Will the ban on offshore drilling be lifted?
Paulie Brading
The Columbia Dispatch is reporting their Ohio D-Sen. Sherrod Brown is cozying up to the idea of offshore drilling. Is there a trend developing among some Democratic Senators to ease the gas prices by lifting the offshore drilling ban? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the idea of drilling in protected areas is a hoax on the part of the Bush administration and Republicans. Finding ways to adapt to a dwindling oil supply isn't solved by pretending it is not going to take years and years to get that offshore oil to consumers. It's pretty obvious none of the drilling plans will have any impact on gas prices in the near future.
Dan Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a research think-tank stated, "The drive to drill is like an obese man saying he is going to lose weight by eating more."
The Bush administration has had a strong tendency to catastrophize around the tension and uncertainity of the slow-motion distruction of our economy. Offshore drilling falls into the category of tensions rising over gas doubling in price. People are feeling edgy, everything costs more. The fall of the United States is partly due to a tax structure that deconstructs the middle class and favors the rich. We are a nervous country.
It is time to guard against being "sold" a scheme that feels good in the shortrun and has the consequences of sucking the world's oil production dry. Once again the Republicans are going to prey upon our uncertainty and doubts to push the offshore drilling plans. Limitations seem to be part of the answer to savings ourselves and this planet for future generations. Maybe our next incarnation with the Democrats in charge will change the whole narrative. It's time to suspend the desire for a quick and wrong fix.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jul 11, '08
The greedy oil mongers count on the electorate remaining fat, lazy, and ill informed. Look out, the sky is falling (again) but the paternalists will save us by rolling back thoughtful legislation designed to save us from ourselves. Moratoriums must give way to our gluttony & sloth, and their greed. There is a better way but it requires some sacrifice and innovation. Meanwhile papa Bush flips off the world while chiding fellow conferees to say goodbye to the biggest polluter of the world. Will we get fooled again??
Jul 11, '08
It is like an obese person trying to lose weight by eating more. In fact, it is like an obese person trying to lose weight by opening a Krispy Kreme in their garage...
Even if we could get access to all of the American potential oil tomorrow without polluting at all - do we really think oil companies will drop prices? Really?
Jul 11, '08
It is like an obese person trying to lose weight by eating more. In fact, it is like an obese person trying to lose weight by opening a Krispy Kreme in their garage...
Even if we could get access to all of the American potential oil tomorrow without polluting at all - do we really think oil companies will drop prices? Really?
Jul 11, '08
Paulie Brading: Limitations seem to be part of the answer to savings ourselves and this planet for future generations. JK: Ahhh!, that old Jimmy Carter line: if the house is too cold, put on a heavy coat, but for god’s sake don’t turn on th heat. Then Regan got elected by pointing out what crap the Democrats were peddling. Do you never learn??
There is no shortage of oil, only a abundance of Luddites that want to see the industrialized world end.
There is also no danger of the world overheating - those who preach climate catastrophe are getting rich selling solutions to this non-existent problem. AL Gore has made millions. Jim Hanson got a $250,000 check.
Paulie Brading: Maybe our next incarnation with the Democrats in charge will change the whole narrative. It's time to suspend the desire for a quick and wrong fix. JK: And what is the correct fix? Freeze in the dark? Increase the cost of energy, so that the poor will die off?
Drill here, drill now, save money.
Thanks JK
8:39 p.m.
Jul 11, '08
The market is doing a VERY nice job of causing the poor to suffer, without any help from Democrats or environmentalists, thank you.
The idea that offshore drilling will lead to ANY meaningful decrease in energy prices is ludicrous - US oil production PEAKED in 1970, and even the addition of the North Slope production years later didn't reverse that trend. The Energy Information Agency says that even the MOST optimistic scenarios for offshore drilling might EVENTUALLY (as in, ten years or more) increase global production by 2%. US oil production enters a WORLD MARKET, remember. So folks on the right better get ready for a market-led future in energy that changes everything, in ways that 9-11 did not and could not. There are currently no viable. large scale substitutes for vehicle and aviation fuels. So stop dreaming. We can drill all we want but we will not change the global oil supply picture, unless we stop buying Chinese goods completely and dry up their source of $ and economic growth.
And the idea that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is the product of an Al Gore led-conspiracy (with thousands of scientists worldwide collaborating with Gore, or perhaps some believe he has drilled little holes in their heads, X-Files style, inserting chips to control their minds) is so incredibly stupid that we can leave that to the folks who have nothing better to do with their time than conjure up elaborate conspiracy theories.
And is anyone else tired of the argument (if you can call it that) that opposing offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR means we advocate freezing in the dark or living in a cave?
