Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Off-Shore Drilling, Congressional Ban Still in Place

There is an old saying, "Desperate times call for desperate measures." Given the state of the nation's economy and the exorbitant price of fuel, President Bush has removed the Presidential ban on offshore drilling, and calls for Congress to follow suite.

Recent polling data has shown a shift in the American desire to drill off our coastal shores. Soaring fuel prices over the past two years, despite Democratic promises to work to bring them down, have put a strain on the American economy and the wallet of the average American family. Rising fuel prices have driven up the cost of nearly everything, from food to services, and American's are demanding something be done to truly change the situation.

The introduction of bio-fuels in certain markets has proven unreliable as a current alternative and remedy to the fuel situation; even the blending of grain fuels into petroleum products have left consumers complaining of decreased fuel mileage and performance in their automobiles. The auto industry itself is suffering from a lack of sales, and a look in the vehicle section of the local classified ads in newspapers around the country show a significant increase in the number of SUV's, pick-up trucks, and larger cars being offered for sale at near give-away prices.

Today, President Bush took the first step in doing something from a governmental level to help take the stress off of consumers by signing an executive order rescinding the Presidential ban on off shore drilling along the United States coastal regions, and called for Congress to remove the Congressional ban, as well. (Full text of speech here)

"This is a difficult period for millions of American families," Bush said. "Every extra dollar they have to spend because of high gas prices is one dollar less they can use to put food on the table or send a child to school. And they are rightly angered by Congress' failure to enact common-sense solutions."

Bush said increasing access to offshore exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf is one of the most important steps the country can take. He laid blame on Democrats who he said have rejected "virtually every proposal" to expand domestic oil production.

"... Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s," Bush said. "Experts believe that these restricted areas of the OCS could eventually produce nearly 10 years' worth of America's current annual oil production. And advances in technology have made it possible to conduct oil exploration in the OCS that is out of sight, protects coral reefs and habitats, and protects against oil spills."

Historically significant is the fact that the original Presidential ban on drilling was signed into being by the President's father during his term in office as President in 1990. The Congressional ban came around the same time period.

This is President Bush's second call for Congress to remove their ban, having made the first request in June.

Environmental groups and activists are already denouncing the executive order, with Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) proclaiming that such a move will destroy the economy of the country's coastal region.

Frankly, I'm not sure how that would be the case, given that there would be a migration of oil workers to towns along the coast for access to transportation to and from work on ocean based oil rigs, a move that would bring commerce into those regions in the form of housing sales, goods and services being sold and rendered, and the addition of jobs in those fields to support the influx of new population into those regions.

It is by no means going to be a quick fix, if and when Congress does lift their ban on off-shore drilling, but such an action would clear the way for oil production domestically, and perhaps the reinvestment of refinery processes on American soil, thereby creating more jobs in that area, as well.

The next move is up to Congress, leaving the American people to wait and see if their Congressmen and Senators are paying attention to what the American public is demanding of them.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Call in the roughnecks, the majority of Americans want off-shore drilling

For years, our nation has had a noticeable lack of off shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, an area where vast stores of crude are both known and believed to be located. What is the United States to do now, though, if the Gulf is being pumped by others?

If you want to make an environmentalist extremist sweat drops of blood (or maybe crude) mention two topics, ANWR or offshore drilling. For years, the environmentalist movement has kept big oil from drilling in the oil rich region that feeds from the foot of the Mississippi River, arguing that drilling has such a huge negative impact on the environment that it isn't feasible to drill under the floor of the ocean to recover the "black gold" that we all rely upon for heating and energy. And for years, the American public has nodded their collective head, yeah-yeahing the environmentalist lobby, relying on an ample supply of relatively inexpensive fuel supply from the Middle East, so the nation didn't really NEED the Arctic or Gulf Oil.

How quickly a nation forgets the fuel lines from the Carter administration.

The American people have found themselves in a pinch, having allowed governmental agencies to put such heavy restrictions on the oil industry that there have been no new refineries built in the United States in literally decades, existing refineries are operating far below capacity because investment in new equipment to replace old has been lacking, due to funds being allocated for overseas projects, and a heavy reliance on OPEC for a large percentage of our oil.

Through in a little sales process called "speculating," and the American people are facing the highest fuel and oil prices on record. And they're getting very tired of being over a barrel, in a very literal sense.

