executive order
I've wanted Bush to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling since 2001. Now the onus is on the Democrats. They caused this situation now it's their turn to fix it.
My hope is that Pelosi and Reid do step up and do the right thing. Starting now is imperative. We can't wait another day. But I wouldn't bet on the clueless, feckless, games-playing Democrats to do anything good for the country.
My hope is that Pelosi and Reid do step up and do the right thing. Starting now is imperative. We can't wait another day. But I wouldn't bet on the clueless, feckless, games-playing Democrats to do anything good for the country.
posted by Kent at 11:17 AM
6 Comments:
Lifting the ban is a step but in no way would it have an immediate impact on current prices. It will take at least a decade to get the oil to the market. And like you, since this makes so much sense, I don't see Harry Reid lifting the Congressional ban.
Just curious, how did Democrats cause this exactly?
I disagree about "immediate impact."
I think if America begins drilling that global prices will fall as a response. The fact that a serious debate is underway has already resulted in decreased prices. Down the street my Mobil station is 10 cents cheaper today than yesterday.
But let's get serious, Christopher. The Democrats have stymied efforts to become energy independent. The very same "No Nukes" crowd back in the 70's are the very same people that opposed ANWR ten years ago are the Pelosi's and Reid's of today.
Bush 41 put the current ban in place, but Bush 43 is trying to get the ball rolling and I applaud him for it.
It's not going to take a decade for fresh, US-tapped oil to arrive on the market. We could be drilling the Bakken Formation in the Dakotas in two years if the oil companies could get permission to begin operations. Seismological data, as well as USGS exploration, have already pinpointed oil-bearing strata within the reach of quick'n'dirty drilling - but Congress won't open that area. Also, by quick'n'dirty, I don't mean environmentally unsafe - I mean setting up camp, doing light surveys, and then drilling on the first promising site.
As for offshore oil, we have oil rigs and tenders sitting unused on other pieces of ocean and in harbors and drydocks around the country. At most it would take eight months to get them to the area and anchor them, and that time could be spent on survey ships finding the proper places to set them down. With slant-drilling technology and EOR systems (Enhanced Oil Recovery - basically using seawater to displace the oil so as it pumps out, it doesn't get harder to reach), we could have this oil to market in 3 years. If there were problems, it would be 4-5 years - still a heck of a lot better than 10. OH, and if we had done this in 2001, we'd already be sippin' that Texas tea, so why should we wait?
As for domestic energy, get rid of oil and natural-gas fired power plants. Let's build some reactors already! GE and Westinghouse make naval reactors designed to survive a net acceleration of 150g, or explosions (a well-placed depth charge can subject a nuclear-powered submarine to 100g or more). These puppies can survive tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes - heck, if we're so worried, then build the installations in Kansas underground, and build the installations in California on springs, like they did with NORAD. The point is, this is the cleanest of the clean, and they provide power for decades off a single fueling.
PS - nuclear waste can be reused up to four times depending on the purity of the initial material - the reason we only recycle it twice is because after the second time, you start 'breeding' plutonium, and that's a proliferation concern. France recycles their waste three times, and so does Sweden. Why can't we??
True, mere announcements could have an effect but it's doubtful. A slight recovery today on oil was due in large part to a stronger dollar and not Bush's announcement. His announcement is simply rhetoric and OPEC knows it. Bush couldn't ensue more drilling with words any more than I can. It takes the legislature to do something, so I seriously doubt Bush's words have anything to do with you saving 10 cents today.
Democrats have not stymied efforts to become energy independent. They may have stymied efforts to become more oil dependent but not energy dependent. Besides, it's my understanding the Republicans had control of Congress for 12 years, and held the presidency 18 of the last 30 years. Why didn't the Repubs fix our "energy dependence?"
May I ask is there anything the Republicans are responsible for?
Yeah, there is. Bush announced that he was officially lifting the offshore drilling ban, and oil prices dropped $9 as a result.
Betcha if we start moving drilling equipment up to Fairbanks, oil drops even further.
The free market is an exercise in psychology.
The evidence we've seen the last two days... Oil down $10 bucks.
Certainly some weak kneed Republicans didn't vote the right way in my opinion on ANWR, and Bush didn't push it nearly hard enough.
Christoper, I didn't say that the Democrats "stymied efforts to become more oil dependent," I said they have been, and continue to be, stymieing efforts to become more oil independent.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home