Bush lifts offshore drilling ban

[dan200]

Bush lifts offshore drilling ban
Petrol prices on display in Beverly Hills, California, on 13 June
Petrol prices are part of the wider US energy policy debate

President George W Bush has lifted an executive ban on drilling for oil in most US coastal waters, and has urged lawmakers to follow suit.

He wants Congress to end its separate ban on drilling, in order to reduce US dependence on oil imports.

"Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court," he said, adding that it was "time for action".

Mr Bush's move comes as high oil prices have pushed US petrol prices to more than $4 (£2) per gallon.

Mr Bush added: "The American people are watching the numbers climb higher and higher at the pump and they're waiting to see what the Congress will do."

His move will have no effect unless Congress acts as well.

On Friday oil prices - which have been rising steeply during 2008 - touched new highs, peaking above $147 a barrel.

Coastal concern

US energy needs are set to be a key issue in November's presidential election.

Republican John McCain is in favour of offshore oil drilling, whereas his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, opposes it.

map
Environmentalists have reacted with alarm to Mr Bush's call, saying offshore drilling would take at least a decade to have any effect on oil supply and would exacerbate climate change.

And congressional Democratic leaders oppose ending the drilling ban.

They point out that oil companies already have 68 million acres under government leases they can drill.

"This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States," said Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee.

"The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy."

Since 1981, a congressional moratorium has prohibited oil and gas drilling along the east and west coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, an area accounting for some 80% of the US's outer continental shelf.

The executive drilling ban was issued in 1990 by the current president's father, President George H W Bush, and then extended by President Bill Clinton.

Since then offshore drilling and exploration have only been allowed in the western and central regions of the Gulf of Mexico plus parts of Alaska.

The federal bans were enacted in part to protect tourism and lessen the chance of oil spills washing on to beaches.

Presidential election

Mr Bush wants Congress to pass legislation to allow "responsible offshore exploration" and give states a say about whether drilling should be allowed.

But Mr Obama's campaign condemned the move, saying: "It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."

It would be unlikely if Democrats in Congress backed a policy that contradicted their presidential candidate ahead of the November election.

Republican contender John McCain, who changed his previous opposition to offshore drilling, said he thought the decision was a "very important signal" and that "states should continue to decide".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7506346.stm

[Next-Gen]

Dan isnt Purple PJ's personal forum? Tamper'in with the devil !!

[pappawheely]

"The president is taking special-interest government to a new level and threatening our thriving coastal economy."

And the Sierra Club isn't a special interest group? How about working for the interests of the general public Ms Boxer?

[scott-dsms]

And the Sierra Club isn't a special interest group? How about working for the interests of the general public Ms Boxer?

Yeah Right - That'll be the day!

[Roddd]

Wow, it only took the president 8 years to do this. Keep in mind, this comes only a few days after the G8 summit in which he screwed us over, again.

[Mike @ pit b]

Ok, so what do we do when the oil is gone?

[bajafox]

Ok, so what do we do when the oil is gone?

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.thingamababy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/27/chariot.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGZ3uHzgT_VNoFeSCHwzi2O1Hldrg

[Mike @ pit b]

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.thingamababy.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/27/chariot.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGZ3uHzgT_VNoFeSCHwzi2O1Hldrg

Sweet.

But where do I get an asian kid to pull me around.:D:D:D:D:D


That's a joke people. Lighten up.

[pappawheely]

Ok, so what do we do when the oil is gone?

What will we do when the sun burns out?

[Mike @ pit b]

What will we do when the sun burns out?

We will run out of oil far before the sun burns out.

[dan200]

What will we do when the sun burns out?it won't matter. By then the world will be overtaken by "Moonbats" because they are nocturnal or have been living in the dark at least. j/k:rolleyes:

[pappawheely]

We will run out of oil far before the sun burns out.


Maybe not.