And they're starting to look at ANWR and at the Gulf of Mexico with the activity going on in international waters by other countries and asking, "Why aren't we getting in on this ourselves?" Polling data from a mid-May Gallup poll shows that 57% American voters are ready to start drilling for oil again on our own soil, both in the Gulf of Mexico and in the frozen northern wastelands of Alaska. This information has put Congress in a bit of a tizzy.

House Democrats are in a bind on the focal point of their energy plan.

Worried that a floor vote on any energy-related measure would trigger a Republican-forced vote on domestic drilling, the leadership has scrubbed the floor schedule of the energy legislation that it vowed to tackle after the Fourth of July recess.

Just before leaving for their districts, a number of House Democrats called a press conference to declare victory on a number of energy bills — including overwhelming passage of a bill to rein in excessive oil market speculation.

Democrats declared victory on a bill they failed to pass on the suspension calendar — their “use it or lose it bill” to force energy companies to either start drilling on their federally leased land or give it back — saying they had put 176 Republicans on record as siding with the oil companies over consumers.

And they vowed that the bill, the centerpiece of their energy message, would be back.

So far, there are no energy related bills slated for discussion in the first week Congress has reconvened following the Independence Day holiday weekend, leading the Republicans to cry "foul," accusing the Democrats of backtracking on their word after realizing that the Republicans could shoot down any marketing changes with legislation of their own calling for new and expanded drilling. Democrats counter that they are simply discussing their options and looking to bring forward the best plan to the table first before making an official presentation out of committee.

At this point, Democratic plans lean toward reforming how oil is sold, putting an end to the practice of speculating, or at the very least putting limitations on how speculating is done in an effort to keep prices from skyrocketing as they have done over the last year. Republican plans call for drilling that would begin immediately, with the intended results of adding more available crude and refined oil products into the market; a larger supply driving prices back down to reasonable figures. The problem here lies in the age of existing drilling and refinery equipment and the urgent need for more and newer equipment in order to significantly increase production of domestic oil, as well as the number of new wells that would need to be drilled to operate along with standing wells that are operating with older pumps, and would include, despite the outcry of the environmentalist left, actually drilling for oil where it can be found such as the Gulf of Mexico and ANWR.

Perhaps, looking objectively outside the box for a moment, some bright soul in Congress (don't hold your collective breath looking for that individual to appear) can come up with a plan that would incorporate both ideas into one piece of legislation that actually does something that benefits the American public for a change, rather than benefiting either one party or the other in the race to make tally marks on who's winning more pieces of useless legislation coming through the government.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Sex, Lies, and Denial of a Socialist Agenda

Oil prices have continued to rise daily, with each rise marking a new record for high fuel prices around the world. The blame has been tossed about from one party to the next, but certain Democrats are suddenly backtracking from some of their statements.

Imagine how you would feel as a business owner if the government decided one day that it needed to nationalize your industry. Suppose, for example, that some politician, in cahoots with a group of bureaucrats, decided that, let's say, the office supply industry was so vital to the American economy that it needed to be taken over by, administered by, and controlled by the federal government.

Suddenly, a few months down the road, changes have to be made. It wasn't enough just to catch the office suppliers, now the government has discovered, after spending tireless hours of research, that it also needs to nationalize the paper industry, the ink industry, and the manufacture of paper clips and staples, because they are all vital suppliers to office supply companies and their survival is vital to the economy. A few more months pass, and the makers of the bodies for ink pens are added in, along with printer cartridge manufacturing and copy machine toner, pencils both wooden and mechanical are added in as well.

Wooden pencils come from trees, so eventually, to ensure the proper flow of pencil products, the timber industry will fall under nationalization as well, which would sub branch out into the building industry, because, as you know, the timber industry supplies the lumber industry and everyone who builds needs lumber, making it a vital part of the American economy as well and therefore in need of regulation. What holds a house together, now that we think about it? Why, that would be nails and fasteners, so naturally those industries would have to be nationalized, and subsequently there would be a nationalization of the metals industries, foundries, machine shops, leading all the way back to the raw materials mined out of the earth to create them.

Tools are used in mining, building, manufacturing, as well, which would make the manufacture of tools vital to the American economy and thus in need of Nationalization.

