Wash. Post headline -- "Offshore drilling backed as remedy for oil prices" -- undermined by article itself
SUMMARY: The Washington Post ran an article under the headline "Offshore Drilling Backed as Remedy for Oil Prices," but the article itself noted that "the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration [EIA] said that .... 'Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.' " The article also noted that the EIA said that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
A July 14 Washington Post article appeared under the headline "Offshore Drilling Backed as Remedy for Oil Prices" and the subhead "Push for U.S. Exploration Gains Traction, but Big Political Hurdles Remain." However, the article itself noted that "the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration [EIA] said that .... 'Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.' " The article also noted that the EIA said that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." Both quotes come from the "Issues in Focus" section of the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2007 report.
From the front page of the July 14 edition of The Washington Post:
From the article:
[Sen. John] McCain told reporters last month that "we have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States." In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are "undiscovered conventionally recoverable resources" of 17.8 billion barrels. That's not the same thing as "reserves." In the oil business, "reserves" refers to oil that has been found and "proven," whereas "resources" refers to promising geological structures where the presence of oil remains uncertain.
In the eastern Gulf of Mexico, those "resources" are likely to represent actual oil because the geology is an extension of the western Gulf of Mexico, where oil has been drilled for years. There is less certainty about what may lie off the Atlantic coast.
If, in fact, there are 17.8 billion barrels of oil offshore, that would equal half the reserves of Nigeria or about 60 percent of proven U.S. reserves. It could substantially reduce U.S. imports for a decade or two or sustain U.S. production when other fields decline.
But developing those resources would take time. A report last year by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration said that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017." It added, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
Granted, I trust the WaPo as far as I can throw it, but I'm starting to think we are really arguing about the title. These media idiots use shock titles to suck you in and after you read the article you pound your forehead and go "duh!". I guess where I get caught up is in the number of numskulls who read the title and think they already know the content of the article. The media needs to keep shock out of the title, it isn't working anymore.
The problem is in the title, but for all the shock value, the article should undermine the basic premise of the title.
(Unless you're Neil Cavuto: Barack Obama polygamist ties?) ;)
[After Commercial] "NO." (assuming you catch him in an honest mood.) ;)
Not to mention that the article quoted Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as saying "I think people are reassured that not a drop of oil was spilled during Katrina or Rita."
Nice
McCain's spokesperson said the same thing today.
And then we have that great example of today's republican, the numbskull in chief:
At a press conference this morning, a reporter followed up and asked the president about his previous comments in light of nationwide average gas prices hovering well above $4/gallon. Apparently unaware of current gas prices, Bush blurted out, “Where are they now?”
But hey, he did find WMDs after all. There are Wells of Mass Deception off the coasts!
At a press conference this morning, a reporter followed up and asked the president about his previous comments in light of nationwide average gas prices hovering well above $4/gallon. Apparently unaware of current gas prices, Bush blurted out, “Where are they now?”
You dumbass. The person spoke about high gas prices and the question posed about $4 a gallon (they are NOT averaging "WELL ABOVE" $4 a gallon). Bush put out a rhetorical question - becuase the prices are right where he said they be - at $4/gallon. Don't trying to twist it into something its not.
NUMBSKULLS WHO READ THE TITLE AND THINK THEY KNOW WHATS IN THE ARTICLE
You can usually tell that by their post
There's a false meme that may never die that drilling is an answer. It's not. It won't solve the problem today, it won't solve the problem in the next couple of decades, and it creates additional woes. It's not an answer. Period.
Using up a finite resource as quickly as we can is not a good idea. It's not a good idea to drill every place we might have any hope of finding oil. It's not a good idea to use up all of our precious resources. We have an obligation to help out our descendants.
It's a terrible legacy of the Republicans being in power that so many people that it's okay to be short-sighted. Global warming might not happen, or might not have huge humanitarian costs, so let's not worry about it. Ignoring the plight of the Medicare Trust Fund issue, which goes belly up in just a few years, so that the next President has to worry about it is okay, but let's try to earn as much money for our already-rich stockbroker friends by pushing privatization of Social Security, whose trust fund doesn't go broke for decades hence.
