Bush is calling for that in a press conference today. McCain (reversing his position from 2000) has already called for scrapping the ban (which actually applies in all coastal waters, but Florida is where the issue is most contentious). Obama denounces it as a “gimmick.” Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has eased his opposition.
Nope, I think we should delay further exploitation of our natural resources until oil is really expensive. Then drill away, just make sure the government gets a fair price for the privilege.
Oil prices are down today and have been the past 3 days. Prices may have very well peaked.
I strongly oppose offshore oil drilling, but if oil prices continue to fall, this may backfire quickly on McCain.
In the past, I have supported taking these areas off-line against the day when Oil is “really expensive”.
But the question is: What is your value of “really expensive”? I’d say that it’s now, but the previous two posters disagree.
Given that it takes several years to bring a site on-line, it’s ludicrous to either hold back indefinitely, or to hind-sight complain because the price dropped between the time the site was approved and the time it came on-line.
Yes. Drill away!
I say that it’s something to consider, but not in an election year. Right now, it’s all just demagoguery
It’s a gimmick…it wouldn’t help one bit in the short term as it would take years to develop those resources. It’s a stupid politically motivated proposal that plays to peoples concern about the current price of gas…and their ignorance about how the industry works and the time tables such development takes.
No, I don’t think the US needs to open up offshore drilling any more than it already is at this time.
-XT
Yeah, I thought it was a gimmick too, they’re trying to make the Republicans look like they’re doing something about gas prices. It will take 10 years to see any oil or natural gas if they start drilling now, and there’s no way of knowing how long until that oil runs out. I wish they would invest the money they would have used for this in renewable energy resources.
Nope.
I hate to say it, but the US needs expensive gas. It’s the only way we will ever be able to increase efficiency, and move to alternative energy sources. The minute gas prices come down everyone will start buying Hummers again. I wish it wasn’t so, but Americans are selfish and short-sighted. It takes pain at the pump to create the incentive to permanent changes.
Another side of the coin, which doesn’t get a lot of press, is this;
We have started to recieve criticism from the oil producing countries about this. Every time we request that they pump more oil to bring prices down, they have to ask themselves, and are starting to ask us; why we demand that they pump more oil to supply us when we are unwilling to develop our own oil resources.
To a certain degree, it may only be symbolic, it may only be a drop in the ocean. But if anything, it will show that we’re serious about our own oil supply.
And heck, at $140 a barrel, even 100,000 barrels a day (a mere 1% of current imports) is $14 million a day, or $5.1 billion a year that we wouldn’t be handing over to someone else.
So this will be my first post on the Straight Dope Forum, and it will serve as a good litmus test as to whether or not my pseudo intellectual self can hang in these forums.
Below are some excerpts from a Yahoo news article I read this morning.
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.
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.
“Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response,” Bush said.
With Americans deeply pessimistic about the economy, Bush tried to put on the onus on Congress.
He acknowledged that his new proposals would take years to have a full effect, hardly the type of news that will help drivers at the gas stations now. The White House says no quick fix exists.
Still, Bush said Congress was obstructing progress — and directly contributing to consumers’ pain at the pump.
Ok, so my thoughts…
What an unmitigated jerk. In the 11th hour of his administration he wants to step in and say the democrats rejecting his call to lift the moratorium is what is directly “contributing to consumers’ pain at the pump.” His administration has spent the last 7 and a half years giving the oil industry a free ride while ignoring the inevitable. Gore saw this coming, but gas was $1.30 at the time and we didn’t care. We wanted to live the American dream and now we are paying the price.
Instead of making the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil a national priority we’ve been giving the oil companies record profits. I find it quite interesting that the media has largely ignored the role that G W’s administration has played in creating this problem rather than alleviating it.
I understand as a nation, we have waited until the situation started hurting us to become aware, and to start calling for change. Hopefully this will be a lesson to us for the future.
What I find interesting is the contradiction that G W presents in his statement. These two excerpts negate each other…
“He acknowledged that his new proposals would take years to have a full effect, hardly the type of news that will help drivers at the gas stations now. The White House says no quick fix exists.”
Still, Bush said Congress was obstructing progress — and directly contributing to consumers’ pain at the pump.
Come on, what junior staff writer put that in his speech?! If it will take years to fix and become effective then how can “obstructing progress” be directly contributing to consumer’s pain at the pump now?
Our pain at the pump comes from years of American apathy and a national energy policy that either ignored the inevitable or was banking on these developments. The REAL obstruction of progress came from our aforementioned apathy and the current administration’s lack of action. It has existed for years. It did NOT start today when Congress said it would put the kybosh G W’s attempt to give oil companies even more avenues to make money.
I presume you will all agree each and every argument offered here would apply equally to the issue (not on the table at this moment) of drilling in ANWR?
I would…it certainly won’t solve our short, medium or long term problem.
-XT
For my own part, that should be our “Drilling of Last Resort”. There is plenty of oil in other, less sensitive places. We have a lot of off-shore drilling to do before we need to start looking at Refuges, Reserves and other such spots. We should be well into the “Oil is rare now and we’ve almost completely weened ourselves off it, but we do still need some of it” phase before we look at that place.
The City of Miami has "solved’ its sewage-disposal problems, by injecting raw sewage into deep wells, drilled off the coasrt.
I hope nobody drills into those!
Oddly enough, my comments do not really address my perspective on the issue of drilling in the coastal waters at all. At this point I am just another American suffering from the effects of my own apathy. I voted for Gore, I loved that one major platform he campaigned on was protecting the environment by decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and developing alternative fuels. But all I did was vote for him and debated my support for him in community college classes. Did I go out and truly fight for what I believed. No, not really. And now, I’m paying the price.
I guess the way I see it is now we are 8 years behind the curve on dealing with this issue. That fact alone may make considering drilling in our coastal waters a necessity. I’m just frustrated that now GW wants to make it look like congress is the destroyer of progress. Pot, Kettle, have you two met?
I don’t truly know where I land on the decision of drilling in Alaska versus drilling off the coast. I’d need to do a whole lot more research. In truth, neither option appeals to me. We have done enough to screw this planet up. At some point I hope that humanity starts to realize how much damage we are really doing to our home.
ANWR drilling is… pretty useless, really.
However, there’s a lot of oil offshore. I’d like to hear the reasons not to drill there. Anyone got 'em?
But don’t you at least think that it would ease some of the hedge out of the futures market in the short term if a large untapped supply was located and there was certainty that it was going to be exploited?
I’ve seen wild variances in the predictions of how much we really have in the ground.
Also, if countries in Europe that are more environmentally conscious than we are can confidently tap into their offshore resources, why can’t we?
I think we’re going to need to tap those reserves to make the transition even happen. Gas prices need to remain high, but yet affordable, during this process until we can wean ourselves off of it.
To piggy back on your comment, I’d like to hear what changes have occurred in the off shore drilling process that has supposedly lowered the environmental impact.
I’ve heard that the technology has dramatically improved over the last couple of decades, but how?