Need I continue, or have I adequately illustrated the snowball effect (I SO loathe the "slippery slope analogy, personally) that comes of nationalization of an industry? That business alone isn't affected, all suppliers to that industry become affected as well, over the course of time, and before you can say "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" nationalization is becoming a national trend. And yes, I spelled that right, I googled it to make sure. I have to say, I was mightily impressed with myself.

I digress.

Last month, Congresswoman Maxine Waters demonstrated that timeless tradition of Socialists when she "outed" herself fully and publicly in calling for a nationalization of the oil industry; step 1, open mouth, step 2, insert foot, step 3, chew vigorously. Her comment did not go unnoticed by another Democrat cum Socialist, Congressman Maurice Hinchey, who chimed in this month saying practically the same thing as Waters, only without the catch of trying to stop himself from saying what he meant.

Link: sevenload.com

In light of the heavy fire that Waters and Hinchey have taken over their statements (Hinchey, doesn't that just sort of sound like a pirate name or something? AVAST, First Mate Hinchey, make ready to be underway!) the Democratic Party has sent out their spin doctors to try to patch up the sucking chest wound that has resulted from two Socialists in their ranks publicly showing their true agendas.

Thomas Fiery, a policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service that he doubts whether Waters, Hinchey or any Democrats truly support the nationalization ("socializing") of U.S. oil refineries.

"The Democrats in general do no support this idea," he said. "My guess is that neither Waters nor Hinchey really support this idea. They are ducking and covering and saying anything that might get people riled up."

Fiery added that if the federal government were to take over refineries, oil companies would profit. "The people who would be the most happy to hear about the socialization of oil refineries would be ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron and all the oil companies because there really isn't much money to be made in refining," he said.

"Historically, there has been close to no profit in those industries at all," Fiery added.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but hasn't everyone been complaining because Exxon has reported such staggeringly large record breaking profits per quarter? Or does Mr. Fiery know something that we don't? It is precisely because of the huge profits that Exxon and the other major oil producers are making that Democrats would be interested in nationalizing them. What, 18.9 cents per gallon of profit for doing nothing in the production of gasoline other than imposing a tax upon it isn't enough for the federal government? At 18.9 cents tax per gallon for gasoline, the federal government makes 10 cents more per gallon than the companies that make it possible for you to put it in your fuel tank and drive down the road. And the federal government plays absolutely no role in the production of gasoline.

While Mr. Fiery can go around all he wishes to spouting off how he doesn't think that Waters and Hinchey really believe in the nationalization of the oil industry, one has to wonder and ask, if they don't really believe it, why aren't they out there saying so themselves rather than relying on the Cato institute to say it for them?

Oh, and as to the sex portion of the title, I'm sure that you, the reader, have noticed that there is no mention of sex in this article whatsoever to this point. The truth is, it's been a tried and proven marketing device that sex sells. If the title caught your interest because of the sex part, then you have just proven years of psychological and marketing research correct in participating in this little experiment.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Saudi's look to increase oil production

Looking at the effects upon global economic conditions and under pressure by the U.S., Saudi Arabia is looking at increasing production of oil.

With oil reaching a record of $140 a barrell and an increased push in the search for alternative energy sources and methods, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is rethinking his position taken in May after meeting with President Bush concerning oil production increases.

Set to meet with oil producers and consumers in Jidda later this month, King Abdullah is expected to recommend an increase in production, hoping to stave off potential losses in the face of alternative fuel sources becoming more available.The U.S. has not been alone in pressuring for an increase in oil production, the other seven members of the G-8, France, England, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, and Russia, have been suggesting an increase in production as well, hoping to boost their economies.

Rising prices have shaken the world: Gas in the U.S. has reached as high as $4.43 a gallon and India, Indonesia and other Asian nations have cut fuel subsidies, creating anger and panic among drivers.

The kingdom produces about 9.45 million barrels of oil a day. The New York Times reported that the nation was considering raising that by about 500,000 barrels. Some economists believe that such a jump would cater to the West at the expense of Saudi Arabia, which has the world’s largest oil reserves.

Critics, however, object, saying that this jeopardizes Saudi oil reserves for the sake of western consumption. Others object to this line of thinking, saying that an $11 jump every day in oil prices is not in the best interest of oil producers, claiming that if it continues, interest in oil could very quickly be replaced by interest in alternative fuels. Such a situation would, in effect, cause oil producers to price themselves out of business. Some economists have speculated that an increased push for alternative fuels could hurt the economies of oil producing nations, particularly Saudi Arabia, in as soon as 10 to 15 years.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Maxine Waters, Out of the Closet as a Socialist?

