President Bush Calls for More Oil Exploration at Home

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,101
194
106
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05...leeast/18prexyweb.html


SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt ? President Bush said Saturday that Saudi Arabia?s decision to boost oil production by 300,000 barrels a day is ?something, but it doesn?t solve our problem,? and he called again on Congress to approve legislation allowing more oil exploration at home.

Mr. Bush, who is in Egypt to meet with regional leaders, spoke the day after he raised the issue of oil production and high gas prices in a private meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the king?s horse farm outside Riyadh. The White House said the president had hoped to persuade the king to release enough oil to drive down prices and give American consumers some relief at the pump.

But Mr. Bush was largely unsuccessful ? the 300,000 barrels a day will not drive down prices, both the White House and analysts said. Back in Washington, Democrats are criticizing Mr. Bush, saying he made only a half-hearted appeal.

On Saturday, here in Sharm el-Sheikh, Mr. Bush pushed back at that criticism, saying he made his message clear to both the king and his oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, who Mr. Bush said had flown home from Korea to meet with him at the king?s request.

?I said very plainly, I said, ?You?ve got to be concerned about the effects of high oil prices on some of the biggest customers in the world,? Mr. Bush said. ?And not only that, of course, high energy prices is going to cause countries like mine to accelerate our move toward alternative energy.?

It was the second time in five months that Mr. Bush had raised the issue of oil prices with the king; the first was in January, during another visit to the ranch. Then, as now, the Saudis rebuffed Mr. Bush?s request, although the government?s decision to increase production ? made a week ago ? softened the blow this time.

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??

Some analysts believe the Saudis were responding as much to pressure from Democrats in Congress as Mr. Bush. Congress passed legislation this week ordering the Bush administration to suspend shipments to the strategic petroleum reserve, and the administration said Friday it would comply.

And some Democrats are calling for sanctions on the Saudis, such as refusing to sell them arms, if they do not open the oil spigots.

Here in Sharm el Sheikh, a resort city on the Red Sea where Mr. Bush was to meet Saturday with the leaders of Egypt, Afghanistan and the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Bush said he was pleased with the Saudi decision, though he said he is realistic enough to know that it will not make a dent in prices.

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.?


Does it really take a rise in oil costs to advance alternative energy? Shouldn't we have been doing this from day 1? Who's getting rich here?

I see this as tax payers are the one getting screwed from shamed / corrupted big oil deals... I guess this is nothing new tho.

I'm all for domestic exploration ... the problem is. I am thinking it cost a lot more to find and get it out of the ground ... I find it ironic that he tells the king one thing then turns around and tells us a bunch of bullshit. Shouldn't the headline state Bush calls for more advancements in alternative energy?

Like maybe building cars that get 60-70 MPG? What? Toyota already has one. Why can't we one up em better? Can't we lower the gas guzzler to 25MPG cars ? And 20 MPG for Trucks? Use the tax to pay for advancements in better MPG cars? How hard is this arithmetic question? Get better fuel millage burn less oil spend less at the pump....

Am I missing something?

 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
3
0
In the past Bush has made speeches about gas prices and now virtually nothing comes out of the white house at all. I don't see bad leadership, like we expect from the admin, but none. Nothing, just hoping it will go away. I don't know how realistic more money spent on alternatives is or whether it's worth government doing it, but for the gov to ignore a problem that's impacting everybody here so severely--not even addressing it seriously is lame.
 

