Will Bush succeed in his push for offshore drilling?

Even before the White House could make official the plan to lift an executive ban on offshore drilling, angry responses came pouring in.

"One of the two safety nets that protect our most treasured coastal areas, as of today, is gone,'' said Richard Charter, a consultant to Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

He added:

But it is now clear that the fate of the California coast and these other sensitive areas absolutely will be determined by the presidential election. This punts the whole decision about drilling in these protected areas directly into the presidential election.

Still, there were signs of a shifting mood in Congress.

Rep. John Campbell (R-Newport Beach), who voted in 2006 against relaxing the moratorium, said in a recent interview, "I am becoming more flexible on the issue, which is clearly a function of the crisis in which we find ourselves.''

On a recent trip home, he said, gas prices ...

Photo credit: Spencer Weiner / Los Angeles Times

... were "all anybody wants to talk about."

"What I hear all the time is ... I'm tired of sending all this money over to those people who hate us. And now it's a ridiculous amount of money we're sending to those people who hate us, and we need to stop that," Campbell said.

The story so far: President Bush is about to sign a memorandum lifting an executive ban on drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. A congressional moratorium remains in place but expires Oct. 1 unless Congress acts.

And the strong wall of resistance to relaxing the long-standing ban has been showing signs of cracking amid $4 a gallon gas prices and an approaching election, Times congressional correspondent Richard Simon reports. Republican presidential candidate and Sen. John McCain of Arizona recently came out in support of letting states decide whether to permit energy exploration off their coasts.

Congressional Republicans have sought to increase pressure on Democrats to support expanded domestic production, but so far have been blocked in their attempts to force a House vote on whether to allow drilling more than 50 miles off the coast.

Offshore drilling has been a hot political issue since a 1969 oil platform blowout off Santa Barbara caused extensive environmental damage and inspired the ban on new exploration off coastal waters except in parts of the Gulf of Mexico and areas off Alaska. Proponents of relaxing the moratorium say that technological improvements have made drilling safer.

Against that background, Charter noted, Bush is trying to influence the congressional vote on the moratorium.

He added: "There's no telling what could happen between now and the November election."

-- James Gerstenzang

Comments

[rachel]

it is crazy that the American people are being choked both at the pump and everywhere else, (with insane food prices etc.) and that we are giving an immense amount of money and power to those who would like nothing more than to blow us all to smithereens, just because we won't tap into our own resources and DRILL FOR OIL! Every day that we give those terrorists money we are endangering our lives, yet people have the nerve to suggest that by drilling we may endanger " treasured coastal areas"? we are talking about the lives of hundreds of people, just look at 9-11! People have got to get their priorities straight!

[Rebecca]

If all you Democrats could possibly get your heads out of the sand, you might even find some oil there. Wake up! This is 2008, not 1988. That is when responsible off-shore drilling should have begun, as well as more drilling in Alaska AND development of alternatives fuels to supplement the oil and eventually to replace most of its use. If that had happened, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When will we stop waiting until a crisis occurs to start thinking of a solution?

[Cory Loudermilk]

Does anyone really believe that opening up our coastal waters to exploration and pumping will ease gas prices at the pump? Well, yes, they probably do believe this. However, these same believers are ignorant of the fact that we import more oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico than Saudi Arabia. In fact, the Saudis are fourth in line when it comes to importing to the US.

So let's all get real. This isn't about the Saudis. This is about the profits that can be made by squeezing the American Consumer. As long as we are eager to drive huge vehicles and pay huge prices at the pump then there are huge profits out there for The Friends of Bush.

Yes, American Companies should eventually, well down the road as exploration takes years to come to fruition, reap the very profitable benefits of having more oil to pimp out to the American gas guzzler. However, these profits never reach the American Public and the price of the oil will not go down--if it did, these companies would not be so interested.

The one thing that you can say for Bush is that he is loyal. He has never stopped trying to increase the profits that his friends in the Oil Industry demanded from him. Good Soldier.

