

This issue has closed the gap in the polls, in my opinion.

The Dems don't really want any new drilling or exploring. Obama is opposed to it.Each day the average American driver sees the gas prices, and one party is opposed to the drilling. That party is going to be punished, so to speak.We are a long ways off, and there are no quick fixes.

Saying conservation is the key, isn't going to cut it in the political spectrum.

McCain is getting a bump out of this and he hasn't even gone into attack mode on Obama's philosphical flip-flops since he garnered the nomination and is now trying to move to the center.

 

Good post, imo you made some very good points.

How oil independent will this really make us though? (BTW, I'm not against this drilling, just raising the question) The stats seemed to reveal it won't do much to replace what we HAVE to import.

 

I don't know if it makes us independent or not. And really is that the issue? Shouldn't we start immediately doing multiple things to lessen our dependence of overseas providers of energy? What's wrong with immediately instituting Pickens plans for wind and solar power and continue research on biofuels (including eliminating subsidies to farmers to keep lands fallow) and immediately start the process of finding off shore and ANWR oil and improve mass transit and put other conservation steps in place and start building nukes? Its not a single step that will solve our problem. We should be doing everything and anything that will stop the mass exodus of US dollars overseas and lessen our dependence on countries to sustain our energy needs. Until we do all those things, we will be forced to keep our thirst for oil as a major factor in our international foreign policy. Conservation in and of itself is not the answer unless we want to continue to be dependent on foreign oil. And I'm not even sure it will lower the price, with China and India and the rest of the world probably not going to cut back their needs. I see their demand continuing to increase, so I doubt our conservation is the answer. And even if we dramatically conserved and the world demand dramatically decreased, doesn't OPEC just then respond by cutting the supply, which will keep the price high?

I am all for lower prices but I think drilling should be done on the land the oil companies own before they ask for more land to drill on. Use what they have first.

I do know that there are many larger oil companies that hold leases in many areas within the Contenental US, but have not chosen to drill in many of these areas for various reasons. Congressional Democrats have proposed that these companies loose thier leases if they don't drill, and some claim that drilling in new areas, such as offshore or in ANWAR, makes no sense when land that is avaliable to be drilled, is not happening. For example, land in and around Morgan and Fentres Counties in Tennessee fits into this category for many larger companies.

 

Many of these areas have proven to have little or no oil. The rules state they will lose their leases.

I would happily allow an oil company to drill on my property. There is a 99%+ chance that the well would be a dry hole, but a drilling is drilling isn't it? That seems to be the Democratic leadership's position with their absurd 68 million unproductive acres argument.

I've been wondering about this issue. I know in our area when a company wants to drill an oil/gas well, the entire property is leased. In some cases, a 500 acre tract will be leased but a well pad uses probably less than 1/2 acre. Therefore, if only one well is drilled, does the other 499 acres count toward the oil company's unused holdings?