Jerks.
Using up a finite resource as quickly as we can is not a good idea.
We have over 100 years of oil just in the US, using current technologies. So if you're considering that "quickly", then you and the real world are in different brackets. Cheap energy fuels economic wealth. Everyone knows we need oil for the foreseeable future. There is no debate about it. Trying to force alternatives onto the market before they are ready and economically viable is not a solution either. The solution is to use what we have WHILE preparing for the next phase.
Global warming might not happen, or might not have huge humanitarian costs, so let's not worry about it.
Obviously there is much debate over who believes in it and who doesn't. However, more people would be open to the thought of trying to curb potential things that may contribute to the GW theory, if democrats weren't calling for the country to sacrifice its entire economy and standard of living for it. Flashing things in the headlines like $45T to battle it is not going to garner much support.
try to earn as much money for our already-rich stockbroker friends by pushing privatization of Social Security
The only people who aren't for privatization of SS are the ones who stand to get much more out of it than they contributed. Anyone who contributes more to it than they will recieve after retirement sees it as an additional tax and burden on their lifestyle during retirement.
"The only people who aren't for privatization of SS are the ones who stand to get much more out of it than they contributed. Anyone who contributes more to it than they will recieve after retirement sees it as an additional tax and burden on their lifestyle during retirement."
Really? Show evidence of this. The Repos with control of the House/Senate didn't dare touch this once their constituents got wind of this.
Can you imagine the elderly on a fixed income dependent upon how the market is in today's condition? Sc101 - Why do you hate the elderly? We are by far the wealthiest country in the world, yet we treat our less fortunate worse than any other westernized country. This country has a lot to learn.
Things that Repos demonize; access to affordable or universal healthcare, education, social security, are basic necessities that other westernized countries don't stress over and wouldn't think of privatizing or placing out the reach of the common person. The Repo ethos is power and control. Keep the masses uneducated, poor and scraping by and you have control over them. I really pity those with this mindset. It must be an awful way to live ones life.
Can you imagine the elderly on a fixed income dependent upon how the market is in today's condition?
If it's privated, you have control of what markets you put it in. You can put your money into inflation linked bonds and money market accounts that have a smaller rate of return without much risk of any loss.
You're obviously not a financial investor, nor do you take control of your own 401k/403b accounts, else you'd know that.
You can put your money into inflation linked bonds---Science101
But they calculate inflation too low.
The responsibility for living in a free society should be to ensure that we take care of our own; not give the spoils to the richest and leave the rest to fend for themselves.
Because you completely ignore the fact of personal responsibility. You're free to live your own life, make your own money, save your own money, spend it as you wish, and reap the rewards or downfalls as a result.
This isnt survivial of the fittest son, this is the fact that each person should have control of their SS & retirement funds. You pay into it, you control where it goes. You dont pay into it, then stop complaining because you shouldn't get anything anyway.
I cannot believe that this country, supposedly the 'greatest' in the world, harbours people such as Science with their dimwitted mediaeval attitudes. I am THIS CLOSE to packing it up and moving to Finland, where this sort of BS just doesn't happen. I certainly wouldn't want to turn my back on this country which has given me so much but at the same time the stifling stupidity of some of my fellow citizens is getting to be way too much.
I am THIS CLOSE to packing it up and moving to Finland, where this sort of BS just doesn't happen.
Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya....
You, sir, are a Grade A jerk.
access to affordable or universal healthcare, education, social security, are basic necessities that other westernized countries don't stress over and wouldn't think of privatizing or placing out the reach of the common person.
You will not find many middle class people in the UK who praise their Universal Healthcare System. And social security is not a necessity. Being a financially responsible civilian and saving for your retirement is YOUR OWN RESPONSIBILITY, not everyone elses.
None of these are put out of reach. They just require the will to be personally responsible for your own life, and not being a sheep in a field depending on the shepherd for security. If you want to be a sheep, be my guest...