[Paul R. Shankman]

There is no end to George Bush's ignorance of, among other things, the environment. Even California's Republican Governor is against offshore oil drilling and for good cause: Drilling for oil off the coast will risk further endangerment and pollution of the environment. Moreover, the money for drilling must be spent instead to implement alternative fuel sources to heal the earth, to reverse global warming, and to end dependance on Middle Eastern oil. Now, after committing various irrefutable war crimes, including the unwarranted torture of prisoners by Bush in his Iraq debacle, he seeks by to finish his term by placing a final nail in the coffin of the world's precious ecological balance which is already in horrible jeopardy of being ruined forever. The world does not need time or "history" to judge Bush's conduct. It is bad and should not be tolerated any further.

[Cryos]

A lot of the gas price increase is a simple supply vs demand issue. There is a demand for 1.5 million barrels per day more than the supply.

Long term the solution is conservation and alternative energy but there needs to be a REALISTIC transition plan including drilling, refining capacity and nuclear.

The currently leased lands are not economically viable for oil production. How about the oil companies trade their leases for the land that actually has a reasonable cost to drill? Would that satisfy people?

If people do not want to support any realistic transition plans such as econ101 increase supply to meet demand then just admit that your ideals require $4+ dollar gas and stop trying to produce smokescreens.

[Jeff Phillips]

So an incident that occurred in 1969 has to strangle hold us for the next 50 years? I guess we should have stopped people from flying because planes crash, or bicylces because people get hurt riding them. No more roads or railroads built...interferes with nature....no windmills.....thanks Teddy Kennedy and that is what it comes down to. You don't care about the environment, you care about your little space not being clean.

Comparing a 1969 oil rig to one today is like comparing a Ford-Tri-Motor to a Boeing 777. We can't drill our way to lower prices?? Well, I guarantee you we can't grow our way to lower prices. Take a look at the rest of the responsible world and the safeguards on their rigs. Its a lot safer than having oil tankers all over the place as we do now....which are four times more likely to have a spill.

[Jim Bob]

I hope all of you Democrats are enjoying your $4.++ gallon gas.

[Rowland Scherman]

That's what we get for electing an oil-soaked administration.

What about taxing the giant oil companies that have benefited by the Bush/Cheney cabal?

[tom]

there were over 120 spills during katrina and rita. its still not safe to drill off shore. i say, once exxon start producing the tens of millions of acres they already should be drilling and show they can do it safe, then fine.
gas at almost $5 here in calif, no new refineries, not drilling or refining at capability and records profits prove it first. then with hundreds of billions going to fund oil countries funding terrorists maybe its time to get off the oil.

[Cryos]

To clarify my earlier post. Smokescreens:

"We won't see oil for 8-10 years."

If we had been drilling in economically viable areas over the last 30 years we would have had this oil 20 years ago.

"Drilling won't reduce the cost of oil by much."

This is arguable. A lot of the cost is speculation according to the people not advocating drilling right? As long as OPEC knows we can't drill our own oil they can charge us what they please and know we'll pay for it. Investors can speculate the price to go higher since they know OPEC doesn't mind the extra profits. If OPEC knows we will drill our own oil they will lower the price since they want us to buy their product.

"The oil companies have millions of acres to drill."

This has been addressed in other posts but the areas leased are not viable for oil production. How about the oil companies trade in their leases to explore the places where oil can be realistically extracted?

"The dangers of oil spills."

The technology has significantly changed since 40 years ago and is much safer, more environmentally friendly, and a much smaller footprint today.

"This is a conspiracy for oil industry windfall profits."

The oil companies are making a profit margin normal for industries and less of a margin than many industries. So we should tax Starbuck's "windfall profits" right?

"Force the oil companies to research alternative energy"

They are OIL companies. If you want to subsidize then subsidize alternative energy related companies and call it what it is. Alternative energy is a small fraction as efficient as fossil fuels so will not be a viable replacement in the short term.

If you think "drilling is bad" fine just say so you have the right to your opinion. However please admit that your ideals are contributing to the cost of gas and that you are fine with it. Unfortunately this is reality not academic so you can't have it both ways.

[Terry Ballard]

Gas prices have gone through the roof, along with the profits of Big Oil. The solution? Throw them more money. Give them what they want. That's the level of imagination and leadership that we've come to expect from the Bush team. If Bush gets through next December without managing to despoil the last bit of Alaskan wilderness, he'll consider himself a failure.