Last week during Congressional hearings with oil company executives, industry executives told members of Congress they were being hamstrung by being unable to access oil on American soil and territory. Maxine Waters of California has another solution...

Fuel and oil prices are climbing, daily. No one can argue that, although there is plenty of argument over the reasons for it and solutions and alternatives petroleum products. There are plenty of fly by night opportunities for get rich quick schemers to jump in offering miracle products to a public looking for relief from rising fuel prices, which are in turn driving the prices up on practically everything else.

I didn't know where to expect it coming from, or rather whom, but I did expect it, and I did expect it to be suggested for the oil industry. Bear in mind this is the SECOND industry that is being targeted by politicians for nationalization.

That's right, the second industry.

More on that in a few minutes.

The who has turned out to be Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who suggested last week in meetings (hearings) with oil company executives that she had no problem with the government taking over the industry.

That's called "nationalizing."



I don't see anything, anywhere, in the Constitution, where it calls for the federal government to get involved in industry. The role of the government is a national defense, creation of laws governing relations between the states and our country with other countries, and improvement of the interior. In a nutshell, that's it. It is not the responsibility of government to become involved in private industry. Not under our constitutional structure. That road leads to a socialist system, and that lies in contradiction with our rule of law.

And yet it has now been suggested for a second industry, the oil industry, by Maxine Waters.

That brings us full circle, back to the question that's lurking beneath the surface, of what was the first industry? If you haven't figured it out by now, that's because you've been conditioned not to even think about it by politicians and the main stream dinosaur media at large that it doesn't even cross your mind at this point to consider that to put control of the nation's health care industry into the hand of the government would be nationalizing it to federal control. That's right, the first industry to be targeted was the health care industry.

Watch for this trend to become more frequently mentioned in the coming months...

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.

Bush on Domestic Oil Exploration

With oil continuing to break records for high prices on a daily basis, and the refusal of Saudi King Abdullah to do anything to reduce the price of oil, President George Bush is finally looking homeward for alternatives.

President Bush met with the Saudi king last week, as well as other members of OPEC, in an effort to see what could be done to lower the price of fuel and oil for the United States. When discussing raising production of oil with King Abdullah, he was told, in short, "you want more oil? BUY more oil." The oil producers did finally agree to pump an additional 300,000 barrels a day, but that will barely make a difference in a situation that is reaching crisis proportions economically.

The Saudis’ long standing position is that they are willing to pump more oil — but only if their customers, the refineries, demand it. The oil minister, Mr. Naimi, told reporters in Riyadh on Friday that the government had decided on May 10 to boost production by 300,000 barrels a day in response to requests from customers, mostly in the United States.

“Our response is positive,” Mr. Naimi said, adding, “What we have said is, ‘Let the buyer come and we will satisfy his request. Very simple business: If you want more oil, who’s going to buy the oil?”

In making his case with the oil producers, President Bush pointed out that by continuing to raise the prices of fuel to their "biggest customers," the oil producers themselves were increasing the push by the United States and other countries to develop alternative energy sources, in effect potentially pricing themselves out of business in the future.

It is speculated that the Saudi decision to increase production, though by a small margin, may also be influenced by pressures from Congress, who have threatened to cut arms sales to them if something isn't done on their part.

Having made no real headway with Middle Eastern oil producers, the President is now turning the focus of America's fuel remedy where others have been calling for the country to put the focus for some time now: back to the United States itself.

And Mr. Bush took aim at Democrats in Congress, who have repeatedly blocked his proposals to allow oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

“One of the interesting things about American politics these days,” Mr. Bush said, “is, those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity.”

With the oil sitting in ANWAR, in the Gulf Coast that is being drilled by China and Cuba in international waters off our shores that we could just as easily be drilling for and pumping as well, and the discovery of oil along the Canadian border, it's little wonder that there are so many calling for the U.S. to begin more drilling domestically and to build new refineries at home, eventually removing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil.

In the meantime, to go along with domestic production of oil, real and viable alternative energy methods could and should be developed, methods that don't interfere with nor cut into food crop production, applying some common sense and sound thinking rather than off the cuff, knee jerk reactions that send the markets into turmoil in other directions than just from the fuel industry.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man

.