http://www.theseminal.com/2008/06/18/drilling-is-a-fraud/
Here's the reality: Drilling is a fraud.
Honestly, this isn't an environmental argument. As much as I want to stop global warming, save our pristine wilderness, and generally be good to the earth, this argument has nothing to do with that. And, surprisingly enough, as much as McCain is simply flipping his position because of political expediency, I'm not going to call him on it. (Don't believe me? Here's McCain vs. McCain on drilling policy.)
Gas is at $4 a gallon. People have been feeling the pinch for a long time now. They want their politicians to do something about it, and John McCain and George Bush have offered offshore drilling as a cure.
The simple reality is, drilling just will never, ever do what McCain and Bush think it will.
Here's why…
Reason #1: Offshore Drilling Won't Increase Oil Supplies For 7-10 Years
That's right, even if we repeal all bans on drilling anywhere in the U.S., we won't see the benefits for almost a decade:
That's the estimate from the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry trade group. Major environmental groups think the increased supply would be at least that distant before arrival, and say it mostly would benefit Big Oil.
"It would take a decade to bring new leases into production, and then they would only line the coffers of the oil industry," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director.
Reason #2: Offshore Drilling Only Makes Financial Sense When Oil Prices Are High
Offshore drilling is expensive:
However, analysts on all sides agree that drilling faces political, regulatory and economic hurdles. Individual states could forbid it. If exploration were allowed, permits would have to be granted, and before that environmental concerns must be addressed. Drilling also would have to make economic sense: Offshore drilling is expensive, and the more remote the site, the more costly it is.
Therefore, offshore drilling would only make economic sense if the oil tapped could be sold at a high price. Once the price of oil drops (which it is unlikely to do, but let's think hypothetically), offshore drills lose money, they get shut down, and prices go up again. Offshore drilling will not solve our gas price problem.
Reason #3: There's Probably Not A Lot Of Oil Out There
Bush and McCain tout drilling as a way towards energy independence. It's not; it's only a very short-term fix. Once we get the drilling going (remember, 7-10 years), there isn't much oil to drill:
The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006 report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold 115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production probably hold only about 19 billion barrels.
…
The world consumes about 86 million barrels a day. The U.S. share of that is about 20.6 million barrels, 60 percent of them from foreign sources.
One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19 billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption.
That's right. Drill in all the places you can't drill now and you get (gong!) a whopping 2.5 years worth of oil. And that's assuming consumption levels stay static, which they have never done.
Reason #4: Oh, And There Are No Ships To Carry That Oil
Even if you did build the wells (7-10 years), make it economically feasable to keep them open (that means high oil prices), and tap all that oil (only 2.5 years worth), you wouldn't be able to find a ship to drill the oil and ship it back to shore for use:
In recent years, this global shortage of drill-ships has created a critical bottleneck, frustrating energy company executives and constraining their ability to exploit known reserves or find new ones. Slow growth in oil supplies, at a time of soaring demand, has been a major factor in the spike of oil and gasoline prices.
Mr. Bush called on Congress Wednesday to end a longstanding federal ban on offshore drilling and open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration, arguing that the steps were needed to lower gasoline prices and bolster national security. But even as oil trades at more than $135 a barrel â€" up from $68 a year ago â€" the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years. Some oil companies have been forced to postpone exploration while waiting for a drilling rig, executives and analysts said.
You can even explore for new oil fields for 5 years due to lack of ships!
Reason #5: Oil Speculation Is NOT Driving Oil Prices
"But wait," the neocons say, "Isn't the high price of oil speculative? Won't opening up new reserves, or even moving to open up new reserves, wring speculation out of the market and bring prices down fast?"
No, it won't. Why? Well, a lot of people think speculation has nothing to do with the high prices. Oil prices are up because demand is up and supply is down.
And of course, if we wanted to wring out what little speculation is present in the market, wouldn't a big investment in real solutions like alternative, non-oil based energy do the same thing?
â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"â€"
This. Is. A. Fraud.
There is no way offshore drilling in the United States will lower gas prices. Ever! If anything, it will prolong our addiction to oil and make the eventual break from it worse.