Social Security is also an insurance policy that pays you when you become disabled and are unable to work. But just for fun I'll render my own guess as to your ignorant, free-market anarchist viewpoint of those who become disabled...
So you're in your 20's, crippled by an accident, and unable to work or you'll be out of work for months or years during rehab? You're receiving no compensation for this disability because those liable for the accident have opted for years of litigation in the hope of wearing you down to where you'll accept next to nothing or give up altogether? Too bad. You shirked your responsibility to become a millionaire during your first year out of college. It's your fault that you have no nest egg to hedge against an unforeseen hardship like this. Maybe you have elder family members that can sacrifice their own life savings to cover your expenses, just don't depend on any of my tax dollars to help you.
I really hope your house is on one of those tracts that are targeted for oil shale, you ain't gonna get a dime from the people who want to knock off a few hundred meters of top soil to make you happy.
The land they are looking at does not have people living directly on. So they won't be mining on someones house, sorry!
But I'd gladly sell my home if my land could be drilled for oil....or gladly drill it myself.
There's no such thing as an opinion when it comes to land ownership. Look it up sonny boy.
Royal Dutch Shell. They are experimenting on all their private land, and would the first to use Shale Oil for mass production. The rest of the shale is located on Federal Land. Neither of which have your precious "home owners" living on. Perhaps you dont even know what the land looks like...it consist of mountains of rock. But then again, you guys also try to pass of the section of ANWR that should be drilled on, as some sort of beautiful landscape when you know full well that the drilling section is nothing more than a frozen barren wasteland. Not to be confused with souther ANWR mountains.
The "dirty" part of the process is more regarding looks than actual pollution. However, technology will render that baseless. All you're doing is stirring up the ground, in which adding topsoil and and planting over will solve.
Water itself is practically an infinite resource, as we can already produce it for this process either by removing the salt content from ocean water or burning hydrogen.
You obviously dont understand that the shale does not have to be strip mined. THey can drill down 2000+ ft, and heat the rock at super high temperatures to melt the oil out, then use water to pump it out.
You dont really understand shale oil processes.
Is it your groundwater that you'd like to pollute during the extraction process?
What are you going to do with the massive amounts of waste water that will result? Dump it into your community's local watershed?
There are plenty of methods of water purification, not to mention that it doesnt have to be fresh spring water used for the process.
Now you're just going against the method based on environmental concerns that can be taken care of using technological methods.
Technological methods. Sounds expensive.
Given the bust that oil-shale extraction was the first time around, how can we remedy the environmental concerns and keep it economically viable?
Hmm....
I know! How about a war in the Middle East and the ensuing chaos to give the oil cartel all the excuse it needs to jack prices sky high?
Eureka! Now the enormous cost of oil shale extraction and keeping it clean doesn't look so bad anymore.
Technological methods. Sounds expensive.
Expanding on current technology, and refinining it to meet current environmental regulations is much faster and cheaper than trying to create alternative fuels from the ground up.
But again, you decide to go off base and talk about a war, when in fact it has nothing to do with our current topic.
If you cannot stay on base because you have no argument, just tip your cap and walk away. Dont come back and spout about a completely seperate subject.
"Expanding on current technology, and refinining it to meet current environmental regulations is much faster and cheaper than trying to create alternative fuels from the ground up."
You can't cite anything to back it up, of course.
"But again, you decide to go off base and talk about a war, when in fact it has nothing to do with our current topic."
No, I stayed on topic and talked about how a war for oil is impacting the markets and our economy and giving rise to a renewed rush to exploit American resources regardless of the cost to our environment.
Pete,
I've heard of this heating technology as a way to get at the shale oil. I am not up as to the particulars but I've heard that it has potential
You bring up a good question about the water. My guess is that in this day and age of environmental concern, our government will make sure the water is cleaned. Well meaning people, like yourself, will make sure of that as they voice their opinions.
From an economic standpoint, it seems to me that the money spent on oil would stay in this country even if the price did not come down. I'd rather not enrich some sixth sheiks sixth son.