ChunkiMunki

Senior member
Dec 21, 2001
449
0
0
I find it embarrassing the President of the US goes over to Saudi Arabia TWICE and begs for more oil production. Saudis say "No". Our response should have been massive alternative energy research and development., as well as a conservation program via bully pulpit. Since the '73 embargo the US response has been to complain and yell about high gas prices, yet continue to do nothing. To bad we went to war instead of subsidizing alternate energy.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,949
2
76
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I find it embarrassing the President of the US goes over to Saudi Arabia TWICE and begs for more oil production. Saudis say "No". Our response should have been massive alternative energy research and development., as well as a conservation program via bully pulpit. Since the '73 embargo the US response has been to complain and yell about high gas prices, yet continue to do nothing. To bad we went to war instead of subsidizing alternate energy.
Soon enough, we'll have everyone in the middle east royally pissed off... that is, if we don't already.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I find it embarrassing the President of the US goes over to Saudi Arabia TWICE and begs for more oil production. Saudis say "No". Our response should have been massive alternative energy research and development., as well as a conservation program via bully pulpit. Since the '73 embargo the US response has been to complain and yell about high gas prices, yet continue to do nothing. To bad we went to war instead of subsidizing alternate energy.
Actually since 73 our fuel economy has double on average. And it looks like car makers are ramping up more fuel economy and that would have happened even without the new cafe standards. Consumers are demanding it.

I also find it embarrassing that congress blocks oil exploration, which makes us more dependent on oil from the the middle east. ANWR and offshore drilling is no magic bullet, but it is going to take a couple of decades to turn over our auto fleet for something more efficient.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
6
81
Originally posted by: ericlp
Does it really take a rise in oil costs to advance alternative energy? Shouldn't we have been doing this from day 1? Who's getting rich here?

Am I missing something?
Well, yes. It DOES take high oil prices to make alternative energy attractive and no, I don't think you're missing anything.

Solar cells, ground-based heat pumps, wind power, electric cars, cellulosic ethanol, revolutionary battery technologies - all of these will be a hell of a lot more attractive when oil is $200 a barrel. As painful as $4 a gallon gasoline is, it might take $6 or $7 a gallon gasoline before we really get serious about weaning ourselves from our oil habit.

The problem is, we humans have such short-term outlooks. We feel the pain and want it to stop NOW. I don't. I want oil prices to go higher - much higher - and stay there. We'll all have to share the burden. But in 10 or 15 years, you won't recognize the place. And we'll be able to tell OPEC to go fvck themselves.

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,994
100
106
IIRC, the president calling for new domestic oil exploration/drilling is nothing new. Boosting domestic output has been a part of his platform for many years now. Unfortunately he seems to be stuck on ANWR as the be-and-end-all for our domestic needs. This has been a nonstarter and will continue to be. The problem isn't the amount of oil available, it is the speculators and financial markets. People are starting to catch on to this. Unfortunately, too many of our representatives make too much money (directly or indirectly) from this to actually DO anything about it.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I find it embarrassing the President of the US goes over to Saudi Arabia TWICE and begs for more oil production. Saudis say "No". Our response should have been massive alternative energy research and development., as well as a conservation program via bully pulpit. Since the '73 embargo the US response has been to complain and yell about high gas prices, yet continue to do nothing. To bad we went to war instead of subsidizing alternate energy.
Actually since 73 our fuel economy has double on average. And it looks like car makers are ramping up more fuel economy and that would have happened even without the new cafe standards. Consumers are demanding it.

I also find it embarrassing that congress blocks oil exploration, which makes us more dependent on oil from the the middle east. ANWR and offshore drilling is no magic bullet, but it is going to take a couple of decades to turn over our auto fleet for something more efficient.

Are you saying

1973 avg 10 and now 35 years later we avg 20? OR...

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I find it embarrassing the President of the US goes over to Saudi Arabia TWICE and begs for more oil production. Saudis say "No". Our response should have been massive alternative energy research and development., as well as a conservation program via bully pulpit. Since the '73 embargo the US response has been to complain and yell about high gas prices, yet continue to do nothing. To bad we went to war instead of subsidizing alternate energy.
Actually since 73 our fuel economy has double on average. And it looks like car makers are ramping up more fuel economy and that would have happened even without the new cafe standards. Consumers are demanding it.

