Bush 43 urges offshore drilling that Bush 41 banned

President Bush today called on Congress to clear the way for offshore drilling by the states, saying that it could match current production for 10 years and that new methods allow drilling that protects habitats against oil spills.

With Democrats in Congress opposed to drilling, Bush said their opposition is "outdated and counterproductive" and that it "helped drive gas prices to their current level." Saying that $4-a-gallon gas prices should be "enough incentive" for Democrats to act, Bush asked, "How high do gas prices have to rise before the Democratic Congress will do something about it?"

Bush also called for exploration of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a new push for refineries (he blamed "lawsuits and red tape" for the fact that no new refineries have been built in 30 years) and mining of shale rock for oil.

The president made no mention of his father, President George H.W. Bush, who banned coastal oil exploration in 1990, or his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who long opposed it. Except to say that much of U.S. energy now "comes from abroad, that's what's changed in the last few decades," putting "our economy and our security at risk."

The White House statement came one day after Republican John McCain called for lifting the ban on off-shore drilling.

White House press secretary Dana Perino, asked about whether the son will lift the ban put in place by the father, told Fox News today, "We  need to make a change...so that we can have more control over our own destiny."

Most Democrats were immediately skeptical.

"To hear George Bush and John McCain say it, you’d think gasoline is going to run straight out of the ground and right into your car,'' said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). "This is not a relief plan for American families, it’s a relief plan for oil companies.”

But Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Lousiana faulted the White House for taking so long. In a letter headlined, "Welcome to the off-shore energy fight, Mr. President...we've been waiting for you," she argued that Bush should have taken the position seven years ago. "When we urged lifting the nation’s ban on such production while there was a real possibility to act, this administration’s courage could not be found."

-- Johanna Neuman and Richard Simon

Photo credit:  Spencer Weiner/Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Piotr Orloff]

Wow, I've been counting down the days since June of 2007 on my blog. Ever since Gonzalez walked away from his post in shame. Shame on him, shame on Bush, shame on Dick Cheney. No blood for oil, and no offshore drilling either. Stay away from ANWR, too. We may need that oil someday.

[anonymous]

Is he trying to do as much damage as possible in his final days? He approved Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste, too.

Can someone please ask Bush to read "Altered Oceans" published by none other than the LA Times? It won a Pulitzer for a reason.

Our oceans can't take any more abuse. We, as a country, need to wake up and curb our dependency on oil. Feeding corporate oil profits at the expense of our oceans is criminal!

[P J Evans]

I see they aren't honest enough to tell people how long it take to get any of that oil to the local market - assuming there's any left to find.

I see they also think that 'if you drill, it will come'. Or maybe 'oil follows the drill'.
That's the oil promoter at work, collecting money from his /m/a/r/k/s/ investors.

[Jim H]

What an obvious political ploy this campaign is, and reporters should be very careful not to play along with this Gingrich-inspired PR slogan. There is no "ban" on offshore drilling, except within 3 miles of shore, where the states have jurisdiction. There's tons of oil in the Gulf and off California, and in the Naval Reserve that Clinton leased to the companies. There are capped wells sitting and waiting to be pumped. What's the pressure now? To blame the gas price on the Democrats, and to allow their buddies in the oil industry to add more leases where they will drill when the prices go up more. And we all know, long-term, that we must find new sources of oil. Time to turf the oil men out of the White House.

[Mary M. Thonsen]

I guess Bush is getting frantic since he doesn't have much more time to ruin the country more than he already has -

[Steve - Long Beach]

The oil industry already has access to 63M acres of undeveloped potential sites. The ANWR was "set aside" PRECISELY to protect it from exactly this kind of corporate rape. Exploit the existing fields, concentrate on newer technologies, commit to an "Americanization" of resources and let's talk -- but until then giving away natural resources in the hope that multinational corporations will act differently from the way they do currently is a fool's errand.

What's the old quote? "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results."

Sounds like the Bush Energy "Policy" in every respect.

[Frank]

How has this clown not been impeached yet?

This is just a temporary solution to a bigger problem, and counterproductive for the American economy. We need to get off of oil and $4/gal gas right now will help us do it. How? Because it makes investing a developing alternative and renewable energies now more practical. Sure, it places a short-term burden on Americans, which is debatable because I really don't see anyone modifying they're driving habits, but it could be a huge benefit to our own economy. The Internet and the widespread use of computers have helped drive our last 2 economic booms, green energy could definitely drive the next one... or if we don't, it will drive a foreign economy... Not to mention better for the environment.

[Richard W]

Drilling for more oil is like fighting for peace. The issue has always been our DEPENDANCY on oil! We can put a rover on mars and clone a sheep but we are sill using the same fuel source as our fathers father??

