Bush to lift executive ban on offshore drilling
posted at 11:16 am on July 14, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
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.
But [WH spokesman Dana] Perino said Bush no longer wants to wait. She pinned blame on the leaders of the Democratic Congress, noting that no action has been taken on this issue…
Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start.
Why didn’t he take MM’s advice and do this weeks ago? This is one of the few gimmes McCain has right now; putting the ball in the Democrats’ court forces them to defend an unpopular position. By waiting so long, though, Bush has timed this so that it’s going to get eaten up by Obama’s trip to Europe and Iraq next week, when foreign policy will be front and center. I don’t get it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I had the boss beat on this one. :-)
Now he sign an executive order opening the door to shale and ANWR.
drjohn on July 14, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Farmers will just go back to growing what they were growing before the ethanol boondoggle.
Johan Klaus on July 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 1:25 PM
while i agree in a perfect world that would be the best thing. we don’t live in a perfect world. the avg voter would not be able to handle the pain of doing this. most people would lose their job, home. food would become a luxury. The governmental payments in the forms of FDIC insurance, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc will make the taxpayer FUNDED bailout so far look like chump change.
The socialists programs enacted over the last 70 years makes the ability of the US economy to go thruough painful coorections impossible without a total collapse of the system.
This would wipeout retirement funds, pension programs, stock market assets, bond holders, real estate assests. It would require the government to again seize gold and other hard assets like oil to shore up its balance sheet and reduce speculation.
It will basicaly usher in a very big socialist governmental power grap.
No, IMO the best answer is a little governmental “help” now to avoid a lot of governmental “help” latter.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Farmers will just go back to growing what they were growing before the ethanol boondoggle.
Johan Klaus on July 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
The problem is that FARMERS were being paid NOT to grow stuff before ethanol.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 1:36 PM
But if we allow the market to work its correction-magic, the reverberations throughout our country would probably truly sink us into a depression. Bear was a good company. By letting it fail, we probably would have seen most, if not all, of the large-cap banks go under. I’m sure that’s why there was a “bail out” of sorts. Can you imagine Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Citigroup, Merrill, Goldman, Wachovia etc. FAILING????
Look what happened in the 30’s – the government’s solution to the depression was THE NEW DEAL. A depression would just open the door for more socialism and that is totally unacceptable.
Talk about a rock and a hard place…
pullingmyhairout on July 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
How about genius politics?
If Bush opened everything by fiat he could just sit back and dare Democrats to overturn it.
If they do this race is over.
Win-win.
drjohn on July 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
drjohn on July 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
be ware the ids of march. Sounds like Ceaser crossing the rubicion
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 1:48 PM
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM,
While I may agree with most of your reasoning, the pendulum must swing in the other direction from time to time or there is the preception of NO RISK if every investor/market knows that the “little govt. help” is there to back them up at the taxpayers expense. Failures and corrections do not have to mean total collapse. Would it have been prudent if the govt had bailed out Enron? NO. Companies that practice unsafe or unscrupulous business decisions should be forced to be accountable for their actions with out the shield of the government.
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Enron was a pipeline/energy company that was crippled with fraud. There were many more companies to take its place when it failed. The FINANCIAL industry is completely different – when big banks fail, it affects the entire economy. Like a poster said previously, it would be the Great Depression ver. 2.0.
pullingmyhairout on July 14, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Prior to the ethanol boondoggle, farmers weren’t being paid?????
Wrong on both counts. Farmers have been paid both to grow, and to not grow crops by the govt since the New Deal.
MarkTheGreat on July 14, 2008 at 2:03 PM
McCain could keep this from being forgotten by making it a campaign issue, but he won’t, becuase he’s a wuss when it comes to energy policy.
infidel4life on July 14, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Enron did not have the possibility to thrust the entire economy and country into a depression. If it did I would be all for a bailout.
the problem is that government oversight allowed the Bear Streans, Citibanks, Fannie Mae to become too big. To have too many positions and too much leverage on the economy. They did this for many reasons among these were world power leverage, votes, bribes etc.