What do you think of T.Boone Picken's plan? Are you familiar with it?
http://www.pickensplan.com/Im quite well aware of it. Parts of his plan are admirable - using wind technologies in barren wastelands for example. I'm all for it, just as I'm all for drilling in barren wastelands like the small section of ANWR.
However, parts of his plan are not exactly economically viable, as he has admitted in his plan. For example - migrating much our energy needs to natural gas is a good thing, providing again, that we drill for it HERE - but keep in minds the main deposits of natural gas are in close approximation to the same sites we want to drill for oil. Also, natural gas is more expensive of an everyday energy source than oil, when used in the same compression standards. The tough part, as he'll tell you, is modifying our entire infrastructure - natural gas stations and car manufacturers. Neither are going to be very good solutions in the short term.
Let alone the fact that he has a publicly vested self interest in the plan, he stands to benefit from all of it, you need to take it with a grain of salt.
Im all for additional sources of energy, but anyone who thinks were just going to sit around and sacrifice living standards and economic wealth, just so we can modify our entire countrys infrastructure is far from reality.
I understand it better than you think. I also see you
During the course of in-situ processing, mining-engineers heat the oil shale underground. These technologies can potentially extract more oil from a given area of land than ex-situ processes, since they can access the material at greater depths than do surface mines.[42] Several companies have patented methods for in-situ retorting. However, most of these methods are still in the experimental phase. The methods are usually classified as true in-situ processes (TIS) and modified in-situ processes (MIS). True in-situ processes do not involve mining the oil shale. Modified in-situ processes drill a large shaft to transport workers and equipment to the shale formation, fracture the deposit and crush it, and ignite the rubble.[43]
Hundreds of patents for oil shale retorting technologies exist;[44] however, only a few dozen have been tested. As of 2006, only four technologies were in commercial use: Kiviter, Galoter, Fushun, and Petrosix.[45]
Nice copy/paste from Wiki, but they aren't up to date.
At its experimental project near Rifle, one of five oil-shale research-and-development efforts taking place on federal land, Shell is taking a novel approach by heating steel rods 2,000 feet underground to more than 700 degrees to extract oil from the rock.
Considering the article was last updated in april of 2008, I'd say that is an incorrect statement.
If Shell is testing something, great. I have no problem with oil shale because there is a potential, my point is that it's not immediately available as you are suggesting. And until the republicans concede and approve of higher MPG standards and adequately fund research and development of alternate energy sources I'm not budging on allowing them their wants. The ball is in their court...
If Shell is testing something, great. I have no problem with oil shale because there is a potential, my point is that it's not immediately available as you are suggesting. And until the republicans concede and approve of higher MPG standards and adequately fund research and development of alternate energy sources I'm not budging on allowing them their wants. The ball is in their court...
You're way off base regarding higher fuel efficiency standards. I'm pretty sure that by now, you've changed your mind in thinking that the auto industry was in bed with the oil industry - seeing as how they've amassed record losses and possible bankruptcy.
If the auto manufacturers COULD make much more fuel efficient models - that people would actually buy - they would be doing it as quickly as possible.
The problem, is the government should NOT be funding any alternative research. The problem wiht doing that, is exactly what we're running into right now with the stupid ethanol problem. Forcing alternatives onto the market before they are economically ready, and that the downsides of them has been properly documented is a nightmare to turn around.
I dont care what kind of alternative you find, throwing it onto the market is not going to garner much support from the american public unless it meets two criteria: can meet or exceed the energy power from todays resources, and can be obtained as a cheaper cost. Very simple free market economics.
You dont have to like free market to acknowledge how it works.
There are millions of acres of rooftops that can be used for solar, and the sun is in the middle of a multi-billion-year lifespan. As long as we have weather patterns, there will always be wind blowing somewhere.
How's that latest generation nuclear plant coming along in Olkiluoto that the nuclear industry once touted as a flagship, putting aside that it's years behind schedule and 1.5 billion Euros over budget? Nuclear's looking cheaper all the time, isn't it?
Obviously there is much debate over who believes in it and who doesn't.
