Anyone hear about this

[FlexdXJ]

Not that i am a big bush supporter but i saw this and thought i would pass it along



Bush lifts oil drilling ban, wants Congress to act

http://static-p-a.comcast.net/api/assets/bin-200807/2a36-Bush.jpg (http://www.comcast.net/news/general/slideshow/view/news-general-20080714-Bush/) President Bush makes a statement on drilling for oil on the outer continenta... (http://www.comcast.net/news/general/slideshow/view/news-general-20080714-Bush/)

45 minutes ago
Loading... 93 Recommendations (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080714/Bush/#) //

WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday lifted an executive ban on offshore oil drilling and challenged Congress to follow suit, aiming to turn the enormous public frustration about gasoline prices into political leverage. Democratic lawmakers rejected Bush's plan as a symbolic stunt.
With gas prices topping $4.10 a gallon nationally, Bush made his most assertive move to extend oil exploration, an energy priority of his presidency. By lifting the executive prohibition against coastal drilling, Bush rescinded a White House policy that his own father put in place in 1990.
The move will have no practical effect unless Congress acts, too. Both executive and legislative bans must be lifted before offshore exploration can happen.
Bush had called on Congress a month ago to go first, then reversed himself on Monday. He said the country could no longer afford to wait.
"Failure to act is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the American people," Bush said in an event held in the Rose Garden.
"Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I've taken today, repealing the congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration," Bush said.
The president's direct link between record gas prices and offshore drilling glossed over a key point. Even if Congress agreed, the exploration for oil would take years to produce real results. It is not projected to reduce gas prices in the short term. Even the White House routinely emphasizes there is no quick fix.
That did not stop Bush from building his case around today's prices at the pump.
He said every extra dollar that families must spend on gas is one they could be using to put food on their table or to send a child to school. The American people, he said, are now "waiting to see what the Congress will do."
The White House says that acting now on a long-term solution would send a serious signal to the market that more oil supply will be coming on line. That, in turn, could ease oil prices, advocates say. Business groups and many Republican lawmakers applauded the move to expand the energy supply in the U.S.
Democrats were unmoved.
"The Bush plan is a hoax," responded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. "It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence."
Several Democratic leaders in Congress said oil companies are already sitting on millions of acres of public and coastal lands.
Yet a proposal by Democrats to release oil from an emergency reserve has been rejected by the White House as a gimmick that won't reduce prices.
So the election-year stalemate remains.
Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have long opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, including the current one, has sided with Congress for each of the last 27 years in barring drilling in these waters.
The main goal has been to protect beaches and coastal states' tourism economies. But Bush says that with today's technology, exploration can be conducted along the Outer Continental Shelf in ways that keep the drilling out of sight and protect the environment.
The congressional ban is renewed yearly, typically as part of a spending bill. The White House said it was too soon to comment on a potential Bush veto.
Under Bush's proposal, states would help decide how drilling would be conducted off their shores. It is unclear how much oil would be available. Bush said it could eventually be enough to produce 10 years' worth of America's current oil production.
Both presidential campaigns weighed in.
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called Bush's move "a very important signal" and prodded his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, should drop his opposition to offshore drilling. "If we can show that we have significant oil reserves off our coasts, that will clearly affect the futures market and affect the price of oil," McCain said.
Obama favors another economic stimulus package that includes energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels. "If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither."
Environmental groups also criticized Bush.
The public, though, is growing impatient for answers.
Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center last month said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came from those who had previously viewed exploration as a less important priority, including people who identified themselves as liberals, independents and Democrats.



ABOUT DAMN TIME!

[WB9YZU]

I don't what's so "about damn time" about this.

It's all political mumbo jumbo so that Bush, who is a lame duck (all puns intended) can claim he did something.
His lifting the Executive mandate was as big a suprise as the sun rising tomorrow.

[poorboy_616]

Agreed....

Also, no-one died when Clinton lied......

[Darky]

Also, no-one died when Clinton lied......
Is that a slogan or a seizure?