Fortunately there does seem to be a solution. Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) is a process which seems to be able to convert any organic material into any product now produced from oil.

Organic materials include wood, leaves, grass, food, paper, plastic, paint, cotton, synthetic fabrics, sludge from sewage, animal parts, bacteria, any carbohydrates, or hydrocarbons. These are all materials which we now send to landfill with the exception of metal, ceramics, and glass. Also included is all agricultural waste which is now burned in the fields or buried.

Products currently produced from oil include natural gas, propane, kerosene, gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, home heating oil, and lubricating oil. With further processing, plastics, paints, refrigerants, and thousands of other chemicals used in industry are produced.

So, it turns out that TDP will convert our landfill and agricultural waste into the same products which are currently produced from fossil oil. All of our existing equipment can be powered in the same way and landfill will be eliminated.

Seems too good to be true right? Wait, there's more.

TDP is a form of solar energy. Sunlight converts H2O and CO2 into carbohydrates in living plants and also gives off Oxygen in the well know process of photosynthesis. In a completely TDP based economy the amount of CO2 produced when fuels are burned is exactly balanced by the plants grown to be used for TDP feedstock. In other words, it is a closed system, there is no net gain in CO2 levels, regardless of how much fuel we produce and burn. In fact, TDP could theoretically be used on the Moon, Mars, and maybe even to maintain a habitat during space travel to other stars.

There's still more. The amount of energy hitting the Earth is about 5000 times more than the entire amount of energy used by all human activity. Even at a 1% solar energy efficiency rate there is the potential for many times our current energy use. With optimum use and a mature TDP technology, the Earth might comfortably support 10 times its current population at a high standard of living. There is enough biomass existing now accessible on the surface of the earth to provide 100 years of human energy use.

Even more. TDP occurs under conditions of temperature and pressure absolutely guaranteed to kill all living things including any microbe or virus. In turn, diseases such as mad cow are eliminated.

TDP energy farms can be used as a habitat for other species and as recreational space for people. TDP plants can be located near agricultural waste, landfills, and markets reducing transportation cost and risk.

TDP based energy can be produced anywhere the sun shines.

Again, it all seems to good to be true. What are we waiting for? What is the catch.

I don't think there really is a catch.

TDP was invented, and the first patent was filed in the mid 90’s.
A bench scale proof of principle was done by Changing World Technologies (CWT) about the time of the first patent.
In 2000 a small scale plant was built in Phildelphia and used to test the whole range of feedstock
In 2003 a full scale plant was started up in Carthage, Missouri and is now (April 2004) running at full capacity
5 larger plants are under construction.
Great, let's go gas up the SUV, it seems like these guys have this thing handled.

http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/gallery/button_top_of_page.gif (http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/#top)
http://www.thermaldepolymerization.org/gallery/arrow.gifWell Maybe but don't get too excited yet

I think we should be sure the situation really is being handled. My feeling is that there are not too many, if any, other alternative energy ideas which might save the world. So this is extremely important to all of us. The US government has spent (some say wasted) billions of dollars on alternative energy research. None of this work has produced any usable results. The R&D under the bridge is a powerful testament to just how difficult the problem is and how unique the TDP concept may be.

99.99% of the people in the world are going to benefit from TDP. There are forces in this world which might like to see TDP delayed and controlled if not outright buried.

In addition CWT has so far been somewhat secretive.

They are not publishing the exact financial performance of the first full scale plant. The financial performance would tell us right now if TDP will work on a larger scale.

The Carthage plant is only producing 500 bpd. The US currently consumes 20 million bpd.

There has to date been no peer review. That is, I have seen no independent verification of the claims. CWT has made good, but incomplete presentations at technical conferences.

Detailed claims have been made that CWT says the Carthage plant has verified the predicted performance and is running successfully.

[5racer]

and what will we do when the earth melts ,or the metor, or the ice age , or the perfect storm .if we dont get our crap together we wont have to worry about any of those because we will start killing our selfs as in revolution .

