WASHINGTON —

U.S. President George W Bush on Monday lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling as a means of expanding domestic oil supplies amid soaring crude oil prices. At a White House Rose Garden meeting with the media, Bush urged the Democratic-controlled Congress to join him in expanding offshore drilling by giving oil firms access to the outer continental shelf.

With gas prices topping $4.10 a gallon nationally, Bush made his most assertive move to extend oil exploration, an energy priority of his presidency. By lifting the executive prohibition against coastal drilling, Bush rescinded a White House policy that his own father put in place in 1990.

The move will have no practical effect unless Congress acts, too. Both executive and legislative bans must be lifted before offshore exploration can happen.

Bush had called on Congress a month ago to go first, then reversed himself on Monday. He said the country could no longer afford to wait.

“Failure to act is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable to me and it’s unacceptable to the American people,” Bush said. “Democratic leaders can show that they have finally heard the frustrations of the American people by matching the action I’ve taken today, repealing the congressional ban, and passing legislation to facilitate responsible offshore exploration.”

The president’s direct link between record gas prices and offshore drilling glossed over a key point. Even if Congress agreed, the exploration for oil would take years to produce real results. It is not projected to reduce gas prices in the short term. Even the White House routinely emphasizes there is no quick fix.

That did not stop Bush from building his case around today’s prices at the pump.

He said every extra dollar that families must spend on gas is one they could be using to put food on their table or to send a child to school. The American people, he said, are now “waiting to see what the Congress will do.”

The White House says that acting now on a long-term solution would send a serious signal to the market that more oil supply will be coming on line. That, in turn, could ease oil prices, advocates say. Business groups and many Republican lawmakers applauded the move to expand the energy supply in the U.S.

Democrats were unmoved. “The Bush plan is a hoax,” responded House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “It will neither reduce gas prices nor increase energy independence.”

Several Democratic leaders in Congress said oil companies are already sitting on millions of acres of public and coastal lands.

Yet a proposal by Democrats to release oil from an emergency reserve has been rejected by the White House as a gimmick that won’t reduce prices.

So the election-year stalemate remains.

Congressional Democrats, joined by some GOP lawmakers from coastal states, have long opposed lifting the prohibition that has barred energy companies from waters along both the East and West coasts and in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A succession of presidents, including the current one, has sided with Congress for each of the last 27 years in barring drilling in these waters.

The main goal has been to protect beaches and coastal states’ tourism economies. But Bush says that with today’s technology, exploration can be conducted along the Outer Continental Shelf in ways that keep the drilling out of sight and protect the environment.

The congressional ban is renewed yearly, typically as part of a spending bill. The White House said it was too soon to comment on a potential Bush veto.

Under Bush’s proposal, states would help decide how drilling would be conducted off their shores. It is unclear how much oil would be available. Bush said it could eventually be enough to produce 10 years’ worth of America’s current oil production.

Both presidential campaigns weighed in.

Sen John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called Bush’s move “a very important signal” and prodded his Democratic rival, Sen Barack Obama, should drop his opposition to offshore drilling. “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,” McCain said.

Obama favors another economic stimulus package that includes energy rebates, as well as stepped up efforts to develop alternative fuels. “If offshore drilling would provide short-term relief at the pump or a long-term strategy for energy independence, it would be worthy of our consideration, regardless of the risks,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. “But most experts, even within the Bush administration, concede it would do neither.”

Environmental groups also criticized Bush.

The public, though, is growing impatient for answers.

Nearly half the people surveyed by the Pew Research Center last month said they now consider energy exploration and drilling more important than conservation, compared with a little over a third who felt that way only five months ago. The sharpest shift in attitude came from those who had previously viewed exploration as a less important priority, including people who identified themselves as liberals, independents and Democrats.

Wire reports

Latest 15 of 62 Total Comments Show All

• 

  Sarge at 08:52 AM JST - 16th July

  Sushi: "Superlib, against. ( new oil drilling )"

  Why?

• 

  Sarge at 08:53 AM JST - 16th July

  Sushi: "Superlib, against. ( new oil drilling )"

  Why?

• 

  SushiSake3 at 09:37 AM JST - 16th July

  Sarge, do you give an alcoholic more alcohol?

  Ditto forthe U.S. and oil.

  Obviously there are a whole host of other reasons in addition to this.

• 

  Sarge at 09:51 AM JST - 16th July

  Sushi - A better question would be "Do you give a thirsty man water?"

  You are apparently not aware that your alternative fuels are not available now ( not in significant quantities ), nor will they be in the forseeable future. Oil is going to be the main source of power for probably the next few decades.

• 

  taikan at 10:42 AM JST - 16th July

  Sarge -- If oil is going to be the main source of power for the next few decades, wouldn't it be in the long term interests of the US to encourage other countries to drill and sell as much of their oil as possible while the US conserves as much of its oil as possible? That way, when the rest of the world starts to run out of economically available oil, the US still would retain sizable reserves.

  In other words, isn't it better for the "thirsty man" to drink someone else's water when he can, so that he still will have his own water to drink when others run out?

• 

  Betzee at 11:55 AM JST - 16th July

  Gas in America is still ridiculously cheap.

  Everything is relative, Adverts. In 1950, when the great post-war American economic expansion took off, petroleum was not only ridiculously abundant but easy to get at. That combination spawned a car culture which remains one of the defining features of American society.

  Now all that has changed. We are forced to get it from places like the Niger Delta, where residents live in abject poverty since all the revenues are pocketed by their corrupt leadership in the faraway Nigerian capital. The instability this situation generates jacks up the price.

  The USA is only estimated to possess 5 percent of known reserves, so we will always have an interest in the Persian Gulf region which contains over 60 percent. The only thing that would change this is if an alternative power source to petroleum was found.

• 

  Madverts at 05:52 PM JST - 16th July

  I don't think it's a relativity issue, Betzee.

  More expensicve gas years ago would have made American designers develop better eginieered, more economical vehicles. Apart from slapping on un-reliable injection systems in the 1980's, American V8 technology hardly changed from the 1950's!

  All that waste over the years has massively depleted the finite resourses we share - which is in turn causing companies to drill where before it was not economically viable...

• 

  Betzee at 08:30 PM JST - 16th July

  More expensicve gas years ago would have made American designers develop better eginieered, more economical vehicles. Apart from slapping on un-reliable injection systems in the 1980's, American V8 technology hardly changed from the 1950's!

  I'll have to cede to your expertise though the argument sounds plausible. Incidentally, I did not own my first car until my late 20s when I moved from Washington, which has excellent public transportation, to Los Angeles, the land of the automobile. It was a Honda Civic. At the time gas was relatively expensive. As the price dropped, gas guzzlers proliferated. I bought a bigger car myself, for safety reasons.

  Owing to a legal loop-pole SUVs were allowed to emit up to three times as much nitrogen oxide as passenger cars, an exemption a range of interest groups from auto-manufacturers to owners supported in the face of an environmental outcry. Now they are all paying the price; dealers have miles of unsold inventory and owners are facing ever escalating prices at the pump.

• 

  Madverts at 09:49 PM JST - 16th July

  "Now they are all paying the price; dealers have miles of unsold inventory and owners are facing ever escalating prices at the pump."

  It's only fair to be honest. Sure it irked me this morning when I payed 1.53€ a litre of the good stuff to stick in my T5 R, but I choose to drive a high powered vehicle with stinking fuel economy 'cause I'm into it, and the leftists can kiss my carbon footprint :D

  This is my point about 50 years of badly engineered vehicles that has used most of the juice and causing ulterior oil elporation. At least my 15mpg is being burnt in the best possible manner!

• 

  usaexpat at 11:53 PM JST - 16th July

  Madverts: correct again T5R is a nice choice and the power to economy ratio is not that bad. I am against the people who want to force our transportation choices in the name of global warming et al. I don't buy the high prices are good for the environment because people won't drive argument. If you can afford it and enjoy it than by all means....

• 

  Madverts at 12:02 AM JST - 17th July

  USAexpat,

  "If you can afford it and enjoy it than by all means...."

  Especially with the ECU upgrade :D

• 

  SuperLib at 04:15 AM JST - 17th July

  I've heard Hummer sales are down 50% already....adios, amigo.

• 

  Gyudon at 08:25 PM JST - 17th July

  Pretty interesting how gas prices in the US jumped so high after the liberal dems took over a few years back. Pelosi & crew are doing a great job, and that spectacular 9% approval rating is a testemant to the wondderful job they're doing.

• 

  USARonin at 10:09 AM JST - 18th July

  There is no oil shortage.

  There is price gougin'.

  USAR

• 

  USARonin at 10:17 AM JST - 18th July

  You Euros should tell your socialist government you want to pay for gas the same as Americans pay. Maybe you'd be less grumpy and less resentful of the US.

  And if I could pay what the Venezuelans pay, I'd buy a whole bunch of it and sell it to you Euros and then I could buy your friendship.

  USAR

Register or login to add a comment!