[2drxj]

lol its a good step forward istead of NOTHING

[poorboy_616]

Yes, it is a good step in the forward direction.....

Now, if it would only get approval.......

Now, if we have an influx of oil from those wells (when and if they approved), would gas prices drop?? I'm not holding my breath here.....

[Stihl029]

A step forward that we should take is building more refineries, standardizing the fuel production, and building more powerplants. These are the steps that we should be making first, not that this isn't a step forward but fuel is high because more is being demanded than is being produced. Besides the majority of our oil is being turned into plastic goods not fuel. Plastic takes up something like 80% of the oil that we use, so I guess that is another area we could make improvements on is by using less plastic goods and reusing plastic storage containers. Oh well that's my two cents flame me if you want.

[srimes]

x2 on standardizing formulations. Also, we need to get rid of the crazy mixtures and additives used these days. MTBE is found in basically all water in the country. That's not a good thing.

[FlexdXJ]

lol its a good step forward istead of NOTHING
Thank you!!!! Yeah it may be a ploy to get the attention off of the war but I am tired of these high gas prices. If they drill and find something to offset the F*cking retarded gas prices we can all wheel more. This RAPING of everone has to stop. I work 56 hours a week for what paying bills and Dumping gas in my Jeep. I am sick of it is all. :flamemad:if you wish but look at it from the perspective of the Average Joe. Hmm...... How did i know Zuki-ron was gonna chime in:dunno:

[alex22]

It is definatly a step in the right direction, we will not see an immediate change at the pumps IF congress follows suite, but we will eventually. The government needs to try to do something about the oil futures traders as well. They are a large contributor to the rapid rise in prices.

~Alex

[WB9YZU]

It is definatly a step in the right direction, we will not see an immediate change at the pumps IF congress follows suite, but we will eventually. The government needs to try to do something about the oil futures traders as well. They are a large contributor to the rapid rise in prices.
~Alex

If Congress agrees, and so far, there has been heavy resistance from that body. Even if the prospecting would start now, the estimate of it making any dent in the price of oil would be 2030. That's not to say we shouldn't, but I'm saying that Bush's lifting the Executive moratorium was a simple political move.

Agreed about oil traders. Their betting on oil futures has had a large effect on the rapid rise in oil prices that have nothing do do with the actual availability of oil. What amaizes me is that if the price of oil FUTURES goes up today, the price at the pump goes up NOW.

[SBrad001]

Yes, it is a good step in the forward direction.....

Now, if it would only get approval.......

Now, if we have an influx of oil from those wells (when and if they approved), would gas prices drop?? I'm not holding my breath here.....

Why is this a step forward? Drilling for more oil isn't going to elevate our problems, it's only going to prolong the misery.

You want a step in the right direction try synthetic fuel production using coal or syngas and biofuels derived from algae. Why don't we invest in something that shows promise of being part of the solution and not part of the problem.

[Ray H]

Its not about "showing promise" now. Its about trying to keep us out of a full blown recession. I believe its a day late and a dollar short for that but it may ease the pain a little.
And the way I understand it, Bush has been pushing for this and congress has been rejecting it. Just a thought for you guys who have been putting Bush down for not doing it sooner. Will you be putting the democratic congress down when they reject this or will it still be Bushes fault?

[Beej]

Here is a different point of view, one which I'm not necessarily advocating:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/133994/page/1

[Ray H]

Here is a different point of view, one which I'm not necessarily advocating:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/133994/page/1

Yeah, Ive heard that theory. Lots of holes in it. He takes into consideration the average weight and HP of modern vehicles but says nothing of the average MPG, he stated that in the 70s and 80s people bought smaller vehicles to replace larger ones but he didnt take into consideration that its not as easy to just swap vehicles when youve got a $40000 SUV that you can only sell for $30000 now. Lots of things overlooked like how the price of EVERYTHING is going up because of diesel prices. Yeah, good idea, lets run diesel up to $7 or $8 and we can watch our economy fold like a wet paper towel..