I also find it embarrassing that congress blocks oil exploration, which makes us more dependent on oil from the the middle east. ANWR and offshore drilling is no magic bullet, but it is going to take a couple of decades to turn over our auto fleet for something more efficient.

Are you saying

1973 avg 10 and now 35 years later we avg 20? OR...
linkage

1973 the avg car got about 13mpg, to the avg car gets about 23 and still trending upwards at a good clip. Also keep in mind that almost every car has gained a significant amount of weight of the same time period for creature comforts and safety.

Today in the automotive industry cars are replaced 4 speeds with 6 speed transmission. There is a move to electric power steering. V6s are getting the same power as a v8. A four banger is getting v6 output now. The prius has sold a million units without significant government subsidy. Hybrid sales now account for about 3% of new car sales and that is growing. I am going to guess that within 5 years most models will at least hybrid as an option.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
It's about damn time. Between Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and our own potential resources, maybe we can get off the ME tit sometime before I die...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: ChunkiMunki
I find it embarrassing the President of the US goes over to Saudi Arabia TWICE and begs for more oil production. Saudis say "No". Our response should have been massive alternative energy research and development., as well as a conservation program via bully pulpit. Since the '73 embargo the US response has been to complain and yell about high gas prices, yet continue to do nothing. To bad we went to war instead of subsidizing alternate energy.
Actually since 73 our fuel economy has double on average. And it looks like car makers are ramping up more fuel economy and that would have happened even without the new cafe standards. Consumers are demanding it.

I also find it embarrassing that congress blocks oil exploration, which makes us more dependent on oil from the the middle east. ANWR and offshore drilling is no magic bullet, but it is going to take a couple of decades to turn over our auto fleet for something more efficient.

Are you saying

1973 avg 10 and now 35 years later we avg 20? OR...
linkage

1973 the avg car got about 13mpg, to the avg car gets about 23 and still trending upwards at a good clip. Also keep in mind that almost every car has gained a significant amount of weight of the same time period for creature comforts and safety.

Today in the automotive industry cars are replaced 4 speeds with 6 speed transmission. There is a move to electric power steering. V6s are getting the same power as a v8. A four banger is getting v6 output now. The prius has sold a million units without significant government subsidy. Hybrid sales now account for about 3% of new car sales and that is growing. I am going to guess that within 5 years most models will at least hybrid as an option.

I doubt that cars have gained much weight as alternative, lighter materals are being used in many components today. Sure, SUV's are heavy as hell, but I would venture to say that many cars are much lighter on a size wise equivalent basis. Aluminum block engines and plastics have replaced many heavier items on vehicles (including plastic gas tanks, plastic fuel lines, etc. which my company makes).

As for hybrids, I read an interesting article today in Design magazine about hydraulic hybrids. A Ford Taurus retrofitted with a hydraulic hybrid system achieved 85 mpg with 160HP engine and could spike HP up to 600HP on short term boost demand (from the hydraulic resevoir). Also, hydraulic hybrids acutally get much better fuel economy in the city than the highway and will cost about the same as todays cars (as well as weight) because they would replace the complex transmissions with hydraulic propulsion systems. Sould very promising from the read and has no complex electrical issues that a battery/gasoline hybrid system typically exhibits (not saying it's problem free however).
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Engineer

I doubt that cars have gained much weight as alternative, lighter materals are being used in many components today. Sure, SUV's are heavy as hell, but I would venture to say that many cars are much lighter on a size wise equivalent basis. Aluminum block engines and plastics have replaced many heavier items on vehicles (including plastic gas tanks, plastic fuel lines, etc. which my company makes).
There was an article a while back about the weight gain of cars over the last several decades. There has been significant weight gain on most models, the one exception in the article was the corvette which remained basically unchanged. I will see if i can find it and post it. But basically cars have become larger, with more safety features and more options.