But it really doesn’t matter why it happened except so we do not let it happen again. what matters is that it has. And to let these companies fail would lead to a depression. That is not hyperbole. That is history. Yes it sucks, yes it brings a moral hazzard but that is reality.
With Bear Streans the stock holders were wiped out because of this “moral hazzard” thinking but the bond holders and the perferred shaeholders were not.
It can be done to reduce the moral hazzard and save the country. Most panics are caused by the emotion of fear. What the government is trying to do is control the fear. If bear streans, or citibank, or freedie Mac were wiped out at the same time, we would have a massive stock market crash, a run on the banks, and a collapse of the entire home loan financing system in this country.
How people think that would not cause an epic depression is beyond me.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Look what happened in the 30’s – the government’s solution to the depression was THE NEW DEAL. A depression would just open the door for more socialism and that is totally unacceptable.
Talk about a rock and a hard place…
pullingmyhairout on July 14, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Every time the government bails out these institutions it IS the added creation of socialism by assimilation. There are no easy answers here folks, but we’re going down a slippery slope when there are no risk envolved. The best example would be the loan that the government made to the Chrysler Corporation (under Lee Iacocca ), where the “bail-out” was in the form of a loan which was paid back. Today, most companies do not see the government looking for even long-term restitution.
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM
And the democrats and Obama want to raise our taxes. How so many people don’t understand the ramifications of that in today’s economic climate, is quite frankly, baffling to me.
pullingmyhairout on July 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:12 PM
I agree no easy answers. and i also agree that the chrysler model should be used. But the loan for Bear Streans was under the Chrysler model just to the FEd not the federal government. JPM must pay back that 29 billion to the fund. sure it is under very low terms etc.
I too have a gentic dislike for governmental “help”. I think of it like finding a sickness early. With a little medicine, good heathly eating, and plenty of rest. You are mostly likely able to lead a noraml life.
If you wait and wait to vist the doctor and the sickness spreads then you are fighting for your life on the operating table. IMO we are in the middle zone now. We waited but maybe its not too late.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 2:21 PM
1981, a year in which 3,300 out of 3,800 S&Ls lost money did effect this nations financial economy but it did not cause a collapse. I’m only saying there should be risk and not total guarentees for every capitalistic endeavor.
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM
How so many people don’t understand the ramifications of that in today’s economic climate, is quite frankly, baffling to me.
pullingmyhairout on July 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM
baffling is not strong enough. I am beginning to think that some/most of those people are active enemies of the USA and want our country to self destruct. yes I am questioning their love for our country.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Look who decided to stand up and act like a conservative!!!
azcop on July 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:23 PM
I was thinking it was 1991. but I agree. the problem is that those S&L’s were not the size and did not have the reach of even one Citibank.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Which brings us back to the topic at hand. We should be drilling in every orfus this nation owns for our own self-preservation. We’re already on the “operating table” and the democrats have the knife. Scary indeed.
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
I know, right? Why aren’t people freaking out about the idea of Obama and the Dems trying to tax us out of a recession? It makes no sense whatsoever. People on both sides are starting to freak out about gas prices, which so far are amounting to an increase of about a thousand dollars per year for my household (about a hundred more per month, or two times eating out with the whole family) — while letting the Bush tax cuts expire will amount to 5-10 thousand more per year for me and my family, plus the increases the Dems are promising on top of that, plus the increases that will have to happen over the next decade or two to try to sustain SS & Medicare as the Boomers retire in numbers… Why aren’t people freaking out about tax rates? It seems like they grasp the idea that lower interest rates stimulate borrowing. Why wouldn’t they grasp the idea that lower taxes would stimulate the economy in general? Why aren’t they aware that history bears out this reality, every time it’s been tried? Lowering taxes raises revenues and stimulates the economy. Raising them depresses the economy — particularly when the economy feels shaky already. Duh.
aero on July 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Which brings us back to the topic at hand. We should be drilling in every orfus this nation owns for our own self-preservation. We’re already on the “operating table” and the democrats have the knife. Scary indeed.