Jul 11, '08
"The idea that offshore drilling will lead to ANY meaningful decrease in energy prices is ludicrous"
How's this for a deal:
1) The legislature and Governor of any coastal state would have to sign off on offshore drilling, AND the oil company would be completely liable for any oil spill damage--no decades in court fighting over it like the Exxon Valdeez spill. How much damage was done by the Santa Barbara coastal oil spill some decades ago, or aren't we supposed to remember that?
2) Until the offshore oil rigs are pumping oil for Americans to use, whenever there is a price spike, oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve is strategically released (even in small quantities it might make a difference) for Americans to use.
3) All oil found offshore is to be used in the 50 states--no exceptions. Oil needed for other countries, or for the military overseas, is to be from existing onshore wells, or the Bakken Oil Shale find in Montana and the Dakotas, or other sources currently in use. Or else find a way to convert to some other fuel.
3) In order to drill offshore, a company has to prove that all the oil leases they currently owne have been already explored, or are in the process of being explored now--no more hanging on to leases until the price goes up.
4) Strict laws regulating oil speculation, oil futures, etc.
My guess is that "offshore oil drilling because it will bring the price down" advocates might not want to agree to those conditions.
9:39 p.m.
Jul 11, '08
Good guess, LT. I like them because their rejection would expose the mendacity behind the current push.
Jul 12, '08
ewoc: The market is doing a VERY nice job of causing the poor to suffer, without any help from Democrats or environmentalists, thank you. JK: Agreed, but the Ds and Es are making their plight even worse.
ewoc: The idea that offshore drilling will lead to ANY meaningful decrease in energy prices is ludicrous - JK: I take it that you don’t buy that, old well proven, supply and demand thing? How do you feel about the disc vs sphere earth debate?
ewoc: There are currently no viable. large scale substitutes for vehicle and aviation fuels. JK: Ah, the old Luddite’s dream - the destruction of modern civilization because of our sins against nature. (Just like the Republicans - different sin.) I guess you forgot that we can make oil out of coal? And we have vast untapped oil in Montana - Rockies. And Canada is jut beginning to tap the tar sands. Oh, I’ll bet you really cringed on the news last year of China’s vast potential oil fields. Then there is the plug in hybrid that can cut the average person’s oil ust to a tiny fraction of todays in just a few years. It all depends on the real price of oil vs alternatives (Oh, darn, there is that Econ 101 crap again.)
ewoc: And the idea that the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is the product of an Al Gore led-conspiracy ... is so incredibly stupid that we can leave that to the folks who have nothing better to do with their time than conjure up elaborate conspiracy theories. JK: Then you must have found the elusive peer reviewed article that proves that CO2 actually causes warming, especially dangerous amounts of warming from today’s levels.
I’ll bet you believed Al Gore’s graph of millions of years of temperature and CO2. Just one little thing - when you look closely at the real data, the cause is temperature and the effect is increased CO2. I presume you know that cause cannot FOLLOW the effect. (See realclimate.org/index.php?p=13, be sure to note the twisted logic to try to pin the blame on CO2 after admitting CO2 did not start the warming at the end of ice ages)
Why don’t you worry about the most significant greenhouse gas instead of CO2? (you do know that CO2's effect is minor compared the other one that no one speaks of unless forced to?) (realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)
By the way, when do you expect the melting Greenland ice to melt to the point it was in the middle age so that it uncovers those buried Viking farms?
Oh, and where is your proof of a consensus? (Don’t be fooled by the many ignorant people who cite Naomi Oreskes - she lied about her search criteria and is easy to disprove anyway.)
Thanks JK
6:49 a.m.
Jul 12, '08
JK,
As someone who is actively involved in the management of several energy companies, I am neither a Luddite nor ignorant of the technological issues. In fact I imagine I have a lot more actual data at my disposal than you do.
If you think we can turn coal into liquid fuels and not cook the planet you are even more ideologically blinded than it seemed at first. Not to mention the enormous cost in water and energy to make the damn stuff. Sure, it is technologically feasible. But is it something that smart primates would do? Don't think so.
We use 8 BILLION gallons of oil a day. Try replacing a significant degree of that with a substitute. Canada will deplete its natural gas reserves to melt all of its tar sands deposits to send to us, and destroy an area of Alberta the size of Florida while creating enormous CO2 loading to the atmosphere. Profitable, but not smart.
Yes, plug-ins are an option. Some of us are actually working on that one right now! They are part of the solution without a doubt. But since you talk of econ 101, there are costs involved, as we will see in two years when Toyota introduces them to the Portland market. And try plugging in an airplane. Perhaps you should talk to folks in the air transport industry about substitutes, like I have. They are, shall we say, a bit concerned.