Now, I understand why Bush and McCain might seize on this ridiculous policy to push on the American people. Gas prices are indeed high, and it is affecting the price of everything. America is hurting, and people want relief immediately. They turn to politicians for answers, and politically expedient politicians like Bush and McCain give them a flashy but ineffective solution.
Honestly, there's probably only one solution for high oil prices: Use less oil. Curb demand and not only will prices fall, but you'll spend less of your hard earned money on gas. But that's not the kind of message some voters want to hear.
There is a ray of hope, however. It seems most Americans, when presented with the choice between expanded drilling and conservation, pick the answer that will actually give them relief:
Did you write that or is it from an article? If it's from an article, can you post the link? Thanks! :)
This came, word for word, from everyone's favorite far left blog, The Seminal: http://www.theseminal.com/2008/06/18/drilling-is-a-fraud/
Are we resorting to plagiarism now, Stephen?
yes...drilling is a fraud. the oil just floats up and we collect it in barrels.
So let me get this straight... Oil prices are NOT being driven by speculators.
So, lets do the math...
Oil consumption from 1965-2007 is up 300% (most of which is from Asia, with US remaining largly constant for the last 25 years)
Oil prices in 1965 were just under $3 a barrel, and now they are $131 that's an increase of....
4367%....
Consumption up 300%... prices up 4367%....
I believe that if America were to declare tommorrow we are drilling off the coast, in ANWR, and anyplace else that has a sniff of oil, oil prices would probably drop beneath $50 a barrel in a week. THAT is what is known as a commodities bubble.
Quote from: downtownparks on June 19, 2008, 08:43:16 PM
So let me get this straight... Oil prices are NOT being driven by speculators.
So, lets do the math...
Oil consumption from 1965-2007 is up 300% (most of which is from Asia, with US remaining largly constant for the last 25 years)
Can you back this up?
It takes years to accomplish anything significant. I guess we shouldnt even try. I must say this is really one of the liberals' dumbest talking points.
Personally, I think energy independence is worth the effort. Or maybe we can run our cars, factories and homes on folk songs and dandelions instead. ::)
Offshore drilling doesn't even come close to giving us energy independence. It is a great sound byte though.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/images/figure_20big.gif)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
The argument I always hear is to "decrease our reliance on foriegn oil"... If that is the argument then the answer is to drill. I keep hearing 5-7 years to actually begin pumping oil. I contend we will NEED that oil in 5-7 years. If we wait we are simply 5-7 years behind. Lack of ships??? Are you serious? Nearly all oil pumped from offshore rigs is PIPED to shore. Finally I keep hearing about environmental concerns. We dont seem to be to concerned about the environmentals in the countries we are imprting from. I have seen the oil fields in the middle east and trust me... they are not very concerned about the environment. Drilling here is a drastically cleaner and monitored operation.
Drilling will not solve the problem but it will certainly help alleviate it until the alternatives come online.
Quote from: vicupstate on June 19, 2008, 10:48:30 PM
Quote from: downtownparks on June 19, 2008, 08:43:16 PM
So let me get this straight... Oil prices are NOT being driven by speculators.
So, lets do the math...
Oil consumption from 1965-2007 is up 300% (most of which is from Asia, with US remaining largly constant for the last 25 years)
Can you back this up?
I can name my source, but I dont know that I can personally back it up. This was the result of a quick google search in order to find the cost of oil in 1965 and oil now, and then a quick search for consumption in 1965, and consumption now. This Hofstra graph was the source of my statement.
(http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/img/worldoildemand.gif)
QuoteIn 1,000 of barrels per day.
Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
World Oil Consumption, 1965-2006
The world oil consumption has almost tripled since 1965. In 2006, the global oil demand was at 81.6 million barrels per day. The above graph indicates the regional distribution of this demand. North American and European consumption has remained relatively constant over the last 25 years. A significant share of the new oil demand is assumed by Pacific Asian nations going through rapid industrialization and motorization, particularly China, which has become the world's second largest importer after the United States
Quote from: Lunican on June 20, 2008, 12:32:22 AM
Offshore drilling doesn't even come close to giving us energy independence. It is a great sound byte though.
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/images/figure_20big.gif)
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
Perhaps I could borrow your government crystal ball, Lunican. I am going to the store in a minute to buy some lottery tickets. ::)
The best part about using the argument that we wouldn't see any significant impact from any new drilling here for 5-7 years is that it's the same argument that has been made for the past dozen or so years.