[Mike]

Brian in Seattle

You are absolutely right about Mr. Bush. The man is little more than a crook. A representative of Corporate America during it's feeding frenzy with only their interests in mind. I don't understand how people like him can sleep at night. The only consolation is that "what comes around, goes around". My prayer is that he gets his just deserts in the end--if you know what I mean.

As to his legacy, I don't think he knows what the word means. Some folks just don't care what others think of them. Trust fund babies like W are completely out of touch with the real world and real world problems/solutions. Their only ambition is to gain more--more money, more power/control. Screw the rest of us.

[MollyB]

Excavating for more oil is a terrible idea. We need to do everything we can to conserve the oil we have and invest in alternative energy. We have known about global warming for a good twenty years, and yet our government has done nothing. Some of the readers think the money for the high oil prices is going straight to the terrorists (whoever they are-- remember that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11), but what about looking to our own corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron? They are making record profits, and paying how much in taxes? and supporting whom for president? The guy who will get them to drill more, of course!

If you are worried about terrorists, the best thing to do is put as many of our resources into energy alternatives and conservation efforts like better vehicles and more mass transit as possible, because the easiest target for the terrorists is a centralized business of some kind. Alternative energies are more decentralized -- that's why they're being so ignored. Not only is the source of energy decentralized, but that leads to loss of control and profits for the big guys, but also more money to be spread around to all of us. Unless you're a multi-millionaire, the choice is clear. More drilling means more green-house gas, more smog, more inhalers and children with asthma, more terrible storms. And as for safety of the new technologies? I don't know about that, but I do know that the people who are using those technologies are people with the same design as the people who ran a tanker into the Bay Bridge and caused a terrible spill in the SF Bay. They're run by people who drink and don't get enough sleep. They're also people who will cut corners to make things as cheaply as possible, and who are not being overseen by responsible government agencies. That means oil spills, no matter how well the engineers are designing the equipment.

[Mike]

psmarc93

Refineries are NOT running at capacity--check your facts. Although there has been no new construction of refineries, they have all been refurbished, augmented, expanded etc. and are actually running at about 80-85% capacity. There are no barrels lined up at the dock waiting to be processed. Oil companies have a monopoly going and that's the way it is. Big money, invested wisely, buys them anything they want. They don't need to drill off the coast of California--they WANT to. They already have permission to drill on millions of acres in the Gulf of Mexico, but have yet to do so. It's really a matter of continuing the monopoly.

[Lee Duplanti]

After reading this story it is with profound sadness that I apologize to my fellow citizens for voting for this man. It seems to me that Bush is determined to destroy this country before he leaves office. I only hope the branch of the Hague responsible for the apprehension of individuals charged with violation of their precepts will go after Bush, Cheney, and company and make them answer for their crimes. It seems the part of our gov't that is supposed to keep the executive branch in check has failed miserably. And the future is even bleaker given our choice between Obama and McCain. God help us all since we seem unwilling to correct our mistakes ourselves!!

[Jay]

The Bush Administration looks on in amazement at how quickly the Democratic majority in Congress, lead by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama fold when they are pressured to vote against the interests of most American citizens, and for special interests.

After the Democratic majority's poor performance in failing to block "retroactive immunity" in FISA legislation, the Administration are 99% certain of succeeding with offshore drilling, and next up - drilling in the Alaska Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

Republicans that want to vote for what they feel is right, can't vote with this team because they are too soft to be trusted in a fight.

The Bush team is also letting foriegn enemies know just how weak this team will be if they win the US Presidency.

[Jack]

I think Bush needs to ride around in another 21-vehicle motorcade to tell us more about conserving energy.

[Chris]

Jeff in Orlando "would like to see a bipartisan effort to forge a new energy policy" Jeff, now, as always, we don't have an energy policy to reforge and we never because US energy policy is used by politicians to appease their constituencies (left and right) in order to stay in power. After all, that's all they're interested in anyway.