Your comments on GW also indicate that you are blinded by ideology, and not current on the science. No surprise there. I read realclimate regularly, and I've read the post you cite more than once. Yes, the world is a complex place, and climate science is not simple. But the Gore=Conspiracy theory sure is. That must make it right!
Jul 12, '08
"It is like an obese person trying to lose weight by eating more."
I am not getting this comment, don't you mean a hungry person trying to find sustenance? How about someone trying not to depend on others for their sustenance and show some independence?
It's always pretty easy to say we shoudl stop looking for oil when you can sit back in a comfortable job you take the MAX to. However, what about the working poor paying $4+/gallon who have to drive to get a job at $12/hr instead of one on the light-rail at min wage? What about the delivery guy who depends on driving for a living? What about the living wage jobs that woun't come to town because we don't have an infrastructure that supports transport of materials.
Jul 12, '08
Steve,
Limousine liberals don't care about America's working poor. They're more interested in greenhouse gases, snail darters and salmon than people. The working poor don't qualify for protection because they're not endangered.
Unless you're looking for a handout: then the liberals have a government program to keep you dependent, and encourage your ongoing support of the Democratic Party.
Besides, you shouldn't be driving a car anyway: bike, walk, bus...how we get there matters! If you are driving a car, you're part of the problem.
Jul 12, '08
Is there a trend developing among some Democratic Senators to ease the gas prices by lifting the offshore drilling ban?
Paulie, please do not repeat this Republican frame. It is put out there purely to divide the Democrats and to deliver to their petroleum base. Look at the real EIA data.
http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/18/eia-bombshell-offshore-drilling-would-not-have-a-significant-impact-on-domestic-crude-oil-and-natural-gas-production-or-prices-before-2030/
The short synopsis is the oil companies already have access to some 34 billion barrels of offshore oil they haven’t even developed yet, but ending the federal moratorium on offshore drilling would probably add only another 8 billion barrels . At best, that is another 100k barrels a day after 2020. That is a drop compared to consumption of nearly 100 million barrels a day expected. One-tenth of one percent in 12 years. Lifting the ban will have NO impact on gas prices.
Jul 12, '08
ewoc: As someone who is actively involved in the management of several energy companies JK: You manage PGE, NWNG and more? Give me a break. Or are you puffing your résumé a little and actually sell alternative energy based on scaring people about GW?
ewoc: Your comments on GW also indicate that you are blinded by ideology, and not current on the science JK: So, where is the proof that CO2 can actually cause dangerous warming. You must have it at you fingertips - please enlighten us.
ewoc: I read realclimate regularly, JK: I assume you know that is the site set up to defend the fraudulent “hockey stick” that Al Gore uses to scare little children and other gullible people.
ewoc: ... climate science is not simple. But the Gore=Conspiracy theory sure is. That must make it right! JK: Simply amazing, a skeptic gets a $100 speaking fee from a think tank that gets 1% of its funding from an oil company and he is in pockets of big oil, but your guy gets a pass on making millions spreading lies (lies proven by a British court.)
Thanks JK
Jul 13, '08
Hey JK, I like your comment to ewoc. I had to laugh at his declaration of “his management of several energy companies," thats like the bigot that yell "oh yea?!?!? My best friend is black!!!!" to make himself sound like he knows what he’s talking about. Right!!!
Jul 13, '08
I personally favor offshore drilling as well as drilling in ANWAR. Those who are so opposed to it should stop driving. It doesn't seem that there is any great danger to the environment in either case. SHould we prohibit ocean tankers form sailing because of the potential risk of another Valdezez? Of course not.
It needs to be win-win, though. Democrats should say that they will agree to this only if we raise CAFE standards. I think we should mandate that every vehicle sold in America be a hybrid within two years. WIth gas $4 and climbing the extras cost of a hybrid should be offset by gas savings.
We also need to go full speed ahead on wind power, and Democrats like Kennedy and Kerry should stop opposing it offshore. Realistically, we also need to look at nuclear power as an option. I'm working in New England right now where everyone is crying about high high heating oil bills will be this WInter. Why don't they heat with electricity? Partly because of conversion costs, but also because so many people are opposed to any new energy facility construction. It's insane.
Jul 14, '08
Ewoc,
If we all in the USA stop using all fossil fuels tomorow, please use your awesome knowledge and intellect to calculate the affect on the earth's temperature.
If we are looking at a one degree C positive change in the next 50 years on our present course, what would that number if we all stop driving?
<h2>Note I am not adding into the equation any economic costs, as your side never seems to either....</h2>