[/quote]
As for hybrids, I read an interesting article today in Design magazine about hydraulic hybrids. A Ford Taurus retrofitted with a hydraulic hybrid system achieved 85 mpg with 160HP engine and could spike HP up to 600HP on short term boost demand (from the hydraulic resevoir). Also, hydraulic hybrids acutally get much better fuel economy in the city than the highway and will cost about the same as todays cars (as well as weight) because they would replace the complex transmissions with hydraulic propulsion systems. Sould very promising from the read and has no complex electrical issues that a battery/gasoline hybrid system typically exhibits (not saying it's problem free however).
[/quote]


Yes this one of the promising techs on the horizon. Ford is supposed to be working on this for its lines of trucks.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
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.?
How about this? Environmentalists drop their opposition to drilling ANWAR and create a temporary fast-track approval process for new refineries so long as they meet basic safety and health guidelines, in exchange for ending corporate welfare and tax breaks for big oil. We then mandate that the extra $ earned via higher coporate taxation directly fund alternative fuel research and implementation.
 

misle

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
3,371
0
76
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Start drilling now and you MIGHT get some gasoline from those wells in 10 years.
That's what Bill Clinton said 14 years ago.
 

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,101
194
106
Originally posted by: Engineer


As for hybrids, I read an interesting article today in Design magazine about hydraulic hybrids. A Ford Taurus retrofitted with a hydraulic hybrid system achieved 85 mpg with 160HP engine and could spike HP up to 600HP on short term boost demand (from the hydraulic resevoir). Also, hydraulic hybrids acutally get much better fuel economy in the city than the highway and will cost about the same as todays cars (as well as weight) because they would replace the complex transmissions with hydraulic propulsion systems. Sould very promising from the read and has no complex electrical issues that a battery/gasoline hybrid system typically exhibits (not saying it's problem free however).
I checked a bit further. Very interesting indeed!



Kinda far out tho next decade but with gas prices going up faster and faster maybe cut that time in half?

http://tinyurl.com/69ltdq
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,677
136
Heh. It's just another effort to trade in tomorrow for today, use up all our own resources right now, leave nothing behind for our children...

The Easter Islanders were once a prosperous and powerful seafaring people, until they cut down every last tree to make canoes, ended up impoverished, stuck on their island...

Conservation is really the answer, but the profits aren't quite so huge- and I'm sure that the Baathists would have upped production, except that we just had to invade, plunge the place into civil war, and the Iranians would probably do likewise, if we weren't starving them of the technology to do so, threatening to bomb them every few days...
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: Engineer


As for hybrids, I read an interesting article today in Design magazine about hydraulic hybrids. A Ford Taurus retrofitted with a hydraulic hybrid system achieved 85 mpg with 160HP engine and could spike HP up to 600HP on short term boost demand (from the hydraulic resevoir). Also, hydraulic hybrids acutally get much better fuel economy in the city than the highway and will cost about the same as todays cars (as well as weight) because they would replace the complex transmissions with hydraulic propulsion systems. Sould very promising from the read and has no complex electrical issues that a battery/gasoline hybrid system typically exhibits (not saying it's problem free however).
I checked a bit further. Very interesting indeed!



Kinda far out tho next decade but with gas prices going up faster and faster maybe cut that time in half?

http://tinyurl.com/69ltdq

Since the system is more mechanical than complicated battery/electrical (does have some electrical monitoring and programming for sure), I would think it's easier to develope than an all electric/battery/charged hybrid system. Sure there are kinks but throw some man power (and maybe a few tax breaks/incentives for developement) and you'll see amazing things pretty quickly. Sure, it would take a few years to get into production but it could probably be done pretty easily on existing automotive assembly lines, I would guess.

