WASHINGTON - With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.
ADVERTISEMENT

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a statement in the Rose Garden. With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. His proposal echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration

"Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response," Bush said.

Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's proposals "another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry — give away more public resources."

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades.

"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular," said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a "cynical campaign ploy" that won't help lower energy prices.

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto retorted: "Anyone out there saying that something can be done overnight, or in a matter of months, to deal with high gasoline prices is trying to fool people. There is no tool in the toolbox out there that will lower gas prices overnight, or in weeks, or probably not even in months."

Bush said offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also said offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time.

Most economists believe that lifting the ban on offshore drilling is (like the gas tax holiday) an ineffective gimmick.

Not to mention the fact that the states most likely to be affected are VERY much against it.

But it sounds good to people who don't understand how it all works.

it's not the only solution, but it's part of the process for solving our nations energy problems.

And you know, there's a reason why Florida and California "batch" about this. One more catastrophic oil spill and you can kiss the tourism industry goodbye in those states.

In the last 25 years, less than .001% of the 7 billion barrels we have gotten from offshore drilling has been spilled.
There has not been a major oil spill from an offshore well for almost 40 years.

FYI and stufs.

hey BK and I agree again.

And Blitz-wing is right, the answer isn't MOAR OIL but LESS CONSUMPTION, it's going to have to be. The writing's on the wall.

that was before he snipped his nuts off and threw them to the conservatives, though.

Does it have to be either/or? Why can't we suggest, nay, DEMAND! better fuel efficiency in our vehicles (and we DEMAND with our pocketbooks by not buying fucking Toyota Sequoias*) and build more non-oil dependent energy plants while at the same time trying to increase our supply?

I mean, law of supply and demand. Increase the latter, bad for prices. Increase the former, good for prices. Increase the first and decrease the second only follows, right?

*I just picked this vehicle because they're so damn ugly.

And, Jesus, just build some more modern nuclear plants and watch the dependence on oil go down right away. There is zero need to drill when we have the technology to solve the problem faster and cheaper actively working already.

agreed

agreed too bad each side has f'ck it when the time is right to.

You agree there's zero need to drill? Then, by extension, that means you agree the Democrats were right to shoot the bill down.

Rosedoggy...Democrats...right...

And, Jesus, just build some more modern nuclear plants and watch the dependence on oil go down right away. There is zero need to drill when we have the technology to solve the problem faster and cheaper actively working already.

i'm not just saying that offshore drilling and increasing our oil production is the cure, because it's not, but it can be a much needed tourniquet.

on a light note, google image search chernobyl with safe search off, lol

it wouldn't have an immediate impact, but not only could it clear the way for other means of oil production (coal to oil, sheal, etc...) it will help us in a few years time. also, as i said, if we don't use it now somebody else will, and we'll be buying it from them when we could have had it for free in the first place.

[Florida] Republican House Speaker Marco Rubio said in an interview with the Herald that he supports oil drilling off Florida's coast "if it can be done in a manner that's safe for our environment.'' But he challenged Gov. Charlie Crist and John McCain's implication that drilling could lower gas prices anytime soon.

"For anyone to represent that someone drilling off the coast in Florida is going to lower gas prices here or anywhere in this country is disingenuous and a flawed argument,'' he said. "Oil drilling could take 10 years before any oil is pulled out of the ground, and there are a large number of leases held by oil companies that are not being exploited now. We can't say we need more until we've exploited those.''

Rubio said he dislikes how the issue over oil drilling is portrayed as "black and white" because he believes there is a middle ground that can help the nation achieve more energy independence while not harming the environment.

"If our beaches are going to be polluted and oil is going to end up on our shores, I'm against it,'' he said. "But I do believe that we have an obligation to safely exploit our natural resources in this country and I believe we have the technology to accomplish that.''

Well... unless we lose our own territory or allow someone else to drill out the oil from sufficiently adjacent territory, we can't really lose what we don't drill to another nation..

Does it have to be either/or? Why can't we suggest, nay, DEMAND! better fuel efficiency in our vehicles (and we DEMAND with our pocketbooks by not buying fucking Toyota Sequoias*) and build more non-oil dependent energy plants while at the same time trying to increase our supply?

I mean, law of supply and demand. Increase the latter, bad for prices. Increase the former, good for prices. Increase the first and decrease the second only follows, right?

*I just picked this vehicle because they're so damn ugly.

get it right

Slow down you two...don't go sprinting off to the finish line yet...

I agree that there is the tech. now to not need gasoline for our cars but like I said each side keeps f'cking the other when the time is right so I don't believe we'll see any real progress until at least 2010 when the Chevy Volt comes out.

Until then since none of them are going to really step up to the plate and make the change we'll need to do what is in the best intrest for our country and economy.

*remembers when gas hit $2 a gallon and people called for drilling then*wonders what gas would cost now if we did*