Over the past 30 years:
Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Democrats have blocked building oil refineries.
Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
Over the past 30 years Democrats have created "No Zones" for US energy exploration and development:

(Republican Senator Craig put together this map.)
As Americans pay more for gas than ever under this Congress--
Democrats continue to vote against energy development and exploration.
Today President George W. Bush said NO MORE!
President Bush urged the Democratic Congress to lift the 27 year-old ban on drilling off the American coastline
FOX News has the report:
President Bush called on Congress Wednesday to open U.S. coastal waters to oil and gas development by lifting a 27-year-old ban on drilling off the American coastline, and allowing states to decide whether to permit production off their shores.Predictably, Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasted Bush and oil companies:
Blaming Democrats for stalling, Bush said, "Congress must face a hard reality. Unless members are willing to accept gas prices at a today's levels, or even higher, the country "must produce more oil, and we must start now."
Bush spoke from the White House Rose Garden. He took no questions.
Bush also renewed his call to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration; he also said oil shale development and new refineries are needed.
"For many Americans, there is no more pressing concern than the price of gasoline. ... Every American who drives to work, purchases food, or ships a product has felt the effect," Bush said.
Bush admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly."
The drilling moratoria have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80 percent of the country's Outer Continental Shelf. It was instituted to protect tourism and lessen the chance of oil spills reaching popular beaches.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded with a statement blasting the president.Speaker Pelosi is, of course, misrepresenting the facts about the oil companies sitting on 68 million acres.
"The president's proposal sounds like another page from the administration's energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry(?): give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased," Pelosi said.
GOP.gov has the facts.
UPDATE: Here are the president's comments from the White House website:
In the long run, the solution is to reduce demand for oil by promoting alternative energy technologies. My administration has worked with Congress to invest in gas-saving technologies like advanced batteries and hydrogen fuel cells. We've mandated a large expansion in the use of alternative fuels. We've raised fuel efficiency standards to ambitious new levels. With all these steps, we are bringing America closer to the day when we can end our addiction to oil, which will allow us to become better stewards of the environment.Bush was terrific.
In the short run, the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil. And that means we need to increase supply, especially here at home. So my administration has repeatedly called on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal -- and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction. Congress must face a hard reality: Unless Members are willing to accept gas prices at today's painful levels -- or even higher -- our nation must produce more oil. And we must start now. So this morning, I ask Democratic Congressional leaders to move forward with four steps to expand American oil and gasoline production.
First, we should expand American oil production by increasing access to the Outer Continental Shelf, or OCS. Experts believe that the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That would be enough to match America's current oil production for almost ten years. The problem is that Congress has restricted access to key parts of the OCS since the early 1980s. Since then, 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. With these advances -- and a dramatic increase in oil prices -- congressional restrictions on OCS exploration have become outdated and counterproductive.
Republicans in Congress have proposed several promising bills that would lift the legislative ban on oil exploration in the OCS. I call on the House and the Senate to pass good legislation as soon as possible. This legislation should give the states the option of opening up OCS resources off their shores, provide a way for the federal government and states to share new leasing revenues, and ensure that our environment is protected. There's also an executive prohibition on exploration in the OCS. When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition.
Second, we should expand oil production by tapping into the extraordinary potential of oil shale. Oil shale is a type of rock that can produce oil when exposed to heat or other process[es]. In one major deposit -- the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming -- there lies the equivalent of about 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil. That's more than three times larger than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. And it can be fully recovered -- and if it can be fully recovered it would be equal to more than a century's worth of currently projected oil imports.
For many years, the high cost of extracting oil from shale exceeded the benefit. But today the calculus is changing. Companies have invested in technology to make oil shale production more affordable and efficient. And while the cost of extracting oil from shale is still more than the cost of traditional production, it is also less than the current market price of oil. This makes oil shale a highly promising resource.
Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are standing in the way of further development. In last year's omnibus spending bill, Democratic leaders inserted a provision blocking oil shale leasing on federal lands. That provision can be taken out as easily as it was slipped in -- and Congress should do so immediately.
Third, we should expand American oil production by permitting exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. When ANWR was created in 1980, Congress specifically reserved a portion for energy development. In 1995, Congress passed legislation allowing oil production in this small fraction of ANWR's 19 million acres. With a drilling footprint of less than 2,000 acres -- less than one-tenth of 1 percent of this distant Alaskan terrain -- America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil. That is roughly the equivalent of two decades of imported oil from Saudi Arabia. Yet my predecessor vetoed this bill.
This ought to go over really well--
Watch the Democrats and the radical environmentalists in their fold implode on this news today.
Cornhusker is fed up-- Here is her latest postcard:

If Democrats don't act to resolve the gas crisis they will be fired come November.