[GrimmJeeper]

... youve got a $40000 SUV that you can only sell for $30000 now... really?!?? tell me where! best i heard was just under 20!

[8Mud]

Energy mostly equates to a dollar value. What I'm saying is that money equals energy. The cost of replacing an existing vehicle with one more fuel efficient is using money/energy in procuring the materials all the way from steel mining to plastic production. And using energy for transportation costs, from transporting the product, to the commute for the factory worker who puts it all together. There are energy costs in building the factory, consumable energy like electricity and heating costs and in production.
The list goes on and IMO energy is a large part of every dollar. And most of our energy is from oil, natural gas or coal.
No doubt private automobiles are a large part of the usage, but I sure would like to see some charts on what actually uses the most fuel and what percentage each part of the economy uses.
I really don't think automobiles are the whole problem. I doubt eliminating every privately owned vehicle in existence would alleviate our oil dependence completely. It would likely just be replaced with something else, in all likelihood run on oil, coal or natural gas in the end.
The cars bad, get ride of them and all our problems will be solved argument never really worked for me.
Replacing a serviceable vehicle with one more fuel efficient is unlikely to save any fuel/money in the long run.
My wife recently insisted we get a new energy efficient refrigerator. I asked her why, she said it would save energy. I did the math, if the new refrigerator lasted almost twice as long as the old one did, it would pay for itself at todays electricity costs (Kilowatt hour). The warranty for the new refrigerator is actually two years shorter than that for the old one was. As old as I am, the new refrigerator will likely outlast me anyway.
Government like most everybody else with two brain cells to rub together saw this coming a long way off. And they decided to procrastinate until way past too late. And now want to use the same old technique and squeeze the solution (either real or imaginary) out of the consumers wallet. The Germans are really good at this, they *made me* replace a perfectly good natural gas water heater with one that produced less CO2. The old one had like four moving parts, the new one has more electronics than my TV. Guess what, the fuel used by the repair guy probably more than offset anything the water heater has saved.
Between energy, housing, taxes and normal consumables, the consumer has been getting squeezed forever. Many have been living on credit for decades.
The whole system seems kind of precarious to me and greed will likely one day upset the balance so bad it can't be fixed.

What's going on right now is almost the same as the early 70's. America fought a war on credit and when the bill came due, payed for it by printing more money or lending themselves more money to pay off the interest that came due (borrowing money to pay interest). In effect making every dollar worth less, the Saudis and others got pissed and raised the price of oil and/or made it more scarce for leverage. The solvency problems in the housing market aren't all the borrowers fault, government is competing with them for the same dollars.

The same old oil war is being fought all over again with a few new twists, there are more customers now than there were before, the demand is higher.
Gold in the ground in 1970, was worth a lot more if left in the ground. Gold then was $24 an ounce.

If they took all the money they've pissed into Iraq and put it into renewable energy, we would likely have been better off in the long run.

[SeansBlueXJ]

Now I am far from a Bush fan, and while I agree we can not go on forever on Gas, but this is long overdue. We keep talking about our dependeancy on FORIGEN oil, so lets loose the forigen oil. Hell we have lots of good oil in Alaska too. We need to drill there too. If every little bump anywhere in the supply chain, ie a issue in the middle east, or a shutdown of a rifinery for repairs etc, sets the spectualators to raise prices, then the promise of more oil should send it down no? I mean yes we wouldnt see the oil for a while, but i think even the promise of more domestic on the market will help to lower the price. But that's just my guess. :dunno: Either way, when I started driving 11 yrs ago gas was $0.89, you show me one vaild reason for a 400% increase in a decade? yes yes china and india are buying more, but it's not like they arent pumping out enough to meet all the demand. It makes no sense.

Also X2 for gas from coal, at this point it would be avaible as a refined product for around $2-3 a gal last i hear, but that could be wrong.

[streetpirate]

Agreed about oil traders. Their betting on oil futures has had a large effect on the rapid rise in oil prices that have nothing do do with the actual availability of oil. What amaizes me is that if the price of oil FUTURES goes up today, the price at the pump goes up NOW.