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
On that you get no arguement from me. We should be drilling, cooking, building whatever it takes to lower gas. It matters not what bailouts the government does. If gas remains at $4.00/gal the economy is dead eitherway. The bailouts are just treating the symptons not the problem.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 2:34 PM
aero on July 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM
As fas as why they aren’t freaking out? The people I talk too think it will not impact them because they “aren’t rich” Another example of failing to teach our children economics, I guess.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 2:36 PM
OK Congress, “W” has done his part, now its your turn. America needs OIL, not excuses!
Maxx on July 14, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Why aren’t people freaking out about tax rates? ….aero on July 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM
No one has found (yet) the ability to explain to the electorate that Obama’s promise’s/give-aways amount to mandating that every person that owns a car must buy two more, fill them with gas, and leave them running 24/7.
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Agreed. I’m stunned by how many people don’t seem to realize that, according to the government, they’re “rich,” and all the policies they support to tax the hell out of the “rich” hits them much harder than it does the actual rich. I know I’m not rich, but I can tell by how the tax system affects me that the government thinks I am.
I blame the media in large part once again. They can and should educate the public about how much a family in each income bracket can expect to pay in real dollars when the Bush tax cuts are no longer in effect. It’s part of their job to inform the public so that the public can make informed choices. If you tell a family that is living check-to-check that they’ll have to come up with another $5,000 next year on their tax returns, they’ll be a hell of a lot less enthusiastic about letting Dems keep the majority in Congress and giving Obama the White House to boot.
aero on July 14, 2008 at 2:46 PM
What they mean to say is that they are clueless as to the realities of oil exploration. They seem to think that land is land, and any patch of land has equal potential for commercial production. Which is like saying that any location in town is as good as any other for a retail store or restuarant.
iurockhead on July 14, 2008 at 11:50 AM
It isn’t?
/s
Sir Napsalot on July 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Just arrived in my email box from Freedom’s Watch:
It’s now been two years since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Americans that Democrats had a commonsense solution to high gas prices. Average price per gallon when Democrats took control of Congress? $2.32. Now, as the price of gas reaches another record high of $4.11 per gallon (a 77% increase in the last two years!), Americans are growing tired of Congressional leaders twiddling their thumbs while drivers shell out more and more of their income at the pumps.
Senator Barack Obama would’ve preferred a more “gradual adjustment” in fuel prices. Senator Harry Reid believes all fossil fuels are “dirty” and need to be eliminated. But what these liberal leaders aren’t offering is a solution to skyrocketing fuel prices while alternative sources of energy can be developed – and their hand-wringing is having a devastating effect on the American economy.
The liberal ‘plan’ for alleviating fuel costs seems to be nothing more than twiddling their thumbs while Americans continue to suffer. Watch this video outlining their inaction, and then sign the petition urging Congressional leaders to stop twiddling their thumbs and take action to lower high fuel prices.
Sincerely,
Freedom’s Watch
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
Well, I’m going to go for a run (aka, heat stroke). I have a headache thinking about the stupidity of our congress.
see ya!
pullingmyhairout on July 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM
HAHAHAHAHA!!!! This makes GB look pretty smart for a treasonous, incompetent, bumbling fool who needs to be impeached, as the socialist liberal left wants. He swats at a hornets nest, filled with angry voters, and Congress will be the only ones getting stung.
PatriotPete on July 14, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Rovin on July 14, 2008 at 2:54 PM
they need to hit them on the free gas and free care leases and free insurance they are getting also. Make the car lease and free gas for congress as big as the Congressional bank was. the repubs dod not wan tto attack “congress” this year because more rep senators are up for relelction than democratic senators IMO. also the reason they do not wan tto make the race national.
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 3:06 PM
The top ten recipients of farm subsidys over the past ten years were corporations. The democrats and republicans from farm states make it sound like the money is going to family farmers which it is not.
peacenprosperity on July 14, 2008 at 3:17 PM
peacenprosperity on July 14, 2008 at 3:17 PM
yes but the quota systems net effect was to have all farmers grow less to increase the price of the harvest. i.e less supply higher prices. with ethanol the farmers and corps actually made money for growing the food. i.e increased supply was taken up by increased demand. The fact that ethanol was corn based shifted certain crops and caused the expected price rises in wheat and soybeans as more farmland was planeted in corn.
food prices also were impacted by fuel prices, increase seed costs, increased fertilizer prices, flooding, droughts etc. to say that the ethanol program was the cause of the rise in food prices does not take economics into the picture. Since like gasoline there are no lines in the stores for food. There are no food shortages. Our farmers and corp have met the increase in demand and will continue to do so.