Jammie Wearing Fool has the latest jingle: "Drill Now. Drill Now. Drill Now."
UPDATE: Democrats say "NO."
Jim,
ReplyDeleteCheck your email.
I've had it with this congress!
You're right, There is a reason that energy prices are skyrocketing in this country.
ReplyDelete8 years ago gas was $1.50. There have been 2 spikes since, the first when we invaded Iraq and the second after Hurricane Katrina.
Even if the ban on offshore drilling was lifted, the next problem is that most of the coastal states are governed by liberal Democrats and RINOs. What good would it do any of us to lift the ban when all of the governors on the West Coast, maybe except for Alaska, and most on the East Coast are against drilling?
ReplyDeleteGP -- could you please repost your gas-price timeline chart?
ReplyDeleteApparently the BDS sufferer who posted at 9:17 AM has not seen it ...
... or if they have, it has not sunk in.
I support the President in his recommendation to open up offshore drilling for the following reasons:
ReplyDelete1. The United States buys 60% of its oil from foreigners, which include socialists, theocracies and monarchies. This is a threat to our national security. We make someone out there mad and we're WALKING. We are open to compromise, coercion and political blackmail. A world power cannot depend on others for its energy!
2. We would not have ever even gone into Iraq if we were not dependant on middle east oil in the first place. That dependency has already cost us a trillion dollars and now we'll have to stay to assure stability.
3. We are exporting money at the rate of $1.5 billion per day to buy our oil. It would be better to pay ourselves the $1.5 billion and keep it in the family, if we can.
4. Exporting money at the rate of $1.5 billion per day devalues the dollar in international markets. The weak dollar makes all other imports more expensive.
5. World oil production of economically available oil is peaking. We are taking 1 cubic mile of oil out of the ground every year. There are limits.
6. The US needs to buy some time to adapt to the new oil reality to come up with a cohesive national plan and adapt its fleet and change other infrastructure to support alternate energy.
In the last 40 years there have been many administrations and many legislative bodies. The blame/ shame game fixes nothing at this point! It is NOT about republicans, democrats, conservatives or liberals. It is about US! WE the People. All of us. We are the ones at risk of walking. If the oil stopped today, so would the USA. It is our land, our oil and we should use it for our benefit. We need to use coal where can, natural gas where we can, wind where we can, nuclear where we can, solar where we can. We need mass quantities of economically available 100 mpg cars ASAP. We need a national plan to free us from dependence on foreign
++
ReplyDeleteRich Casebolt @ 9:56 AM..
here you go..
for now anyways.. ;)
==
++
ReplyDeleteflashback:
THE (Democrats) WAR AGAINST THE SAUDIS
excerpts:
[TARGET: BUSH I
The interest of congressional Democrats in the "Forbidden Truth" thesis is understandable, especially if they can make the charge of "secret negotiations" stick. If the Bush administration was not only "soft" on terrorism but even somehow protected their Saudi allies from scrutiny by law enforcement agencies, then who benefits? The Bush family, long tied to the Saudis, is fair game once the "Forbidden Truth" conspiracy theory becomes the conventional wisdom: George Herbert Walker Bush, reviled by some for his pro-"Arabist" policies, is the particular target of this left-wing hate campaign.]
[THE ROCKEFELLER CONNECTION
In return for US aid and support for the House of Saud, King Ibn Saud granted Aramco a monopoly over the production of Saudi oil at the end of World War II. Aramco is a consortium of companies, with Exxon, Mobil, and Socal – all Rockefeller-connected – granted 70 percent ownership, and Texaco granted the rest. A premier example of crony capitalism, the Rockefeller-Saudi alliance translated into multi-millions in subsidies through the Export-Import Bank, so that the King could build his own personal railroad from his capital to the summer palace. Franklin Roosevelt took money out of the war budget to prepare the way for Rockefeller's pipelines. In return, the Saudis granted the US an airbase at Dharan, conveniently near the oil fields. Smalltime capitalists hire private security guards to protect their property, but the big boys – or, at least, some of them – have the use of the American military.]
[TWO CAN PLAY
A very interesting comment, that last: what are these "competing projects"? This is none other than the Transcaucasian "Silk Road" pipeline project, slated to extend from the Caspian Sea oilfields to Turkey, and perhaps down through Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. This project has long been on the drawing boards, and the Clinton administration took it up with alacrity, even going so far as to set up a special department to facilitate its creation. If the foreign oil companies were going to try to go around them, said the Prince in so many words, then two could play that game:]
[BUSH PAYS THE PRICE
So far, President Bush has made it plain that he does not mean to wage war on Islam, and for that he is being made to pay a price. While his State Department is struggling to undo the damage done by the anti-Saudi media and the Lieberman-Levine assault in Congress, a grand coalition of left and right is pushing for World War III in the Middle East – a war that, given the presence of Pakistan and India (not to mention Israel) in the equation, could quickly go nuclear.]