I hope everybody reading this understands it, and realizes that we are going to be challenged in a way that hasn't happened since the great depression

[SeansBlueXJ]

I hope everybody reading this understands it, and realizes that we are going to be challenged in a way that hasn't happened since the great depression

And that's the scary thing, I think the indvidual does, but media, coporate america, and the Gov't dont. :scared:

[srimes]

The government needs to try to do something about the oil futures traders as well. They are a large contributor to the rapid rise in prices.

~Alex

no no no, there is no evidence of that. Futures traders actually smooth out commodity pricies. Without them prices would be MUCH more volatile.

People blaming the traders are using the same logic as those who blame gas stations on the price. Yes, they are part of the system, but that doesn't mean they are to blame.

Some people are trying to scapegoat traders for their own political agenda. Mainly to distract from their own failing and contrubution to the problem.

[ehall]

Back in the 70s congress prohibited futures trading on onions, and those commodity prices have been far more volatile than other agricultural goods.

Having said that, oil is in a bubble, with people buying into it on the theory that somebody else will buy into it at a higher price later. There is no correlation between price and actual value here, but instead is essentially gambling on the expected future price. This is more or less a ponzi scheme, and is identical to what we saw with tech stocks and housing before. The bubble is screwing the consumer now, and is going to screw the investors when it finally does pop. The govt should figure out a way to pop it as soon as possible, the same as they work to prevent other types of schemes.

Prohibiting futures trading is not the answer though.

[Darky]

The newest issue of Car and Driver (I'm pretty sure) has a pretty good article on the "behind the scenes" influences on gas prices. Its titled "Why Everyone is Wrong About Gas Prices".
I think all these people claiming its just political maneuvering to lfit the ban need to go back in time to when people were calling for off-shore or ANWR drilling ten-twenty years ago and were told it won't help us now, why bother? If they had started then, we may have a little relief right now. As it is, we can at least hope to get more oil for the future while companies are continuing to try and refine the new alternative fuels/hybrid tech, etc.

[alex22]

no no no, there is no evidence of that. Futures traders actually smooth out commodity pricies. Without them prices would be MUCH more volatile.

People blaming the traders are using the same logic as those who blame gas stations on the price. Yes, they are part of the system, but that doesn't mean they are to blame.

Some people are trying to scapegoat traders for their own political agenda. Mainly to distract from their own failing and contrubution to the problem.

The oil future's traders are not like the gas statioins at all, the stations are given a price per gallon when they want to buy, take it or leave it. The future's traders are driving the price up and reaping a profit for themselves in the procesess. The oil companies are actually geting in on the future's market. Its basically a big game of hot potatoe, at the end of the month you have to take posession of the oil, and if you are the oil company, you already have it and it does not cost you a dime to pay yourself immagionary money, but for the oil that does not go back to the oil companies the price has been inflated by unnessescary middle men. and the price of a barrel is going up now because the traders believe the price will go up in november....

One of the guys I work with was telling me about a good article where an oil futures trader was discribing what they actually do. I will ask him to email me a link and I will post it up. There was also a show on CNN where they were talking about the price on gas and what is causing the rapid increase. They had Enviornmentalists, senators, oil company reps, futures traders and I think some more in the same room discussing it. I'm trying to find a link of the vid or a transcrpit to post up as well.

~Alex

[srimes]

The oil future's traders are not like the gas statioins at all, the stations are given a price per gallon when they want to buy, take it or leave it. The future's traders are driving the price up and reaping a profit for themselves in the procesess. The oil companies are actually geting in on the future's market. Its basically a big game of hot potatoe, at the end of the month you have to take posession of the oil, and if you are the oil company, you already have it and it does not cost you a dime to pay yourself immagionary money, but for the oil that does not go back to the oil companies the price has been inflated by unnessescary middle men. and the price of a barrel is going up now because the traders believe the price will go up in november....