The true probelm is that it still relies on liquid fuel (gas, diesel, etc), but if the mileage were increased enough, it would lower the amount need drastically. Maybe to the point that a man made alternative could be produced fast enough to keep up with demand.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
2
0
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: ericlp
Originally posted by: Engineer


As for hybrids, I read an interesting article today in Design magazine about hydraulic hybrids. A Ford Taurus retrofitted with a hydraulic hybrid system achieved 85 mpg with 160HP engine and could spike HP up to 600HP on short term boost demand (from the hydraulic resevoir). Also, hydraulic hybrids acutally get much better fuel economy in the city than the highway and will cost about the same as todays cars (as well as weight) because they would replace the complex transmissions with hydraulic propulsion systems. Sould very promising from the read and has no complex electrical issues that a battery/gasoline hybrid system typically exhibits (not saying it's problem free however).
I checked a bit further. Very interesting indeed!



Kinda far out tho next decade but with gas prices going up faster and faster maybe cut that time in half?

http://tinyurl.com/69ltdq

Since the system is more mechanical than complicated battery/electrical (does have some electrical monitoring and programming for sure), I would think it's easier to develope than an all electric/battery/charged hybrid system. Sure there are kinks but throw some man power (and maybe a few tax breaks/incentives for developement) and you'll see amazing things pretty quickly. Sure, it would take a few years to get into production but it could probably be done pretty easily on existing automotive assembly lines, I would guess.

The true probelm is that it still relies on liquid fuel (gas, diesel, etc), but if the mileage were increased enough, it would lower the amount need drastically. Maybe to the point that a man made alternative could be produced fast enough to keep up with demand.
Seems like a good idea
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. It's just another effort to trade in tomorrow for today, use up all our own resources right now, leave nothing behind for our children...
Then chances of my grandchildren driving a vehicle that runs only gas or any liquid fuel for that matter is zero. The electrification of the car has already started. There will be plenty of oil in the ground when we stop using it propel ourselves around.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,590
5,765
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. It's just another effort to trade in tomorrow for today, use up all our own resources right now, leave nothing behind for our children...
Then chances of my grandchildren driving a vehicle that runs only gas or any liquid fuel for that matter is zero. The electrification of the car has already started. There will be plenty of oil in the ground when we stop using it propel ourselves around.
Maybe, maybe not, but what is driving this electrification is the high cost of gas.
Also, you don't know what the uses the future generations will have for oil, so it is simply nearsighted to spend it all now on the assumption that it won't be needed later, simply to delay what even you think is an inevitable transition from using it for ground transportation.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. It's just another effort to trade in tomorrow for today, use up all our own resources right now, leave nothing behind for our children...
Then chances of my grandchildren driving a vehicle that runs only gas or any liquid fuel for that matter is zero. The electrification of the car has already started. There will be plenty of oil in the ground when we stop using it propel ourselves around.
Maybe, maybe not, but what is driving this electrification is the high cost of gas.
Also, you don't know what the uses the future generations will have for oil, so it is simply nearsighted to spend it all now on the assumption that it won't be needed later, simply to delay what even you think is an inevitable transition from using it for ground transportation.
Your right, things could change. But it is also safe to say that after we invented electricity and electric lighting, we had little need for whale oil.

Oil is getting more expensive to extract, but there is still plenty of it the ground.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,590
5,765
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Heh. It's just another effort to trade in tomorrow for today, use up all our own resources right now, leave nothing behind for our children...
Then chances of my grandchildren driving a vehicle that runs only gas or any liquid fuel for that matter is zero. The electrification of the car has already started. There will be plenty of oil in the ground when we stop using it propel ourselves around.
Maybe, maybe not, but what is driving this electrification is the high cost of gas.
Also, you don't know what the uses the future generations will have for oil, so it is simply nearsighted to spend it all now on the assumption that it won't be needed later, simply to delay what even you think is an inevitable transition from using it for ground transportation.
Your right, things could change. But it is also safe to say that after we invented electricity and electric lighting, we had little need for whale oil.

Oil is getting more expensive to extract, but there is still plenty of it the ground.
You hope for the best, but plan for the worst. And tapping all the reserves we can get our hands on as fast as we can is simply not planning for the worst.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY