What Bush Didn't Promise: Lower Gas Prices

President Bush just announced a lifting of the executive branch ban on most coastal drilling. It does not actually open up the coasts to drilling, because Congress would need to follow suit. The political intent is simply to put pressure on Congress to cave on drilling.

Bush's Rose Garden statement was artfully crafted. He lamented the high price of gas. He called for drilling off the coasts to "expand oil production."

But if you read it closely, you'll notice Bush did not explicitly claim that coastal drilling would significantly lower the price of the gas.

Because it won't. There's simply not enough oil there to make an impact.

Don't believe me? Ask the White House yourself.

Reporters already did last month. And the White House spokeswoman conceded the point. When answering a question how coastal drilling isn't a short-term solution, she said, "...there's not a real good short-term answer. And we've been very explicit about that from the beginning...There's not going to be a short-term response, and it would be irresponsible for anybody to suggest there would be."

Sen. John McCain also admitted that he doesn't see "immediate relief" from coastal drilling, but only a "psychological impact."

That's because based on numbers from Bush's own Energy Department, drilling in the banned areas off the coasts and in ANWR would only produce enough oil to reduce the price of gas $0.06 a gallon from where the cost would otherwise be two decades from now.

And the Energy Department specifically that coastal drilling alone would have no impact on prices until the year 2030.

Bush does not challenge the numbers from his Energy Department. He just ignores them.

But while Bush will not explicitly claim that coastal drilling will lower prices, he is certainly trying to exploit the pain Americans are feeling at the pump and mislead voters into believing more drilling will lead to lower prices.

Exploit and mislead. That what Bush knows best. But it will do nothing to lower our energy costs.

We need short-term relief, with a more robust and targeted economic stimulus package to help us deal with rising costs.

And we need a long-term energy policy that increases the supply of renewable energy and reduces demand with energy-efficient technologies.

By investing $30 billion a year for 10 years in the Apollo Alliance plan, we can create 3 million green-collar jobs and rapidly transition to a clean energy economy.

That's a third of the annual cost of the Iraq occupation, and half the time it would take to reduce gas prices 6 cents with coastal drilling.

The Bush administration had eight years to implement such a long-term energy policy that he himself says we need. In his own words: "in the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies."

He did nothing. And today, he proposes nothing. Nothing that would actually help us with rising energy costs.

Cross-posted at the Campaign for America's Future blog

Follow Bill Scher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billscher

Comments

[tmckly]

We have enough oil to export it, we just need to get it out of the ground. Stream line over the top regulation, put more oil on the market. prices will GO DOWN. Simple supply and demand. The GOP needs to make this the most importing campaign issue=VICTORY

[GPRogueCowboy]

Now that all of the $165 Billion Taxpayer Bailout of the Economy has reached the last Taxpayer, Small Businesses and Large Businesses. Where are all the Charts and Graphs showing how SUCESSFULL the ECONOMIC STIMULUS PACKAGE has been??
After all our Grand Kids and their Grand Kids will be paying for it for many years.

[jqcitizen]

The Bush-Cheney crowd didn't make promises to get lower gas prices but certainly did assure the world that Iraqi oil would more than pay for the cost of any destruction by a short few months war.

This 'short' war has gone on and on. Billions upon Billions are continuing to be borrowed and spent.

The promises from this administration are as hollow as an alcoholics leg. All we get is enormous national debt to be paid by those of us are in personal debt, caused in part by high fuel costs and a predator banking and credit card industry.

[darker]

Bush-Cheney didn't promise lower gas prices.
But THEY DID PROMISE fat bottom lines to their BIG OIL PALS and corrupt war profiteers!

Always look WHOSE BOTTOM LINE IS FATTENED if you want to
know what a Presidential ADMINISTRATION IS ALL ABOUT.

[flatus]

Blame the auto makers that were foolish/greedy enough to give Americans what they wanted, portable living rooms encased in heavy gauge steel.

[dubop]

I'm sure that some argued for not getting rid of horse drawn carriages and going to automobiles too.Let's really enter the 21st century and stop this madness.. There is a solution to this..Anyone that thinks that drilling for more oil is the answer is only thinking 40 or 50 years down the road. I think we are not doing our posterity proud if that's where we put the bar. Won't we be in this same state then? I know let's pass it off to the next generation or two, we're much too busy now trying to figure out how to pay for our gas so we can go bankrupt alittle slower. Remember gas lines in the 70's? Coming up on 40 yr's.....

