Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling
frodus
Member Posts: 2,396
WASHINGTON — President Bush will lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling, although new oil exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf will remain off limits until Congress also takes action.
The president will make a Rose Garden statement on Monday, where he is expected to announce his lifting of the ban.
Watch President Bush speak Live at 1:30 p.m. ET on FOX News Channel.
White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so.
Bush and a growing number of lawmakers have been calling for broader options in dealing with rising energy costs, including $4 per gallon gasoline.
The Outer Continental Shelf has been a particularly hot debate, with the Bush administration saying new drilling technology would make U.S. shores safe from environmental disaster while helping to drive down prices with greater supplies.
Democrats say energy companies already have plenty of space to look for oil and have stalled on investing in more oil production while reaping record profits.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,381761,00.html
their is more than one way to help Mc cain......Oil Prices Fall Below $144 a Barrel
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Comments
Yep, the ball is now in Congress' court. The press calls this move by Bush a "symbolic act," but clearly it is more than that. It puts a tremendous amount of pressure on Congress since it is now the only thing standing in the way of offshore drilling. The issue comes up again on Sept 30, just before the elections. How's that for timing? Of course, if Congress renews the ban on offshore drilling, they will continue to be viewed as obstructionists. But if they overturn the ban, they will be going against Obama's position on offshore drilling, something they don't want to do so close to the election. It's quite a conundrum.
yes you put quite well...my thoughts exactly.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
Oil companies are like children who have a handful of jelly beans but keep crying for the ones still in the jar. Oil companies are currently sitting on 68 million acres of leased federal land, and aren't doing a damn thing with it. Truth is, they don't want to add more oil to the market, they don't stand to gain anything from it. They have been holding those jelly beans for so long their hands are sticky, refusing to eat a single one.
Bush is willing to give them whatever they want. Oh wait, Bush = them. It all makes sense now.
You have GOT to kidding!
You have GOT to kidding!
No he is NOT kidding!
I wouldn't be surprised if Bush joined the Board of Directors of a major oil-drilling or other such company after leaving office.
You have GOT to kidding!
No he is NOT kidding!
He may not be kidding, but he is also not correct on this issue. Why would anyone want to spend billions of dollars speculating on land where there may not even be any oil, instead of drilling where we already know there are known reserves? Like Anwar. Oil companies might as well just flush their profits down the toilet. Also the idea that oil companies don't want to drill more oil and sell it on the market is silly. Do gaming companies not want to make new games? Do automotive companies not want to build new cars? It is the life blood of their cash flow. I suppose the oil companies didn't really want to discover all the oil that's already been found. Someone must have forced them to do it.
You have GOT to kidding!
No he is NOT kidding!
He may not be kidding, but he is also not correct on this issue. Why would anyone want to spend billions of dollars speculating on land where there may not even be any oil, instead of drilling where we already know there are known reserves? Like Anwar. Oil companies might as well just flush their profits down the toilet. Also the idea that oil companies don't want to drill more oil and sell it on the market is silly. Do gaming companies not want to make new games? Do automotive companies not want to build new cars? It is the life blood of their cash flow. I suppose the oil companies didn't really want to discover all the oil that's already been found. Someone must have forced them to do it.
Bad anology there its an apples and oranges comparison as games and cars are a very different type of commodity. A better anology would be those who produce gold. Which would be better seling a billion tons of gold therefore lowering the price of gold, or would it be better only selling like 10 tons gold and getting much more because there is less gold.
Oil is worth a lot more when demand is bigger than the supply.
Not that i disagree with the main thrust of your post, its just i think the idea that oil companies dont want to drill for more oil AND sell it on market [therefore forcing the price of oil down] isant such a silly idea if you consider how the supply and demand part of markets can be used to generate more profit.
Another great example of Moore's Law. Give people access to that much space (developers and users alike) and they'll find uses for it that you can never imagine. "640K ought to be enough for anybody" - Bill Gates 1981
the hot new trend here in liberal mecca, park slope, brooklyn, NYC is plain T-shirts with the words "one less car" on the back. ive seen dozens in the past couple of weeks.
war is a brewing on our homefront if gas continues to rise like this. i sure as hell am not getting rid of my car. others, like these t-shirt wearing pussies will apparently bend over and take it like an inmate.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
I can hear it now... The greenies will be crying...LOL
The me who hears what the other me can't, is the dominant one.
