Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Here's A Good Point About W's ANWAR Push:What's To Say Big Oil Doesn't Sell It To China At A Better Price?

Of course, Scotty is going to continue on the general theme of not answering very good questions:
Q Scott, if domestic oil drilling was approved in ANWR, would there be any laws in place that would say you can only sell it to the American public and that the big oil companies could not sell that oil to the highest bidder in China, or India -- because if the free market system worked, it wouldn't relieve the prices at the pumps for Americans.

MR. McCLELLAN: It would be one step that could help. In fact, it passed a decade ago, but the President's predecessor vetoed the ANWR legislation. It would have opened up a small part of ANWR to environmentally-responsible -- or environmentally-sensitive drilling. And we have a lot of new technologies that we can use to minimize any impact. And it would only be on a small portion of that area.

Q No, but the question --

MR. McCLELLAN: And so if you couple that with other steps that you're taking, you would have more supply available, and that would help address high gas prices. Now, many Democrats have opposed those efforts to expand domestic production. The President believes that while we're working to invest in new technologies and promote alternative sources of energy, we also need to be expanding domestic production. And we can do so with respect for our environment, particularly with new technologies that are available to us in this day and age. And there would have been a significant amount of additional oil that would be available today if that had been signed into law.

Q What's to prevent oil companies drilling in ANWR to extract that oil and sell it to China and India, rather than keep it --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you bring up a very good point, over the long haul, that -- I mean, there is increasing demand for oil, particularly coming from countries like China and India. That's why we have to address the underlying problem, which is our dependence and our addiction to oil, as the President has talked about. It's not a solution, but it's one of the steps we can take, that it can have a more immediate impact in the short run.
Did he answer the question? Nope, didn't tink so.

2 comments:

Neil Shakespeare said...

Man, that guy is the master of the runaround, ain't he? Can't believe they're letting him go. Bring on Snowjob!

The Stuffed Tiger said...

That is a very good question, indeed.

I suppose that more oil with the same demand would lower prices globally, but I think it's safe to say that any extra oil would quickly be snapped up. You know what it is? Iraq and Iran and Chad and Nigeria and Venezuala and Sudan are clusterfucks for American businesses. Would you invest there?

Nancy Pelosi put it well: two oilmen in the White House means breaks for big oil. "It's cause and effect."

I wonder if the press will back off with Tony.