If you take that demand away (ethanol program) you will set up the conditions for a recession in the farming community as the food prices fall and the commidites prices of fuel, fertizlizers ect make it impossible for farmers to make money.
I don’t think we need another “dust bowl” (i.e 1930’s farm crisis) to add on to the truoubles we presently have in the economy.
Of course instead of free market economics of supply and demand we could place MORE governmental interference in a rapidilly changing sector of the economy like farming and see what happens.
True it was the government interefence in the first place that caused the increase but tampering with the fundementals of the farming sector again so soon will not end well
unseen on July 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Well it only took 71/2 years! Maybe someone finally told the President that oil was reaching a buck fifty a barrel and that the consumer was taking it up the keister and another trip to the middle east to hold hands with a prince probably wasn’t real smart either! Of course oil makes us sick so count on the Congress to do zero including the Republicans!
sabbott on July 14, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Good news. Just do it responsibly without raping the environment too badly.
And who gives a sh** that W lifted a ban that his father put in place? Is this supposed to be some delicious nugget of news? Who cares.
Dave Rywall on July 14, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Couple of points:
1. With the right protections in place, we’ve been able to get the job done offshore and in Prudhoe Bay without impacting the blessed “environment.”
2. W’s dad didn’t put the ban in place in the first place. That honor goes to Jimmy the Dhimmi (Carter).
Denken Sie, bevor Sie schreiben.
john1schn on July 14, 2008 at 4:42 PM
I can not say this more simply – I’m angry. I intend to work over the next several months to ensure that the Americans that I know understand that it is the fault of Democrats that we have remained unable to tap the resources of our nation and take control of this potentially desperate situation.
This is not a new issue, but it gets larger every day. Today, I ate lunch in an empty restaurant. The waitress told me that business has been way down since gas went up. This is going to ripple through our economy like a tsunami.
Wise Golden on July 14, 2008 at 5:20 PM
it is ok Allah. No “average” american is suppose too… remember.
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 5:47 PM
I am glad Bush did this, if nothing else it might force the issue.
Terrye on July 14, 2008 at 5:56 PM
are those calling for this additional drilling really this stupid or have they not thought out the entire steps A-Z of what this really means? where does all this incredible small amounts of oil go when it is retrieved? Well forget the number of years it will take and the small amount it will produce, but it just ends up on the world market. Not in your local gas station just for you. Get in touch, if you spent all your time worrying about coming up with real alternatives instead of winning elections maybe something good might happen instead of another ignorant politician saying everything you want to hear but not what you really need to hear. And thats both McCain and Obama.
Monkei on July 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM
This actually sets up an opportunity for McCain that he didn’t have before. While Obama is off on his Iraqi road to Damascus, he sets up a model whereby a candidate can go off on a well-publicized trip to legitimize his own change in opinion–I came, I saw, I changed my mind. McCain can borrow the template, travel to ANWR in a well-publicized trip, and arrive back to announce to a gathered press that the ANWR is a vast wilderness, and that the Alaskan governor and experts “on the ground” have convinced him that we can successfully extract the oil reserves without unduly harming the environment. It doesn’t hurt that it’s true.
Who comes back with a better sell to the American voter? Obama with his poke-in-the-eye to his netroots base, no matter how mild, or McCain who is addressing a solution to the problem that every American is currently stinging over?
Immolate on July 14, 2008 at 6:08 PM
With that same logic, let’s just give up on everything including all alternatives because they are years off as well. Your argument is to do nothing (except the things that you approve of.) You’re a fool and you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re being duped by your Democrat Masters. I’ve never said anything like that to anyone on this blog in many years of posting, but you are so wrong that you’re offensive.
Wise Golden on July 14, 2008 at 6:13 PM
What is it you do for a living? Grow Organic fruits and veggies? Raise free range chickens or cows?