[Isaac Meyer]

It's time for you West Coast fools to realize that if we had drilled where there is oil in our nation, on shore and off shore, we would not be in such an energy crisis. It's time for you to be less selfish and self absorbed or else get out and walk. You love your cars and trucks so darn much, yet you do not want to contribute to providing gas for them. Now that is really stupid. We need to use all the methods for energy we have in this country; offshore drilling off the Gulf Coast has been going on for so long and there have been no major problems. So what's your problem with drilling? Just stupidity. We are getting 70% of our oil from foreign countries who are taking our money and building all sorts of things in their countries with OUR money. A Texas oil man is attempting to help our country, putting in his OWN money for wind power to ease our country's energy crisis. He realizes what a bad state our nation is in with energy. Why can's you folks think rationally instead of saying "not in my back yard". You Californians have so many problems in your state and yet you are concerned about drilling rigs many miles offshore. Fix your other problems, like fires, banks going under, illegals, crime, etc.

[JC]

We need to protect our environment or what is left of it. Mother Earth is dying.
Somebody needs to care. Apparently the President doesn't care and the House
and the Senate doesn't care either. I understand the situation concerning the
amount of dollars we're spending at the gas pump. But remember when you
want to go to the beach, or a lake to go swimming or fishing either here in the
US or overseas to enjoy those beautiful beaches w/ the white sand. Think
dirty beaches and waters because of oil spills. Would you like that ?

[JC]

We need to protect our environment or what is left of it. Mother Earth is dying.
Somebody needs to care. Apparently the President doesn't care and the House
and the Senate doesn't care either. I understand the situation concerning the
amount of dollars we're spending at the gas pump. But remember when you
want to go to the beach, or a lake to go swimming or fishing either here in the
US or overseas to enjoy those beautiful beaches w/ the white sand. Think
dirty beaches and waters because of oil spills. Would you like that ?

[Isaac Meyer]

Mike, you want "them" to do much more drilling off the Gulf of Mexico. Why not California? We have drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico now, many of them, you have none. Is that fair. I venture to guess that you Californians drive a heck of a lot more than most other U.S. citizens yet you are a bunch of selfish sissy complaining people. Be honorable and do the right thing and agree to offshore drilling on the West Coast instead of telling us the drill more offshore on the Gulf Coast. Or less get out and walk.

[Cryos]

Would anyone care to rationally debate the points in my post?

I know it is popular from saturation in the media to hate Bush and just spout "Bush and Big Oil buddies, windfall profits, etc" but if you want to be seen as rational it would help to base your assertions on logic rather than conspiracy theory populism.

I don't agree with Bush on many things as I don't like neo-cons or neo-libs but I am disheartened at the increased frequency of basing policy off of baseless hype and at the same time refusing to acknowledge the real problems behind energy production.

[Julie Harris]

I lived in California for 9 years in the '80's and never say such a love for the automobile, cruising down the coast, etc. Yet you don't want drilling rigs offshore "in your backyard". What arrogance, stupidity, and selfishness. And you are blaming everything on Bush and the oil companies. Have you seen what extravagant buildings being built with OUR money in the countries in the middle east? One of those countries is actually using gold to decorate walls, etc.

The oil cos. of the U.S. are making a large profit; however, do you realize how very expensive it is to drill for oil, especially off shore? The off shore rigs are similar to large towns..they have to be as workers live there. Onshore people have to be hired for 24 hours basis because they are called in when problems (and there are numerous problems) happen on rigs, losing tools, etc. Fixing these problems means these employees stay on the job until its fixed, sometimes day and night for days at a time. Technology is such that it is expensive. Recovering oil from dead wells is expensive and this is being done now. It is very, very, very, very expensive to find oil and then get it into energy. So don't complain about oil cos. There are other corporations making just as much money as oil cos. (the technology cos. now and in the past, the wall street cos., etc.) yet they do not contribute to our nation as much as the oil companies. Refiners are expensive to operate and accidents are frequent there. And you Californians have no large refiners but you expect others to have them. Again, your a bunch of selfish bums.

What hubris we humans have! I hate to break it to you JC but the human race doesn't have the capacity to destroy mother earth. The earth has suffered greater catastrophes than the human race in the past and it will still be here long after we are gone (or did you expect humanity to defy the odds and survive in perpetuity?). That said, we humans do have the ability to alter radically the environment of those around us; to the benefit of some and to the detriment of others - including ourselves. Mother Earth will adjust and compensate for the overabundance of humans on the planet. Our culture of exploitation and consumption cannot continue unabated. Energy shortages, food shortages, water shortages, disease, etc. will all take their toll. The process has already begun.