Q: If the oil companies had no intention of drilling this land, why did they lease it to begin with?
A: Because the leased acreage lists under company assets and lures investors.
Q: If adding new oil to the market is the 'life blood', why have oil companies not drilled the land they currently have under lease?
A: Because increasing corporate costs while reducing profits is not a fiscally sound strategy.
As I've said before, it doesn't matter to me if oil hits $200 a barrel -actually, I welcome it. The American people will have to make sacrifices to correct this trend. If we aren't willing to make the choice, it will be forced upon us. So far, it looks like we are not willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary.
you know what. i may surprise some here.
i am now silently wishing for $200-300 a barrel , perhaps like you Dailybuzz.
america has become too complacent. we need to adjust ourselves accordingly and kick OPEC to the curb. todays times make me realize how dependent we have become. we need independence.
i think it was chavez' remarks about $300 ppb that made me rethink. i really hate that fucker chavez. moreso than achmidinijihadi(lol) or them arab sultans.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
They keep hold of land they know has oil like the Debeers family holds on to diamonds. They control the prices. Diamonds arent rare its just that most of them are kept locked up off the market, just like not drilling the oil up.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
The problem is not that the drilling technology is unsafe, the problem is what happens to the lines bringing the oil on the continental shelf up to the surface when that Russian submarine armed with the nuclear missiles run into it while on patrol.......
as far as safety/enviromentalism is concerned regarding offshore drilling. we must be reminded that a 3 installations were completely destroyed by hurricanes recently. no harm done to the enviroment has resulted. we have gotten alot better at this game.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
fact is we are best in the world at getting it out the ground and protecting the same ground or sea or forest,no one does better..Right on point blu,as usual.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
I don't know why you posted this to prove your point. This is investing 101. If it cost more than they would make to extract then they don't do it. Maybe when gas hits $20 a gallon it will make sense. Does anyone have information on how much oil is in the leased land because I keep seeing this statement from Congress?
I don't know why you posted this to prove your point. This is investing 101. If it cost more than they would make to extract then they don't do it. Maybe when gas hits $20 a gallon it will make sense. Does anyone have information on how much oil is in the leased land because I keep seeing this statement from Congress?
I posted it because some people apparently don't understand investing 101. It's not an issue of extraction costing more than they would make from sales, it's an issue of every barrel of oil added to the market reduces the profit margin on every other barrel currently available. Keeping the level of supply just below the level of demand is the most profitable business scheme. It's tough to convince a company to change business habits when they are making record profits, wouldn't you agree?
I can understand that you are a capitalist who believes that the government shouldn't get involved in the free market. I can respect that. What needs to happen though, is instead of letting oil companies hoard these acres without drilling on them, these leases need to expire so other companies can get a chance to drill there. I bet you'll see some activity in weeks if this becomes a reality.
I don't know why you posted this to prove your point. This is investing 101. If it cost more than they would make to extract then they don't do it. Maybe when gas hits $20 a gallon it will make sense. Does anyone have information on how much oil is in the leased land because I keep seeing this statement from Congress?
I posted it because some people apparently don't understand investing 101. It's not an issue of extraction costing more than they would make from sales, it's an issue of every barrel of oil added to the market reduces the profit margin on every other barrel currently available. Keeping the level of supply just below the level of demand is the most profitable business scheme. It's tough to convince a company to change business habits when they are making record profits, wouldn't you agree?
I can understand that you are a capitalist who believes that the government shouldn't get involved in the free market. I can respect that. What needs to happen though, is instead of letting oil companies hoard these acres without drilling on them, these leases need to expire so other companies can get a chance to drill there. I bet you'll see some activity in weeks if this becomes a reality.
I think there is peobably more to the story than what we are hearing. I found it odd that they were leasing land in NY. I don't know of any oil in NY. I wish they would drop the leases and then congress couldn't keep yapping about that.
Our companies are not going to drive prices down by loosing money drilling for oil. You just might see some activity if they droped the leases but I don't thing you would see much. Maybe some company specilizes in the type of drilling needed. I know when I looked at Apache corp in the 90s, they used to buy or lease old fields and get the oil that the others missed.
www.stopoilspeculationnow.com/
----------------------------------------------
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb." -- Batman