You do realize that everything is a source of energy.
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 6:14 PM
Even better…he could make his ANWR anouncement while Obama is in Iraq, and he can announce his VP during Obamas speech in Germany (hopefully the Govenor of Alaska.)
Wise Golden on July 14, 2008 at 6:15 PM
La Brea tar pits. Yep, it’s oil.
Wise Golden on July 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Get your facts straight, Monkey… The U.S. domestic oil reserves, including all forms – oil, oil shale, ANWR, offshore, and new deposits discovered in the continental U.S. – exceed the Middle East’s. Natural gas alone, if fully realized, could power this country for a very long time.
Further, electricity from nuclear production is limitless. Let me spell that for you: L – I – M – I – T – L – E – S – S
We need to get off the stick, and make the eco-freaks walk the plank. They are the real problem. Not realistic energy resources, or American know-how.
BTW: Have a granola bar, on me!
seanrobins on July 14, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Do I detect synergy developing here Golden? Who’d have thought that a trip up to Alaska could yield such fruit?
Immolate on July 14, 2008 at 6:34 PM
And even better yet, he should go to Iraq two days before Obama to meet with huge cheering crowds of soldiers, and then while Obama is meeting with the sound of soft but polite aplause in Iraq, McCain lands in Alaska on the way home, takes a look around and says, Hmmm…yeah, we should drill here.
Wise Golden on July 14, 2008 at 6:39 PM
We are NOT fruit! oh Wait.. nevermind. Yeah we will yeild to all major oil, we LIKES oil people up here!
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM
I lived up there as a small boy, although not in Alaska proper (Anchorage). My earliest memories are of fishing trips to the interior and mooses running around on the Army base. We were there for a few years just after the “big one”.
I’d love to see all of the Alaskan citizens benefit from an oil boom. I don’t think you’ll find better Americans anywhere.
Immolate on July 14, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Hey we love Oil.. we admit it!
Speaking of that… went camping in Hope. BF’s dog got stomped by a moose and I got chased by a blackie… Fun TImes in Alaska. Yes the dog lived.
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM
Doing something blatantly and obviously necessary 8 years too late is not strong politics.
That GWB would wait to do this until the American energy situation is so dire is just beyond pathetic.
The only thing this man has done of value has been his strong, unyielding stance on the war, in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In both cases he has been spot on.
On virtually every other issue, GWB has been a disaster. The man is in the tank for the oil business.
pabarge on July 14, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Interesting fact from Ace of Spades, which I hope is accurate.
This ban has to be renewed annually by Congress.
Can you see an entertaining filibuster fight in the Senate this fall?
Wethal on July 14, 2008 at 7:30 PM
In GW’s defense, pabarge, gas prices weren’t much of a priority for anyone until they started shooting up. He also made some good picks for the SCOTUS (with a little help from the base). He didn’t buy into the climate change religion until recently, and then only mildly. I’m sure I’m neglecting a few other wins.
Immolate on July 14, 2008 at 7:30 PM
It should be interesting. Many Senators are going through re-elections this fall.
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Many military issues and upgrades have been passed with his approval. Even with Congress and the Senate dragging their little feet.
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 7:38 PM
A very painful reminder.
An Executive Order is in force only as long as a President is in office. Once a President leaves, it becomes invalid.
In waiting this long, Bush has done us no favor.
pocomoco on July 14, 2008 at 7:48 PM
Disagree pocomoco. In removing the executive order, Bush has forced Obama to reinstate it, which is painful, rather than maintaining it, which is not. Didn’t mention McCain since he’s on board with offshore drilling now.
Immolate on July 14, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Upinak–it’s been a long time since I was in the military, and my son in Iraq is more interested getting reassigned to Afghanistan than communicating the realities of day-to-day life. Thanks for the information.
Immolate on July 14, 2008 at 7:58 PM
stuck..
