...
Business groups widely hailed Bush for lifting the presidential ban and pointed to estimates by federal geologists that there may be as much as 17.8 billion barrels of oil in areas currently off limits. But some oil companies have conceded that limits on skilled manpower and drilling equipment would make it difficult to increase offshore drilling in the near future. Oil company executives have said they would most likely focus on the eastern Gulf of Mexico if the moratorium is lifted.
The move by Bush addresses an issue already being disputed in the presidential campaign. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee, has endorsed opening more of the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration. The expected Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), opposes lifting the moratorium.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said yesterday that Bush's proposal "would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."
But McCain argued, "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."
The presidential ban has been in effect since June 1990, when President George H.W. Bush issued a directive to the Interior Department limiting offshore drilling to areas off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and limited parts of Alaska. In 1998, President Clinton extended the order through 2012.
Bush says offshore drilling could yield up to 18 billion barrels of oil over time, although it would take years for production to start. Bush also says offshore drilling would take pressure off prices over time. In addition, the president has proposed opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming and easing the regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity.Senator Boxer retorts: "Today, President Bush is giving another gift to the oil companies that will do not one thing to lower gas prices for the American people. This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the President of the United States."
Pappa Bush needs to take that wayward son over his knee and slap some sense into him, if that's at all possible. This blundering idiot won't even listen to his father who, by the way, insisted that General Schwarzkopf not invade Bagdahd. I consider this a disgrace on par with invading Iraq. He is committing environmental genocide and doesn't know or care. What kind of America is this when Bush, Sr. is starting to look "not so bad" by comparison to his mentally challenged offspring?
3 comments:
I don't agree. No disgrace is on a par with invading Iraq.
Hairsplitting! There are gradations of disgrace. Drilling Alaska would be worse than drilling the Caribbean. Invading Iran would be worse than invading Iraq. IMO.
I'm not sure anymore messenger. With Bush's environmental rape, what else matters? Please don't think I disagree with you about Iraq, which is a disgraceful act. But I must also agree with soros that invading Iran would be even worse.
Vig wrote a post on the death of the soldiers in Afghanistan. I am horrified at what we've done. We are killing the wildlife and ecosystem that sustains human life, which ultimately leads to all kinds of murder.
We are not in disagreement, messenger. What I see as eco-invasion encompasses war—just just more toxic and pollutants which which this Administration poisons our world.
Post a Comment