Yea, thanks to folks like ExxonMobil who have made more yearly profits than any corporation in the history of the world and who have paid a few "experts" to offer opinions, not contained in any peer reviewed publications, that run counter to to a concensus of the international scientific community. Oh, and special thanks to FOX News, too...
How about this recent study..http://www.dailytech.com/Europes+Warming+Attributed+to+Cleaner+Air+Not+Climate+Change/article12371.htm
Or this one.. http://www.dailytech.com/Australian+Researchers+Warn+of+Global+Cooling/article12250.htm
Its not just Exxon. When you have all these crazy left GW weirdos trying to change everyones lifestyle, thats what turns people off. A recent article from Minnesota had a city official wanting to ban drive thru constructions, and Massachussets officials wanted to ban idling your car. Now, another guy just came out yesterday at Breitbart saying that GW is going to increase Kidney Stones. People are surely seeing this for what it really is...a crock of $***, just like the Global Cooling fearmongering of the 70's.
Want some more? Ok.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12070
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=11672
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10216
And in case you question who Michael Asher is, he is currently a science professor at a western US university, and writes articles on environmental sciences all the time. He has even been featured on the US Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966
." It added, "Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."
I dont buy this, but lets say for the sake of argument that this is true. If 17.8B potential barrels can be untapped and put into the market, and it wouldn't make a significant price drop...then why does Nancy Pelosi think that releasing a portion of the 700+M barrels in the reserve is going to make any difference?
Uh. because the oil reserves will be an immediate effect vs. a 10 year possible return? Duh...
Heck, we can improve gas mileage to 55 MPG in the same time frame for the same cost and get far more benefit.
So in your eyes, its a terrible thing to increase supply while improving efficiency to get better mileage and lower the prices from whatever it would be at that time. Senseless.
I'm not a republican. Im a crossover between a conservative and libertarian.
I could care less about whats best for political agenda. I look at this from a economical and technological standpoint. Outside of those two, everything against oil expansion WHILE creating economically viable alternatives is silly and disasterous.
And an FYI - not even 24 hrs after Bush announces his lifted ban on the OCS, oil has dropped today by almost $8/barrel with another 3.5hrs left in trading.
The dropped would be $30+/barrel more if the congress announces their lift.
Actions do speak louder than words guys. This is the speculative market.
Sorry, appears you are wrong about that...
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices plummeted Tuesday, down as much as $9.26 a barrel, as investors feared a further decline in U.S. demand after hearing comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/15/markets/oil/index.htm
Oil prices plunged Tuesday as worries about the nation's economic health moved to the fore and OPEC warned that high pump prices are likely to erode global demand for crude.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080715/ap_on_bi_ge/oil_prices
I can do that too. But to purposely try to neglect the recent events of an executive ban as not having any significant play in this, then you'd be silly. Burnanke nor Bush's speeches had anything to do with changes in pricing and market. There have no been phsycial acts, outside of Bush's lift, to create a pullback on oil prices.
Well if they can get 100yrs of oil out of tar sands that does beat out the supply of Uranium, currently and accuratly said to be 80 years worth at current use levels and technology. Pebble bed type reactors do show certain advantageous, but don't alter efficiency in any appreciable way.
My favorite, geothermal, is making its way into the equation. I'd like to see more work in this area.
Perhaps you mean tritium. Hydrogen with two neutrons in the nucleus. A possible fuel for nuclear fusion. Not fission. Fusion activates, ie performs nuclear transmutions as well or better than fission, as far as I know. Making fusion commercially viable is a long way off in any case.
The 80 year supply is dependent upon current extrtaction terchnologies. Yes there are options. Having a breeder reactor produce more fuel than it uses is one of those feel good technologies. Unless it's in your backyard. We could also extract it from sea water. Maybe help with the rising accidity levels of the oceans while we're at the expense of sucking uranium out of sea water.
The issue is more than a little useless due to some figures I ran past you a couple days ago. 1/7th, 700, and 1000. Do you remember the context? As a clue the word Princeton, as in college.
And the congressional Democrats will not want to be seen as "weak" so they'll go along with this and whatever else Bush will propose. Because nothing spells "strength" as being bullied into submission!