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 8:03 PM
With that said… I hope he is careful what he wishes for. Iraq has been in the spotlight more so then Afgahnistan. I can tell you stories on friends there at different remote FOB’s… and not many of these stories are good. Iraq is a paradise compared!
upinak on July 14, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Why didn’t he take MM’s advice and do this weeks ago? This is one of the few gimmes McCain has right now; putting the ball in the Democrats’ court forces them to defend an unpopular position. By waiting so long, though, Bush has timed this so that it’s going to get eaten up by Obama’s trip to Europe and Iraq next week, when foreign policy will be front and center. I don’t get it.
I do.
The Democrats no longer have any time to react to this in such a way that might possibly save them on this issue even if they were inclined to do so. Congress adjourns in two weeks for their August vacation and during that time the Democratic convention occurs. After that the Republican convention occurs and when that is done it will be too close to the election.
And for them to save themselves they are going to have to throw their whole entire moonbat wing of the party and Al Gore under the ever popular bus, which they will not do. They would also have to postpone their vacations which is something else they will not do, especially in an election year.
So this issue will languish with nothing positive done by the Democratic controlled House and Senate. The Dems and their MSM propaganda tool will try to cover the Dem’s rather large ass by either sticking their heads in the sand or try to spin the new Dem line of “they already have plenty of federal land to drill on” shinola. Their lawyers and judges will try to tie this up in court which will only serve to highlight the reason why it is important to keep the courts out of the hands of the Democrat appointed judges. It is easy to see what the Republican response will be to all this and it will be devastating for the Democrats at the federal and state level.
Time has run out for the Democrats on this issue. And with winter and the election approaching this issue will prove to be a party killer.
Nahanni on July 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM
I don’t think that’s true. I believe Ronald Reagan had to nullify Executive Orders that were in place from the Carter Administration in order to undo the “energy crisis” of the late 1970’s, because a Carter Executive Order was preventing oil imports.
Maxx on July 14, 2008 at 8:26 PM
Like the fraud of global warming being foisted upon us today and the new energy crisis brought to us by the Democrats, in the late 1970’s it was the fraudulent “energy crisis” of the Carter administration. This is how President Reagan dealt with it.
Maxx on July 14, 2008 at 8:31 PM
(Executive Orders point of clarification}
How Executive Orders May be Vacated
The President can retract an EO at any time. The President may also issue an EO that supersedes an existing one.
New incoming Presidents may choose to follow the EOs of their predecessors, replace them with new ones of their own, or revoke the old ones completely.
In extreme cases, Congress may pass a law that alters an EO, and the Supreme Court can declare them unconstitutional.
pocomoco on July 14, 2008 at 9:05 PM
Wise Golden, you are neither wise, nor golden. WIth your lame logic in 10 years time we will just be exactly where we are today, just 10 years later, just like we were 10 years ago … what incredible stupdity. I expact it from wingnuts like you … you think that things will somehow change because we will do a little drilling … blah blah blah … ditto ditto ditto.
Monkei on July 14, 2008 at 10:09 PM
why some of the dumbos on here bring up granola because some of us must live on a different planet then them .. yet … the arguments are being made that the answer to American oil dependence is…..MORE OIL. Now, I knew that Americans had dumbed down a bit over the past few years, but I really didn’t know HOW dumb until THAT argument popped up. The answer of course is electric not more oil. How stupid are we, GM and Ford are not retooling to make smaller cars, while Japan and Korea are moving toward electric … yeah, dumbos, lets do more drilling, more oil, that’s the answer.
Wouldn’t it be nice to hear a candidate speak to Michigan and tell them that GM and Ford are dead and done. They are not moving in the right direction.
Instead of drilling for more oil the state of Florida they should invest in bringing total electric auto companies into the state screw big oil.
Yeah, I will go get another granola bar, you guys keep filling it up with some stupid thought process that oil prices will go down because we get more oil out of the ground off the coast of Florida to put on the world market. Last time I checked Big Oil was not a government owned business, they always sell to the highest bidder.
Monkei on July 14, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Yeah, you are the dumbest commenter on this thread. You think we only get gas from oil?!?!? Don’t you think we get oil to lubricate the engines and transmissions? What about all of the plastic we get from oil? You think an all-electric car isn’t going to need some grease for the wheel bearings? Do you really think an all-electric engine is going to power all of the trucks moving goods all over the country? They run on diesel fuel refined from oil.