One of the guys I work with was telling me about a good article where an oil futures trader was discribing what they actually do. I will ask him to email me a link and I will post it up. There was also a show on CNN where they were talking about the price on gas and what is causing the rapid increase. They had Enviornmentalists, senators, oil company reps, futures traders and I think some more in the same room discussing it. I'm trying to find a link of the vid or a transcrpit to post up as well.

~Alex

The futures market is like the stock market. How are stock prices defined? By what people are willing to pay for them. People buy stock when they think its value will go up and sell when they think its value will go down. The same is true for futures, it's just that they aren't betting on an individual company they are betting on the price of oil. If a trader thinks the price will be worth more in the future than what it costs now he will buy it. The traders think prices will rise, so they are betting that it will rise and the price is going up. If they are right they will make money, if wrong they will lose money as the price drops.

Companies often lock in prices for a year to protect themselves from price increases. It's very similar to futures trading. Say an airline agrees to buy jet fuel for the next year at $3 a gallon. If prices go above $3 the airline has saved (made) money by betting on the future price. If prices drop below $3 the airline has lost money as it is buying for more than market value.

Say at the time of the contract jet fue is selling for $2.75, but the airline thinks prices will rise so agrees to lock in the price at $3.00. This is basically a futures purchase and yes, will help drive todays prices up. But they don't float on their own for long until bubbles pop. The trading price is a symptom, on the cause, of what the product is worth.

[Darky]

Also, for every futures trader betting the price will go up, there's one betting it'll go down. There's a loser to every winner.

[ehall]

The futures market is like the stock market. How are stock prices defined? By what people are willing to pay for them. People buy stock when they think its value will go up and sell when they think its value will go down. The same is true for futures, it's just that they aren't betting on an individual company they are betting on the price of oil. If a trader thinks the price will be worth more in the future than what it costs now he will buy it. The traders think prices will rise, so they are betting that it will rise and the price is going up. If they are right they will make money, if wrong they will lose money as the price drops.
This is all very cogent and true. However bubbles develop when the future price estimate becomes detached from actual value. It's one thing for stock market prices to be determined from earnings, management, and other indicators of actual value, and something else entirely to buy eBay at $200 because you think the day traders will be buying it for $300 next month. Same with housing--it's one thing to buy real estate because of long-term asset value increase, and another thing entirely to buy because you expect the housing bubble will keep expanding.

Markets stop working when face value becomes detached from actual value. And when the bubble bursts it tends to create a trauma, much the same way that other pyramid schemes turn the last buyer into the first loser. In this bubble we have the extra negative that it is pounding the crap out of unaffected parties, ie the citizenry who have to buy gasoline and fuel oil and have no investment in the oil futures.

[alex22]

The basic practice is similar to stock trading, but when apple's stock goes up the price of an Ipod does not. Investors sink money into a company by buying stock and hopeing that the company grows and becomes more and more profitable and so on.... end result, investor thrives with the company or looses big.
The future's traders are in it for a quick profit only, they see the price going up so they buy and sell before the end of the month, its not like the oil companies need extra money to improve their company, they already have plenty. They are also playing the future's game and driving prices up as well.

~Alex

[lrainman]

I am no Bush fan but he was far better than the alternative's. Everyone blames Bush but gas prices only really started going up when the DEMOCRATS took control of the house and senate two years ago.

Why are there not many refineries in the us, where does the oil from alaska go now?

[kujito]

Also, no-one died when Clinton lied......

Not true. Nobody seems to remember all of the tactical missile launches that were supposed to distract people from Billy-Boy's antics. How do you think we knew EXACTLY how the Tomohawk cruise missile would perform when we went into Iraq? Practice, that's how.

[Stihl029]

Why are there not many refineries in the us, where does the oil from alaska go now?

I know It goes to Long Beach, CA. I have done enough escorts of the tankers going in and out of Valdez and the PWS to make me sick even thinking about it. Growing up I would hear and see the tankers moving through Channel Islands in So. Cal only to get stationed at their pick up site. Problem is we have had several times that the pipeline had no flow due to a lack of production. It isn't cheap to send the oil that far; but then again the tankers are usually running on bunker-c so just a step up from crude. Whats really kool is how oil comes from up here, yet I am paying over 5 dollars a gallon for 87 octane. Kinda why my CUCV is parked right now. ok rant through for right now.

[Darky]

its not like the oil companies need extra money to improve their company, they already have plenty. They are also playing the future's game and driving prices up as well.

~Alex
As far as I know, it would be illegal for the oil companies to be playing the futures market for oil. Kind of a conflict of interests...that's why it's illegal for say, the CEO of Enron to tel the world all is well while knowing they're going under as he secretly sells off his stocks...;)

[RichP]

Every time the fed prints more fake money the price of oil goes up. The countries that actually own the oil sell it in dollars, if the dollars are worth less they charge more dollars for the same amount of product. It's really as simple as that, the feds benefit from it because it reduces their debt. Shut off the printing machines for a year and we would see prices come down as the dollar became scarce. If we ever went back to the gold standard this country would be bankrupt overnite.

[Ray H]

Every time the fed prints more fake money the price of oil goes up. The countries that actually own the oil sell it in dollars, if the dollars are worth less they charge more dollars for the same amount of product. It's really as simple as that, the feds benefit from it because it reduces their debt. Shut off the printing machines for a year and we would see prices come down as the dollar became scarce. If we ever went back to the gold standard this country would be bankrupt overnite.

The Fed should start printing foreign money. Problem solved.

[Darky]

Ya know what, I like the way you think! Let's devalue someone else's money damnit! We've helped enough people and countries for a while

[alex22]

As far as I know, it would be illegal for the oil companies to be playing the futures market for oil. Kind of a conflict of interests...that's why it's illegal for say, the CEO of Enron to tel the world all is well while knowing they're going under as he secretly sells off his stocks...;)

Just remember that some oil companies are actually owned by foriegn countries and our laws do not apply to them, they know we need the oil and will continue to smile while driving the price up.

~Alex

[8Mud]

SAN FRANCISCO: Reagan has his highways. Lincoln has his memorial. Washington has the capital, and a state, too. But President George W. Bush may soon be the sole president to have a memorial named after him that you can contribute to from the bathroom.

From the Department of Damned-With-Faint-Praise, a group going by the regal-sounding name of the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco is planning to ask voters here to change the name of a prize-winning water-treatment plant on the shoreline to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

The plan - hatched, naturally, in a bar - would place a vote on the November ballot to provide "an appropriate honor for a truly unique president."

Supporters say that they have plenty of signatures to qualify the initiative and that the renaming would fit in a long and proud American tradition of poking political figures in the eye.

"Most politicians tend to be narcissistic and egomaniacs," said Brian McConnell, an organizer who regularly suits up as Uncle Sam to solicit signatures. "So it is important for satirists to help define their history rather than letting them define their own history."

[Darky]

Yeah, I read about that. I think its kinda stupid and petty. But then it is San Francisco, beautiful city populated almost entirely by retards...

[RichP]

Just remember that MOST oil companies are actually owned by foriegn countries and our laws do not apply to them, they know we need the oil and will continue to smile while driving the price up.

~Alex
Fixed

[alex22]

Fixed

Thanks:cheers:

I knew a few were but wasnt sure if it was the majority or not.

~Alex

[RichP]

Thanks:cheers:

I knew a few were but wasnt sure if it was the majority or not.

~Alex

Oil companies like shell, BP and Exxon are really small beans on the world market, they own nothing but contracted drilling rights and such which can be rescinded as soon as a new el presidente takes over which just happened to all three of them down in south america...

[JNickel101]

We should make nice with Brazil (not that we didnt already) but I read where a huge oil deposit was just discovered down there...

[RichP]

We should make nice with Brazil (not that we didnt already) but I read where a huge oil deposit was just discovered down there...

You mean like that big ethanol tariff we just wacked them with ? wouldn't want to give them an unfair advantage against US farmers wasting resources making a useless fuel now would we... Stupid politicians, we made good money exporting corn for feeding the world now they push ethanol and corn prices go up and people starve.