[B. Viers]

GAS PRICES-Think about this theory.
1. When Bush went into office gas was at $1.47 a gallon.
2. Gas started creeping up a little and Bush decided he would start a little war with Iraq that he figured would last maybe 30 days and he could get his hands on the Iraqi oil. Instead that little war has lasted and lasted and lasted to the point it is costing the American people the loss of many U.S. military lives, the maiming of many U.S. military and running up a cost of over a trillion dollars and the Iraqis are saying to Bush, "Keep your damned hands off our oil."
3. Gas continues to rise, so a big push is made to open up oil drilling in senisitive areas of Alaska, with only a small supply of oil in the ground that will take years to get into the pipe lines to refineries. That got shot down.
4. Gas continues to rise, and once again Bush makes an effort to get oil drilling off the coast of California. Arnold Schwartznager shot that idea down (as if that was the end of the issue).
5. Gas continues to rise, and Bush tries to get oil drilling off the coast of Florida. Well that ends up a maybe.
6. Gas continues to rise up to $3.97 and $4.25 and $4.50 in some areas. Now McCain is running for office so Bush decides to ally with McCain and push for drilling off all the coastlines in the continental United States. The weakness of this attempt lies in the fact that none of that drilling will result in oil running to the refineries until eight or ten years from now, if not more (maybe by that time inventors will come up with a different method to create less expensive propulsion of our autos-then all the drilling will only result in destroying our coastlines and fisheries).
Go back over the history of every move Bush has made. The Americans were paying a nice comfortable $1.47 a gallon eight years ago. Then as Bush began to serve in office gas prices started going up. With each panic gas rise, Bush has made some kind of attempt to either get a war started or open up drilling somewhere we shouldn't be going with oil drilling. Is there some kind of message in this? Has gas risen because the Bush administration has actually caused it to rise in order to get their mits on new oil fields or other countries' oil fields (Iraq, Iran, etc.)? Maybe congress shouldn't be investingating just the oil companies for price gouging, maybe they should dig deeper and see if all these boosts in gas prices are not a Bush consipiracy-a pay back to the oil companies-a way of lining his and his buddies pockets. Think maybe so? It's a theory. We small average Americans will probably never know the truth until historians in the next hundred years dig in to the files you and I and evidently Congress can't look at because Bush says they are privileged.

Commentary? Theory? Fact? Speculation? Who knows? What's next?

[Jay K.]

What is better - Putting $150 a barrel into the hands of some crazy Arabs or into the US Treasury and the pockets of a US oil company ? Even if its "just" a million barrels a day, thats $150 million into the US economy A DAY.

[A drop in the bucket]

More genius from the Shrub. Even if each and every US Citizen had an oil well in their backyard, we would still run out in about 10 years. We need to be drilling for new energy ideas, not our poor battered coastlines or wildlife reserves

[Angry High School Students]

We believe that Bush's request for drilling is a destructive and irresponsible act. It would destroy something that the world needs more of-protected environments. We should spend more money on alternative fuels. As students, we feel that Bush is not doing this for the good of the U.S. He is only proposing this at the end of his presidency to avoid receiving negative attention from the press and the public.

[SteveG]

Bush owned Congress for six years and never suggested lifting the ban previously..like the summer of 2006 when gas prices spiked! Also why doesn't he lift the ban Pres Bush I placed on offshore drilling!!? Also why don't the oil companies drill in the 68 million acres that they have already been given permission to drill on?! All the same oil company butt kissing we've heard from these guys for years. And McCain is truly showing that he is the McSame!!

[Tony Arnold]

hey jack holes, you forgot to mention Bill Clinton's ban of drilling in AMWR. What a bunch of idiots.

[Dr. Jesse Kally-Williams]

This is man is simply a disaster not only for America but for the whole world, and not only for the present generation but for future ones as well. The name "bush" describes the very essence of the man and his leadership. And if we follow his goals for the world, the planet in particular, they will leterally eat us up.

[M G Davis]

Amazing ignorance - if the methods are safer, why not? It is not like we will have an alternative to gas/diesel in the next few years. Get real. Yes, it will take 5 years before we have usable fuel from new drilling, but isn't that better than never?

As things stand, right now China has offshore rigs in the gulf of Mexico, right outside our national waters. Why should we let them, with poorer technology, exploit our resources while we pay foreign nations a ransom for gas?

Grow up!

[Kay J]

Jay K. why don't you leave the thinking to those of us with intelligent thoughts to add.

Refining is half the issue with gas prices, not oil. and the oil/gas companies are trying to cut back on refining capacity, not increase it.

you're the perfect example of a sucker. the day americans start using their brains and not getting sucked into foolish xenophobic rhetoric is the day we might actually make some real progress.