If we had started the process of drilling for oil on US soil back during the Clinton administration, we'd be 5 or 6 years into the cycle where the oil is in the pipeline and supplementing our inventory, reducing the need for foreign oil.
Unfortunately, we didn't start drilling then because oil was running about $30 a barrell, and Bill Clinton vetoed legislation that would have opened up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.
A dozen years later, people are using the same tired arguments and the price of oil per barrell has increased almost 5 fold.
At some point people need to accept the fact that alternative fuels that would reduce our need for foreign oil are not on the immediate horizon. Something needs to be done to cut that long term, but for the here and now, we have to be realistic.
By initiating the process of drilling for oil, offshore, in ANWR, or in my back yard, it would almost certainly have an immediate impact on the markets since the price per barrell is driven by speculation in the futures market. If the belief is that we're going to start the process of drilling for oil resources that could reduce or eliminate the need for foreign oil, watch what happens to the futures prices before the first well is sunk. If the expectation is that you're going to be injecting millions of barrells of oil into the system with new drilling, it will drive down the price in much the same way that potential (not actual) unrest in some remote oil producing nation that happens to be part of OPEC causes prices to rise based on the possibility that production could be impacted.
When one source controls 40% of your oil, and you make very aggressive moves to reduce that, they'll start to increase production, driving down prices so that the incentive for us to pursue independence is minimized.
Of course, drilling for more oil on US soil only solves part of the problem. We haven't built a new refinery in 30 years to handle the oil. That is going to change, and the US is going to have to be more aggressive in updating the technology in older facilities while building new refineries to augment the capabilities currently in place.
If the US aggressively adopts a program of independence from foreign oil resources, the prices will come down, and it won't take 5-7 years for that to happen.
As far as alternative fuels go, look at what flex fuel production has done to the prices of your groceries. Yet another well intentioned attempt by our politicos to save the planet gone wild.
Quote from: RiversideGator on June 20, 2008, 02:16:39 PM
Perhaps I could borrow your government crystal ball, Lunican. I am going to the store in a minute to buy some lottery tickets. ::)
Do you have a more reliable source? If so, please share.
Quote from: stephendare on June 20, 2008, 04:29:21 PM
Alternative energy is already online.
Why not go for it?
It depends on what you're referring to with regard to going for it.
If we're talking about alternative energy sources for powering cities, I'm all for it. Let's build nuclear power plants and cut our ties to oil all together. Wind and solar are too unreliable still.
If it's automotive technology that you're referring to, there simply aren't any viable alternatives that are ready for large scale production right now.
Electric cars? Sure, they're great. Where are you getting your power from to recharge them? Coal, oil, or natural gas power plants? How's that helping the environment? And the long-term impact on the environment has yet to be determined for things like hybrid technology. Those batteries aren't exactly biodegradable.
Bio-Diesel or ethanol? Look at what is happening to the price of corn and wheat, and how it's impacting everything else on the shelves of your local grocer.
Until the technology is at a point where it's reliable, safe, and affordable, we're married to fossil fuels.
Quote from: stephendare on June 20, 2008, 04:29:21 PM
Alternative energy is already online.
Why not go for it?
But in reality... they are not. Sure they exist but not in a meaningful way. Many of the alternatives have unintended side effects. Ethanol for example... Hydrogen and electric cars are still years off for the ordinary american. The reality is that oil and gasoline will power our transportation needs at least for a few more decades.
Actually Canada is our largest supplier... I suppose they are probably drilling in the pristine arctic...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
In addition we are the number two producer of oil in the world...
http://www.worldoil.com/INFOCENTER/STATISTICS_DETAIL.ASP?STATFILE=_WORLDOILPRODUCTION
We all know we are the number one user. But the total consumption by Europe is only slightly behind that of th U.S... with roughly the same populations...
http://www.nef1.org/ea/eastats.html
Friedman says..."Of course, we’re going to need oil for years to come. That being the case, I’d prefer â€" for geopolitical reasons â€" that we get as much as possible from domestic wells."
We need to do this... to say otherwise ignores the economic realities. Conservation and movement towards alternatives are great and I support them but we will need increased oil production for many more years...