[UnbiasView]

Bush didn't promise lower gas prices but Nancy Pelosi and the Dems did in 2006 when they were running . . . they also promised to end that pesky Iraq skirmish.

[whatt]

Bush didn't have to promise lower gas prices, the price was $1.46 a gallon when he took office.
Without enough votes how can the dems end the war, if a few of the reps. grew a set and joined with the dems. the war could have ended. Get it unbiasview

[UnbiasView]

And the gas prices?

Here's an idea, if you want to be anti-war, don't authorize it in the first place . . . then don't promise to end something you have no power to end (pretty much a lie).

[research]

defund by not bring the iraq budget to the floor. That's how.

[schicklett3]

Of course drilling in the US won't lower gas prices - it will raise them. That's the reason we stopped drilling here and started buying from the Saudi's.
Everyone needs to stop and think about this so called energy crisis - it's not a crisis until gas is rationed and gas lines wrap around the block. What is happening is big oil wants to drill here - to own oil rights to every place that has oil. The question is: why aren't they drilling in the areas where they already have rights? Somebody please answer that question.
And another thing: this oil drilling is the Republicans "in" for John McCain - they know the democrats will never allow offshort drilling on our coastland, and that Senator Obama is dead set against it. So, the continued wars and the offshore drilling is McCain's winning road to the White House.
Wait and see. It was skilfully crafted, and is now paying off for the republican party.

[Schallvain]

To answer your question: Oil exploration and source development is very expensive. Much of the areas that they hold leases has a low probability of oil, and the current investment would be to high for such a low chance of getting anything out of it. Secondly, some of these areas have been explored and did not have enough (or any) material to develop. Many of the off shore areas have been explored and/or developed but were abandoned when oil prices were low because of the high cost of off shore development and production or were required to be abandoned when drilling in those regions were banned. Now that prices are high, it would be very profitable for them to go back in and redevelop known sources. This would limit the cost and impact of exploration, which has a very impact on the environment.

[Schallvain]

I think you are misrepresenting the administrations statements. When they are talking about expanding areas that could be used for oil exploration and production, they are not doing this to affect gas prices today. They are looking at long term infrastructural changes to our energy supply. This would be moving some percentage of our oil resources within the confines of our own economy and control. Your statement represents the part of society that needs that instant gratification of being able to have everthing today and pay for it tomorrow. This mentality is why we are in this situation in the first place. We should be looking at solid resolutions of this problem that shall help heal the situation, not just stick a band-aid on it. Expanding our ability to look for more oil is but a minor part of this process, but it is a part.

[apduncan1]

Amen.

In the mean time the ones that get instant gratification are the ones that service the oil industry: Halliburton et alia.

They are the ones that benefit now. I wonder why? Does Dick Cheney have anything to do with it?

[UpsideDwn]

But it's not just about the administration's statements. It's about the administration's body language. Like a slick advertising campaign, the president's posturing does make it seem as if allowing offshore drilling would bring immediate relief at the pump - and here I am reminded of McCain implying that his "gas tax holiday" would rescue individual families from the brink of financial ruin. It's all in the presentation.

If, as you say, the administration is "looking at long term infrastructural changes to our energy supply," then why not make the development and widespread integration of alternative fuels the focal point of its energy policy? The Bush Administration has had 8 years to do this - and yet it continues to pin its hopes on oil.

[Schallvain]

Actually (and in the administrations defense) they have allocated more total funding for alternative fuel projects than any other country. But, again, this is not and can not be a complete answer, but it does add some flexibility to our future energy sources and needs. Personally, I would love to see a comprehensive 50 year energy plan for our country, but since our base election cycles are a 2-4-6 year schedule I think at most 6 years is the best we can do.

[hchriste]

Bush had two terms to have an energy policy and doesn't have one. When GW was running ist term he said the reason oil cost $20 a barrael was because Bill Clinton could not deal with OPEC effectively and if he (GW) was elected he would change that, guess he did. He couldn't get offf shore drilling approved because his own brother in Florida oppossed the idea. If off shore drilling is approved or maybe even if it isn't it is time for a National Oil Trust with the proceeds tied directly to production and profits, to fund programs for the American people like schools, bridges, highways and mental institutions for the Bushies.