[Rick Redfield]

When you think about the proposal it makes since. Do you pay the ARABS for oil or get it internally. I would rather get it internally. There is a limit to the amount of oil a refinery can process. If they get it cheaper here instead of hauling it across the ocean. To me that would reduce the chance for Oil Damage to the oceans.
Technology has improved to reduce the chance of an Oil Leak/Spill from an off shore derick.
I for one support the offshore drilling. As well as Pushing the EPA to cerify more Kits to convert Big Gas Guzzelers from Gasoline or Deisel to Natural Gas which is produced completely within the US.

We Need a short term relief as well as long term planning.
Just talking about it is not going to fix the issue. Someone has got to act and so far I hear NO ONE is acting... They are just talking allot.

[Aaron H.]

The democrats don't want more nuclear power and they don't want more oil production. How is America supposed to be competitive in the world economy if we refuse to produce our own energy? Exxon-mobil, aka a big nasty evil oil free-enterprise company with way to much profit, is having to sell its own stores because its losing money every day. We blame everything on oil companies, but just look at their profit MARGINS. They arent as high as tobacco's, beer's, or drug manufacturer's. There is enough oil in ANWR to last America for 200 years. The American people are more important than some elk. I don't like bush, but he is finally doing something right.

What is better - Putting $150 a barrel into the hands of some crazy Arabs or into the US Treasury and the pockets of a US oil company ? Even if its "just" a million barrels a day, thats $150 million into the US economy A DAY.

Posted by: Jay K. | June 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM

Which is about 1/2 of what were spending on the war in Iraq EVERY day (not counting long term costs) for oh about the last 1,900+ days!

[Merlin]

The sheep speak.
I agree. The money is better in our hands then in foreign lands.
Get the oil but also need to work on other means for fuel.

But the oil companies keep tight reigns on that cause it would affect them to great. Cost for them to revert to a different fuel would kill them.

Sorry but most likely wont happen in our lifetimes. Maybe our GRandchildrens but probably not.

[Rick Redfield]

When you think about the proposal it makes since. Do you pay the ARABS for oil or get it internally. I would rather get it internally. There is a limit to the amount of oil a refinery can process. If they get it cheaper here instead of hauling it across the ocean. To me that would reduce the chance for Oil Damage to the oceans.
Technology has improved to reduce the chance of an Oil Leak/Spill from an off shore derick.
I for one support the offshore drilling. As well as Pushing the EPA to cerify more Kits to convert Big Gas Guzzelers from Gasoline or Deisel to Natural Gas which is produced completely within the US.

We Need a short term relief as well as long term planning.
Just talking about it is not going to fix the issue. Someone has got to act and so far I hear NO ONE is acting... They are just talking allot.

[ted in pdx]

It's not just a flip-flop. It basically recognizes the complete hypocrisy of just about every insider in Washington (Democrats included) on the issue of climate change. We called all the world's scientists together, and they all concluded that we are in the process of creating a climate disaster, and that we need to get off fossil-fuels, the United States being the prime offender. So now all the politicians say they're for finding alternative fuels (one of these days), but in the meantime, we're going to dramatically increase our dependence upon oil, provide tax breaks so our major oil companies can continue to focus on expanding their inventory of fossil-fuel, while doing nothing at all to provide an authentic competitive marketplace for consumers. The failure of the recent attempt to set more stringent gas mileage requirements made the same point, across party lines.

If NASA were to report that they'd found a huge asteroid headed straight for us in the next 10 years, you can bet that George W. Bush and McCain would be leading the charge to create a multi-trillion-dollar Manhattan Project for asteroid defenses, starting yesterday. But presented with the abstract statistical probability that continuing to release tons of CO2 into the atmosphere may have dire consequences sometime in 2020 or 2030, they can't be bothered. And in fairness to McCain, why should he? He won't be around by then.

It's a reminder to watch what people do, not what they say. It's also a sad commentary on our leadership, and on an electorate always willing to pass off the difficult problems to the next generation.

[Jeff Terzo]

I think the added capacity would work if the federal government adds the mandatory stipulation that the oil produced can *only* be applied to meet the needs of domestic U.S. consumption. This is kind of what our national strategy would be if the Middle East suddenly ran out of oil or sharply decreased production. The whole strategy has been from the beginning to allow the rest of the world to exhaust its reserves before the U.S. determined it necessary to tap its own. I think its fair to start tapping the U.S. reserves for U.S. consumption purposes. WIth China and India now absorbing so much of the global supply, we will arrive at this strategy soon enough as it is.