[pjc]

We will run out of oil far before the sun burns out.

Pit B, you know my stand on this.

1) Drill, drill, drill.
2) Extract, extract, extract.
3) New technologies: fund, fund, fund

Basically, do whatever we can to create energy independence now and for the long run. That will take a combination of the above with all throttles at the stops.

[pjc]

it won't matter. By then the world will be overtaken by "Moonbats" because they are nocturnal or have been living in the dark at least. j/k:rolleyes:



No way Dan! We have the perfect poison and irradiation method for Moonbats. It's called "facts"!

[pappawheely]

Pit B, you know my stand on this.

1) Drill, drill, drill.
2) Extract, extract, extract.
3) New technologies: fund, fund, fund

Basically, do whatever we can to create energy independence now and for the long run. That will take a combination of the above with all throttles at the stops.

That seems like a reasonable approach. I don't get the attitude of some who won't do anything but complain. "No we can't" seems to be their mantra. Iraq, energy, the environment, the truth.

[Stimpy]

"Moonbats" are scary!

[Stimpy]

I know I'm gonna kick myself, but I think PJC is right about:

(1 Drill
(2 Extract
(3 Find and fund new technologies

We need to do what we know works first. We need to be independent of forgien fuel suppliers 2nd. Then work on Green technologies and perfect them so we can end are dependence on oil all together.

Just my $0.2 cents

[R_TAYLOR]

RUSH: The bank in California is IndyMac, and it failed. By the way, they're talking about 150 banks may fail, blah, blah, all of this negative news, all of this, "Oh, my God, it's going to hell in a handbasket!" Don't forget, we had a thousand S&Ls fail back in the eighties. This is not new territory, my friends. We're not in any new virgin territory here. This has all happened. But there is a problem here, and that is an overactive government. You know what? I'm going to tell you something. These Republicans, these quasi-conservatives in the media, these elitists, these smarter-than-everybody-else-in-the-room people -- the ones that have been encouraging an active, engaged government; the guys that think we ought to take a lesson from the New Deal as Republicans, as conservatives in order to win elections, to appeal to a certain voter mind-set; these Rockefeller Republican guys -- and these people who want to abandon genuine conservatism ought to be very happy 'cause they're getting exactly what they want.

They're getting an active government involved in goofing it up, messing it up, having to bail things out because they're not run right in the first place, and the bailouts don't work because that flies against the face of market economics. They're just delaying the solution to a problem down the road. People who may not have even been born yet are going to have to pay for it. It's just irresponsible what's going on, and so is Chuck Schumer. Charles "Chuck-U" Schumer. In the IndyMac failure in California, "federal regulators pointedly cited US Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, in explaining the bank's failure. In simple language, federal regulators blamed [Charles Chuck-U] Schumer for a run on the bank. Here's from the press release issued by IndyMac's regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision: 'The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles [Chuck-U] Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac's viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts,'" all because Charles Chuck-U Schumer was following the game plan of the Democrat Party and the American left today in trying to convince the American people their country isn't worth a sack.

They have gone overboard in trying to convince the people of this country that this country is in a constant, permanent state of decline, that it isn't worth anything -- and that furthermore, we deserve to be in this constant state of decline because our power, our superpower status, our riches, our prosperity, as you know, have stolen so much from the rest of the world. These people will do anything to get power, and Schumer personifies what is happening. This is just irresponsible, purely politically irresponsible. Political malpractice. And he's out there defending himself on this. "Those depositors, they needed to be warned." Uh-oh, I just noticed a notice from Mark Hasara. Maybe I can't use the data... Oh, it's not about that. Never mind, Mark. Everything is cool. (chuckles) He's the guy that flew the tankers, and he just sends me a note here, and I thought, "Oh, gosh," maybe I was about to divulge classified information here. But that's not what it is. Phil Gramm did not start a bank run. Phil Gramm did not start a bank run! Charles Chuck-U Schumer did, and he's probably happy about it, as is Barney Frank.