And the congressional Democrats will not want to be seen as "weak" so they'll go along with this and whatever else Bush will propose. Because nothing spells "strength" as being bullied into submission!
Well im fairly certain that Pelosi's ideas of lowering gas prices when she took control haven't worked out, have they? Perhaps time to try a new approach Nancy.
When contacting the Washington Post in reference to this article, beware of trashing the writer of the piece. Editors choose the headline, and it may contradict what the writer says in the body.
Tell the ombudsman to suspend or fire the inept editor.
I read with interest the repartee between snoopy and science. i must say, science has more patience than i could ever muster in dealing with a dolt like snoopy. riddle me this snoopy, if we reduce supply, do you think prices will go up or down?
peaches at our local grocery store are normally 3.99 to 4.99 a pound. that's when they are out of season locally and have to be imported. presently, as it is summer and supply abounds, they are 2.99 a pound. does that mean anything to you snoops.
again i ask you, if the supply of oil is reduced, do you think prices will go up, down, or have no effect? certainly you can provide a response to a atraightforward question.
you don't think increasing supply will reduce prices, do you believe it will increase prices, or have no effect on prices?
No, I refuse to answer it because you want to make some ignorant accusation about me and then do your silly "aha!". If you even remotely followed the conversation, my point was oil shale isn't readily available and I posted some points to back up that statement. I also said we need to push other alternatives, and that if republicans aren't going to support that then they are fools. But go ahead, try and twist my words to fit your false views. The only point you've ever had was the one on top of your head, so falsify away!
The reason I'm not gonna answer your dumb question is you obviously completely missed what Science and I were discussing.
Cmon Snoop...you like to dish it, so I hope you can take it too. Its a simple answer in terms of supply & demand. You know the answer, and it happens to be true that prices will fall when supply increases outpace demand increases.
It's not relevant to the conversation, is it? Was that even part of our discussion?
I totally understand it, I have a side business where I run semi's to ship commodity around the country. I've said that several times over several weeks at this site. I'm getting killed by high gas prices, so you can bet I'm paying attention to what's being said on that subject and what the potential effects are.
I dont think his comment was in response to our oil shale discussion, but probably more along the lines of our debate as to whether 17.8B barrels of oil will have significant impact on price.
But im not accusing you or trying to get you into an "aha" moment.
Hey, I hear ya man. The only problem with getting all crazy with increasing the MPG standards are that they will increase efficiency, but they will not bring down price. They would, if global demand stayed stagnant, and US demand dropped. However, as we dropped 1.3% in the past quarter, China increased 11%.
Right now, the only way to give relief is self conserve. The only way to get relief long term is by drilling here so that global supply outpaces global demand. Obviously, we're not sitting at the pump waiting for gas like in the 70's. But there is only about 1M bpd leeway in the market right now. Not nearly enough when your talking about 85M bpd globally.
Alternatives are nice, and we can combine those with domestic oil for sole independance, im all for it. But I dont expect that to realistically happen anymore than i expect to win the Mega Millions tonight. Hope for the best the future, but we need to also move forward with what actually works. Are you ready to gamble the entire nation and economy on a viable alternative in 5 years? Im sure as hell not. And neither are the automakers.
I agree, and have noted that China and India are rising global economies. My day job lets us know every quarter how that demand is affecting our decisions on where to locate factories, whether or not we outsource, stuff like that. I just want the government to think outside of the box and stop putting their eggs all into one basket.
Read this article, I'd like to hear your comments on it.
I think its an interesting read.
First, I'm not a big fan of decade comparisons in terms of technology. It goes without saying that were already able to product oil from shale - just not as cheap as we can get it by drilling, and not by methods tha twould commercially meeting our EPA standards. So I think its safe to assume that we're about 5-10yrs away from being able to do so on a commercial scale. Given how much reserves is down there, it would obviously benefit all oil companies to invest heavily into R&D there.
We've got plenty of oil in the OCS, ANWR, etc to last 20+yrs if it only went to the US (not sold on world market). So we've got plenty of time at this. I would like to see those leases given out and testing started by other companies, as it would be a great investment.