Thats the problem with you green weenies, you’re non-thinkers.
cjs1943 on July 14, 2008 at 10:52 PM
LOL, well said cjs1943.
infidel4life on July 14, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Monkei
2010 Chevy Volt
What do I see there? A CHEVY?
2009 Tesla Roadster
http://www.teslamotors.com/
WoosterOh on July 14, 2008 at 11:11 PM
How about a car that gets the equivalent of 256 MG?
http://www.teslamotors.com/
WoosterOh on July 14, 2008 at 11:14 PM
That is MPG
WoosterOh on July 14, 2008 at 11:14 PM
Psssst. (whispering) Nobody tell Monkei that electric cars are charged with electricity, the vast majoity of which is currently generated using fossil fuels. He’ll pop a vein or something.
- – - –
Now, if we build nuclear like crazy, like McCain has proposed, we can power all those dinky little tuna-can electric cars without a problem. Unfortunately, it’ll take 2-3 decades to build nuclear plants and get them up to speed. During those 20-30 years, WE WILL NEED OIL! And as others have pointed out, even if we could wave a magic wand and make all vehicles run off of sunshine and skittles tomorrow, WE WILL STILL NEED OIL for all the other petroleum-based products on which we’ve come to depend. Dumba$$.
aero on July 14, 2008 at 11:44 PM
While it has been pretty easy to find fault with President Bush, especially during the last 3.5 years; I’ll promise you all this:
In a year (or maybe even sooner), every sane person on earth will be wishing he was still President.
Long overdue, but he ‘done good’ today.
LegendHasIt on July 14, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Monkei – if we do indeed have ~100 years worth of oil reserves and ~150 years of oil if we convert coal to liquid then why do we need electric cars any time soon? I personally don’t buy into the climate change hype and look forward to being vindicated in years to come so once the CO2 rationale is removed from the debate why do we need to move away from fossil fuels? Personally I have no objection to electric cars, hybrids, whatever if people want them and they are competitive. Let the market make the decisions not the government. Electric cars may indeed be practical for short commutes and I wouldn’t mind having an electric Smart car to go back and forth to work. If I could get 200 miles in a charge I could recharge over the weekend and drive my Tahoe on Sat and Sun when I take the family out.
And if I remember correctly from my Econ 101 class, increasing supply ALWAYS reduces prices. And since the current price of oil is a reflection of the future supply the current price has been bid up because current supplies are deemed more valuable because of future scarcity.
If we were to seriously commit to adding hundreds of billions of barrels of supply to the future supply, the current price would drop because the futures contracts held by speculators would plummet in value. They would bail out of the market and the bubble would burst.
You sound like the ignorant Dems in Congress, all lawyers and no economists, who make the same ignorant arguments.
The ONLY reason the Dems are succeeding with this line of reasoning is because the majority of their constituency doesn’t understand basic economics themselves.
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 12:30 AM
From Investors Business Daily:
“Well, we’re also the Saudi Arabia of coal, but Pickens mentions coal not at all. The U.S. has 27% of the world’s recoverable coal. A ton of coal can generate two barrels of synthetic oil.
On that basis, as the New York Times pointed out a few years ago, “the coal in the ground in Illinois alone has more energy than all the oil in Saudi Arabia.”
This technology is in use today in South Africa, where three coal-liquefying plants produce about 150,000 barrels of oil a day. At the above conversion rate, America’s coal reserves are equivalent to 20 times our proven crude oil reserves. Liquefied coal could solve our liquid energy needs for the next two centuries.
Another massive domestic energy reserve Pickens does not mention is shale oil. Another Energy Department report says the Green River formation underlying parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, deep inside Pickens’ wind tunnel, contains as many as 2 trillion barrels of oil trapped in porous rock close to the surface. Two trillion barrels is seven times the Saudi reserves.”
DerKrieger on July 15, 2008 at 12:43 AM
Das ist gut.
Johan Klaus on July 15, 2008 at 1:19 AM
It’s about time he lifted the ban. What a stupid idea in the first place. We don’t have an oil crisis, we have a leadership crisis.
