Bush and Congress fiddle while America burns

It is as I suspected: President Bush’s drill bit is dull. I’ve been quick to blame Congressional Democrats for $4 (or $5 or $10) gasoline, but Bush and the Republicans deserve skewering too.

Today’s Wall Street Journal features an editorial that has Bush telling Congress that if it eliminates its prohibition against drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, he will remove prohibitions put in place by the executive branch. This is schoolboy stuff – you show me yours and I’ll show you mine.

Bush and Congress are playing games while America hurts. By not leading, Bush and the Republicans have lost the moral high ground which is now there for the taking by Obama and the Democrats.

The WSJ editorial also points out something I suggested in a prior column, which is that oil companies are reluctant to spend money on exploration when they’re making billions of dollars the way things are.

The companies also know they will make even more money if the price of oil goes to $200 or $300 or more per barrel. Could it be that leftists are correct in saying capitalism is all about greed?

But that’s stuff for another column. Herewith, the WSJ editorial:

Bush's Drill Bit
June 19, 2008; Page A14

Even some of Washington's fiercest opponents of oil drilling are thinking anew, and the politics of domestic energy production seem to be shifting. This isn't surprising with gas prices as a top-tier campaign issue. More confounding was President Bush's timidity yesterday as he tried to prod Congress into movement.

Mr. Bush argued that leaving most of America's immense offshore oil-and-gas resources off-limits was "outdated and counterproductive," and he called on Congress to end its quarter-century ban. Fair enough. But the ban actually has two components, one of which is a 1990 executive order; like launching a warhead, both keys must be turned. Mr. Bush said he would only turn his after Congress did.

The Administration has botched a prime political opportunity. Lifting the Presidential ban would have been symbolic for now, because Congress's ban would still apply. But it would have put the spotlight on Congress as the last political obstacle to exploiting domestic reserves, just as public support for more drilling is rising.

Anticarbon Democrats are on the defensive for once. Their default position – doing nothing – doesn't have the best resonance amid $4 gas. They've been reduced to arguing that more exploration would merely make a difference over the long term. The GOP plan, in other words, is too pragmatic.

Democrats also claim that land already leased is "sitting idle," and should be used before any new exploration begins. As put by Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the House Resources Committee, Big Oil is "trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush Administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so they can make even greater profits."

Conspiracy theories aside, it is true that only 0.46% of the Outer Continental Shelf is producing oil (though only 2.3% is under lease). But because of the exploration ban, oil companies go in more or less blind, not knowing the extent of the available resources. Millions of acres lack oil or gas, which is why it's called "exploration." Federal law stipulates that an oil company must sink a producing well within 10 years or lose the lease; it often takes nearly a decade to navigate the geography, not to mention the long process of environmental and regulatory review. Or coping with multiple lawsuits from the green lobby.

If it isn't already obvious, Democrats seem intent on proving that they do not understand the oil business – and Mr. Bush would have done better to ramp up the pressure. The White House says it wants to work out a compromise with Congress, which isn't likely unless Republicans start playing their strongest hand.