[dwmulenex]

The Bush drill for black gold is a diversion, a politcal attempt of a failed presidency to prolong for a few more years outdated reliance on oil by holding out false hope of sufficient "American oil " to drive down prices. Several points. First, will the New American oil yield any revenues to the Treasury, as Norway's North Sea fields do? Otherwise, the oil just goes on the world market to to the highest bidder, with all benefit to big oil. Second, since the oil benefit will be very limited in any case, how will a balanced energy investment policy provide no subsidy to big oil, and instead use taxpayer money to promote smart grids, local power, and more solar, wind, and clean hydrogen cell? Third, how large a reserve fund will be established to ensure that environmental damages are paid for by big oil? The Supreme Court's reduction of the Valdez punitive damages award raises the serious possibility that extensive damage to irreplaceable natural resources, like the Key West coral reef or the marine mammals off the California coast, will not be penalized. The gutless actions of Bush and Co. are economically, environmentally and morally contemptible. Sadly, the Democratic Congress shares the same qualities, which are likely to show their ugliness in true cowardice this election year. No wonder Exxon Mobil has record profits, while the U.S. budget deficit and national debt are growing out of control. If you're not seeing red, you just aren't seeing.

[elbzee]

Hell of a legacy he's leaving, huh?

[sassafra]

i'm sorry, the statement wasn't "artfully crafted". that presupposes that this administration is either erudite or cares a whit about what it actually tells the american public. neither are true.
have you ever really noticed this president having any real problem with plain old bald-faced lying? i thought not.

[dreamcatcher2]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25518912

"As Oil Firms Seek Drilling Access, Exports Set Record"
(Reuters)
"A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. Shipments this February topped 1.8 million barrels a day for the first time during any month, according to final numbers from the Energy Department.

The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush administration for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling."

[DuganS1]

Oil inventories are currently low in the United States, but that's not the main issue. Oil prices are high largely due to a lack of spare oil production capacity worldwide. And if a significant amount of new capacity isn't added soon, there could be oil shortages if global growth continues and oil demand continues to increase at the rapid rate it has. The surge in imports you listed in no way contradicts the importance of increasing supply, especially if you consider the balance of payments and affects on the global oil price.

[Vinca]

It bugs me when some say , IF WE STAR DRILLIN NOW< IT'LL TAKE FIVE YEARS< SO WHAT< WHAT A POOR EXCUSE NOT TO START DRILLING

[Torus34]

I suggest that any proponent of drilling in presently restricted areas, whether President of the United States or conservative talk show host, should answer a few questions. These are:

1. How long will it be before the oil comes on line in significant amounts?
2. Will the cost of drilling be such that the oil cannot be offered at competitive prices?
3. Is there any guarantee that the oil will be exclusively for the US and not sold on the world market?
4. What, if any, will be the impact of the new production on the price of gas/fuel oil in the US, based on an estimate of world consumption when the oil becomes available?

These 'disclosure statements' should put the discussion on a more rational level than exists at present.

[apduncan1]

This is a bonanza for the service companies (read: Halliburton).

[cindyward]

For everyone commenting on this thread who is blaming high oil and gasoline prices on environmentalists, please read Rep. Lois Capps' blog post. I'll repeat just one paragraph here:

"Interestingly, right now the oil and gas industry is sitting on 68 million acres of public lands where it could be drilling but isn't. It has some 6,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico (where the majority of oil and natural gas reserves are found) that are not being explored. According to Senator McCain and President Bush, the oil and gas industry wants to lower prices for American consumers but they can't because they're prevented from drilling. This couldn't be further from the truth."

[pa104]

Let's get the facts straight. Most if not all of that 68 million acres has no or little oil on it. It would take years of exploration to determine if there is any oil on any of that 68 million acres. It costs a million dollars a hole and takes a couple of years to drill a dry hole. So what we should do is spend years drilling dry holes or drill where we know oil is located. Also that artic wasteland ANWAR is presently producing a million barrells a day while the pipleline has a capacity of two million barrells a day. Shouldn't we at least increase capacity enough to raise that number to close to two millions barrells this could be done rather quickly I would imagine? Your answer is to look to solutions which don't exist at the present time while prices continue to rise. I would imagine you will change your tune at 7.00 for a gallon of gas when the Dems are in charge and produce no solutions. Good luck your alien commander circleing the Earth has an energy solution for you to give to the people of Earth.