Mojave Mark on July 15, 2008 at 1:22 AM
Where do you get the energy to charge the batteries on the electric cars? What happens if you go on a two hundred mile trip? How do you despose of the old batteries? How long will it take you to go on a two hundred mile trip? If electric car were practical for any thing other than city driving, then that is all you would see in Europe where gasoline is close to eleven dollars a gallon.
Johan Klaus on July 15, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Wooster, although the mileage isn’t bad, you won’t be able to refill the tank in a few minutes, as in normal cars. Also, electric cars carry a very great weight and space penalty, just to supply power.
Also, it just isn’t the same if you can’t hear the throaty exhaust as you wind her through the gears. :)
OldEnglish on July 15, 2008 at 3:19 AM
Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I think that President Bush’s timing is perfect. Citizens are waking up to the source of their economic woes: Democrats who stymie economic stability and growth (meaningful jobs).
Bush gave the Dem-led Congress enough time to do something pro-active about energy for the American people. Since the Dems have taken over Congress, the price of fuel and food have escalated dramatically. The Dems were going to drag their feet indefinitely because they are against any type of carbon-based fossil fuel exploitation. It was/is their hope that Republicans will be blamed for the high cost of living.
Rescinding the EO at any earlier time would have been a hard sell to the public, given the chokehold that the Greens have deluded the public with.
The fact of the matter is that providing energy is not an either-or situation. Using the resources that we have in abundance while exploring alternative avenues of energy is smart, long-term thinking. Modern technology in drilling, refining, and mining is cutting edge in safety and responsibility. The same is true for developing nuclear energy.
We can achieve energy independence from despotic regimes that have little else to offer to the world economy. At the same time, we can sell our resource to high-demand emerging economies in order to support our balance of trade and improve the value of the dollar.
By canceling this EO, Bush has generated a psychological lift and taken away the talking-points rah-rah of the Democrats during their convention.
onlineanalyst on July 15, 2008 at 6:15 AM
Because nobody cared enough at that amount. That was a normal fill up price, and we didn’t care where it came from. Now we do, especially because the dollar is dropping while the price of gas, along with other goods, like basic groceries, is rising.
IMHO, Monkei needs to get a grip. Those electric cars are re-charged using fossil fuels (that’s how electricity gets its fuel), and most of the plastics come from petroleum products (I spent an entire semester in grad school studying this for a regular client who was a plasma spray manufacturer looking for new markets).
Miss_Anthrope on July 15, 2008 at 8:50 AM
You are from Michigan huh? I should have known.
upinak on July 15, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Economics 101, The law of supply and demand.
Johan Klaus on July 15, 2008 at 5:26 PM
You don’t get it, Allah? I don’t either–or, I don’t want to. It seems like W will do anything and everything to please the NYT crowd, even though they tell him repeatedly, not good enough, we still hate you.
Re drilling: What good does a good ocean view do us if we are funding Arab terrorist states? I guess if you’re a pol, you can talk yourself into believing that “stability” in the ME is a good thing–plus, those jillions in speaking fees and library contributions. That’s a lot of stability, baby.
PattyJ on July 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM
.
Here are some back of the envelope A-Z’s for you:
ANWR: 3-5% of US daily consumption
Offshore FLA, GA, Carolinas: 5-8% of US daily consumption
Other offshore: 6-7% of US daily consumption
Bakken field ND: up to 10% of US daily consumption
Rockies oil shale: up to 30% of US daily consumption (maybe more)
(did not include Canada tar sands, which are currently being extracted, but US law restricts US purchases
Timeline:
ANWR: 3 years
OS FLA: 5 years
Bakken: 5-6 years
Oil shale: 10-20 years
You will note that none of these plays are ‘incredibly small amounts’ nor do they take a large number of years, except shale. Some of us have been pushing all of these for several years; to the point that had we been listened to originally, everything but the oil shale plays would be delivering product to market. Also, as to your fungibility argument – it doesn’t matter which oil becomes which fuel; what matters is who gets paid for oil (and which country they reside in). Also note that if we proceeded with all of these, we could supply most of the current US demand from the western hemisphere.
Think_b4_speaking on July 16, 2008 at 10:32 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2