RTWT
==
Even if the ban on offshore drilling was lifted, the next problem is that most of the coastal states are governed by liberal Democrats and RINOs. What good would it do any of us to lift the ban when all of the governors on the West Coast, maybe except for Alaska, and most on the East Coast are against drilling?
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty simple.
They say no to offshore drilling, they do not get federal funds.
I do have to laugh at Nancy whinging about how drilling will "hurt tourism". Honey, the way gas prices are going there are not going to be any "tourists" because no one will be able to afford to go very far from home. Well, I guess you mean people like you, the Gulfstream Liberals who do not have to worry about the price of gas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete++
ReplyDeletecorrection re: bg @ 2:41 PM..
Nahanni @ 2:27 PM..
re: [Gulfstream Liberals who do not have to worry about the price of gas.]
not only do they not have to worry.. as Joshua has been pointing out, "we the people" get to pay for it, gah!!
==
I saw on Fox blog where O'Reilly is trying to spin that the oil companies and speculators are responsible for this gas crunch. I don't know about O'Reilly. Sometimes he really goes off the deep end. That's why I stopped watching him on TV. Why is it so hard to understand that when the price of oil goes up then gasoline will go up too.
ReplyDeleteWe need to drill more knowledge into Bush's head. If we keep gas prices low, people will continue to buy bigger and faster cars that consumer more and more gas. See the last 20 years as an example.
ReplyDeleteConcentrated solar is quicker faster and more efficient than nuclear power but you have probably never heard of it.
Your great leader Bush said it best "Americans are addicted to oil". Now he and McCain want to flip flop their policies and bring more drugs to the addicts. Nice!!!
++
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ ..
lol.. Bush never flip flpped on his policy..
McCain, that's another story..
btw, your convoluted "addiction"
comparison is totally laughable..
go see Obama, he loves to play God, he's the miracle worker.. oh yeah, he'll save US from ourselves.. bwahahahahaha!!
==
Anon 5:51 PM:
ReplyDeleteApparently, you are more than willing to impose your economic morality upon your fellow Americans, instead of letting them navigate the feedback loop connecting liberty and consequence for themselves, in this highly-individualized situation.
How much does anyone wanna wager that, were I to, say, prohibit divorce in any household with minor children (with the exception of proven abuse), because I think that a two-parent family is the best environment to raise children within ... ol' Anon here would be screaming about my imposition of morality upon him or her?
Concentrated solar is quicker faster and more efficient than nuclear power but you have probably never heard of it.
It also can't run at night, or as a "base load" source, is geographically and climatically limited in its application, and takes up a fair amount of real estate for the amount of power produced, from what I am seeing ... while shading the ground beneath it, which is an environmental impact that is often ignored.
And, its output is not readily converted into a format that is suitable for vehicular transportation, which is the primary consumer of oil.
Until some very bright individual develops a method to store electrical energy that allows a "fillup" in 15 minutes or less, that will take your vehicle 300 miles or more ... the idea that solar energy will replace petroleum is a mirage.
The American way of life ... not just with respect to convenience, but with respect to the efficient pursuit of prosperity, from which much of our environmental-protection efforts are fed ... will not stand for the long charge times, limited ranges, intermittent operation, and the care-and-feeding of today's alternative-energy systems.
Dealing with those limitations takes away from our ability to do business -- and live life -- efficiently and to the maximum, which is the basis for our prosperity and strength as a nation.
++
ReplyDeleteif God didn't intend for the world to run on oil, He wouldn't have created it..
for non believers, think about this..
why is there so much oil on planet Earth??
not only that, but even if there were no such inventions as trains & boats & planes, not to mention cars.. does any one realize just how much every day life revolves around oil??
==
Rich,
ReplyDeleteOT: forgot to say great song! :)
Anonymous 12:55,
ReplyDeleteAll great points. We need both short term and long term solutions.
To: ifonlyMcCainhadwon,
No, not true. there has been a steady upward trend without Katrina. China and India are booming. So is Russia in the number of cars driven. Russia was once a thirdworld country in many ways. Today, people are buying cars instead of taking smelley old russian trolley systems.
You essentially have a world waking up to free enterprise solutions. That is the problem.
But likewise it is also good news. As only the free market can find a solution.
And there are many great solutions on the way. There are indeed very good Solar, Wind, BioFuel companies making major breakthrus almost daily in price reduction and technology. Billions are now flowing into alternative energy.
Just check out any venture capitalist site and you will see all the startup money is flowing to high tech energy solutions of all kinds.
Here is good congregator of alt-energy investment:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/