As we've proven with cars, we can now emit 1/100th of the pollution from emmissions while still acheiving the same if not better fuel efficiency standards - not to mention all the other goodies being packed into cars. Technology is doubling about every 4 years, so if we can do this with cars, we can sure do it with oil production - given that the companies with the biggest profits have the biggest R&D dollars to play with.
However, i'm always a bit skeptic on people writing these articles. Im sure they recieved some good info and some random bogus info. I'd rather read study done by the company performing the testing, and then by the observers who can elaborate.
Americans have to “weigh in the balance”; drill or not to drill. I’m seeing four important, overlooked, facts that need to be put forward in this debate to make a logical conclusion, and to make the right decision.
These questions differ depending on who you talk too. However and general consensus with research answers most of them pretty well. Even Fox News type agree with most of the facts, it is just the “weighing in balance” that they differ on.
The answers to the questions as I know it are as follows:
Question 1: If we drill everywhere we can indeed significantly reduce the price of gasoline at the pump? From what I have read and seen the answer is, NO. Even the best estimates show that we might save a few cents. Other people argue that by simply drilling for more oil will cause speculators to drive the price down. Drive the price down by how much has never been made very clear to me. If we look at history, it didn’t drive the price down very much and not for very long.
Question 2: Once drilling is allowed, how long will it take to make an impact on the oil market? As we have seen with what the president did on July 15, 2008, the price dropped. Is it related, probably is. However this may not very long, because there is a supply and demand problem after all. However, once drilling actually starts and the financial impact becomes reality, the closest date will be 10 years away. I have heard other estimates they say 2030. Either way we are looking at 10 to 20 years before the oil we drill becomes gasoline in our autos. Again this is the facts that must be weighted in the balance before a decision should be made about whether or not we should drill anywhere new.
Question 3: For how long is this “new oil” going to last? This is a question that nobody seems to agree on. This I understand to some degree because the stuff is underground. However, this is a question that really needs to be asked before any decision should be made. US Department of Energy articles that suggest the US has 1.124 trillion barrels of conventional oil left. Now some may dispute this claim, however another number will probably be close to this one. I have also seen that we use 40 billion barrels of oil as a country each year. Again, people may dispute this number that is fine, I’m just trying to gather facts to “weigh in the balance”. With these facts it shows that we have enough oil in this country to last us just over 28 years. Of course this is only our oil and not the world supply.
Question 4: What are the possible environmental impacts of both exploring and drill for this “new oil”? Lets face it, we don’t live in 1969 anymore. Technologies have dramatically reduced the chance of an oil spill or leak since then. I’m not saying things can’t happen, but the odds have gone way down. The other impacts such as animal life from pipeline building, is something that must be looked into before we start drilling anywhere. I do not have answer or much information about this question. I have read and even watched a video about the caribou in ANWR area. Damage could be done, however to what extent I believe is not fully understood. Just one more thing that needs to “weigh in the balance” before we should decide.
These are all things that should be the dialog when talking about drilling for new oil within this country. Americans not pundits from anywhere should decide and “weigh in the balance” what America should do. Keep in mind that most people in politics are looking for short term solutions for immediate political gain. This why there are knee-jerk-reactions to every crisis that can cost elections. This is what we are seeing now during our election cycle. Long term ideas that might take decades are almost never put forward because elections are much shorter.
Another import fact to “weigh in the balance” is the World Oil Market. We believe in the free market in the country and have championed this belief throughout the world. Due to the world free market, (and I’m not suggesting anything is wrong with free markets), the oil market is not controlled by America. Any oil that is drilled from this country goes on the world market. That means we don’t control the oil that is drilled from our country, it goes on the world market and is sold to other countries in the world as well as the USA. Unless we nationalize the oil in the country, (and I’m not suggesting we do this), so that our oil stays here, we are held hostage under the world market for oil. These facts need to be injected into any conversation about drilling for more oil. Then and only then can we, “weigh in the balance” the choice of drilling for more oil, or not too.