END TRANSCRIPT

Read the Background Material...

[R_TAYLOR]

oops did that by mistake

[dan200]

No way Dan! We have the perfect poison and irradiation method for Moonbats. It's called "facts"!

the moonbat has immunity against facts. The aren't working. They also have special powers that they use to influence the media which works to their advantage.

[R_TAYLOR]

RUSH: The President's press conference today, a couple of pretty good answers here. First one, a reporter asked the president why he isn't telling individuals how to conserve energy. This is audio sound bite 15. The question came from Mark Smith at AP Radio. He said, "Why have you not, sir, called on Americans to drive less and turn down the thermostat?"

THE PRESIDENT: They're smart enough to figure out whether they're going to drive less or not. The consumer is plenty bright, Mark. The marketplace works. People can figure out whether they need to drive more or less. They can balance their own checkbooks. I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy, absolutely. But my point to you, Mark, is that, you know, it's a little presumptuous on my part to dictate to consumers how they live their lives. The American people are plenty capable and plenty smart people and they'll make adjustments to their own pocketbooks. That's why I was so much in favor of letting them keep more of their own money, you know? It's a philosophical difference: Should the government spend their money or should they spend their own money? And I've got faith in the American people.

RUSH: What a great, great answer. So here you have this typical AP reporter straight out of AP storyline narrative school (snarky reporter impression), "How come you're not telling people to conserve? Those people are stupid, Mr. President. How come you're not telling them to turn down the thermostats and use less gasoline?" This is an attitude that every liberal has, that you need to be saved from yourself because you can't do it. You're incompetent. You can't overcome the obstacles life places in your way. You can't even live responsibly. You gotta have somebody from the benevolent government walking all over your life, telling you where to put your thermostat, how much to drive, where you can drive, how fast you can drive, where you can go or you can't go, that you ought to be in mass transit, or some sort of thing like that. You just don't have the intelligence. The president comes out with this answer: They're plenty smart on their own.

That answer, by the way, a classic difference, ladies and gentlemen, in how liberals and conservatives look at people: central planning versus individuals making choices in free markets. He later explained why he thinks oil companies are investing capital to find new oil. (laughs) He had to explain the question! The question is stupid. Somebody asked him why he thinks oil companies are investing capital to find new oil. Of course the underlying tone is, "Why aren't they investing in alternative energies like the magic elixir that will get a hundred thousand miles to the gallon that we know they've got in the drawer somewhere and just won't make? Why, Mr. President, aren't you telling Big Oil to get honest?" But it's unbelievable that either of these questions were asked, but there's the president calmly explaining every step of the process: How to find and bring oil to the market. A lot of money, a lot of capital is tied up in the process. There's no other choice but to get the oil. It was really simple stuff.

It was a great opportunity, and the president himself capitalized on this. The media in this press conference today looked like a bunch of second graders. In fact, he made the media in this press conference look like Obama. And he won the exchange. They were that uninformed, that arrogant at the same time, and he gave straightforward, smart answers, like every leader should. You know, I've been on this kick for the past week or so that the Republican Party is sitting on a gold mine here with the gasoline price where it is, oil price where it is, and Democrats being the party that is standing in the way of doing anything about it. Nancy Pelosi yesterday was calling the president's oil drilling design "a hoax." I mean, the Democrats are sitting ducks if the Republican Party would just get up to speed on this. The people don't care about the war in Iraq; it's gasoline prices right now and everything flows from that: food, travel, leisure time dollars, to and from work, all of that. So the president's answers today just illustrate a tremendous opportunity the Republicans have to crush liberalism if they really chose to. This is not the Democrats' year unless the Republicans hand it to them.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I have two sound bites from President Bush and his press conference today that I want to play for you, giving a lesson to the Drive