offshore drilling

Democrats Compromise On Oil Drilling

OurFuture.org Staff — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 08:01:08 -0700

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate, who long-resisted Republican-led calls to lift the ban on off-shore oil drilling, changed course over the recess and now say they will push comprehensive energy plans in September that will include expanded drilling. But Democrats will insist energy bills also include their own priorities, such as repealing tax breaks for big oil companies, something many Republicans oppose.

Offshore Drilling Provides Little Relief

Armand Biroonak — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:00:00 -0700

The Bush Administration admits that new offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices" for almost 20 years.

McCain and the Manhattan Institute Fail to Defend Offshore Drilling

Corinne Ramey — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:34:25 -0700

All those big oil and gas supporters must be feeling threatened. On Thursday, Al Gore issued a challenge for America to produce 100 percent of its electricity from renewable energy and carbon-free sources within the next 10 years, and repeated the challenge again at Netroots Nation over the weekend.

Now conservatives are hitting back by playing on the realities of high fuel costs and the fears of even higher costs in the future. John McCain introduced a new advertisement called "The Pump," that suggests that Obama is responsible for high gas prices. "Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?" the ads asks, as a crowd in the background shouts, "Obama, Obama!" As hopeful music plays in the background, the ad continues, "One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets."

In an op-ed in the New York Sun today, Charles Sahm of the Manhattan Institute argues for offshore drilling, backing up his argument with questionable premises including that fact that Brazil does it, so it must be ok, and that a Zogby poll found 74% of Americans support offshore drilling. (You know that if the public thinks it's a good idea, then it must be so. So much for the fact that most respondents probably just want lower gas prices.)

It seems that McCain and the Manhattan Institute need to do their fact checking. Conservatives repeatedly have touted offshore drilling as a quick solution, the magic bullet that would bring back our cheap gas. "The country will need to pursue all energy options in the years ahead," writes Sahm. "...For the foreseeable future, however, oil and natural gas will remain a major part of our overall energy picture." McCain concurs, saying that lifting the ban on off-shore drilling "would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis."

Unfortunately for him, this just isn't true. Oil exploration and drilling takes years, and experts agree (check out this HuffPo survey of economists on the drilling ban) that the ban would have no impact for several decades, and at that point only a minor one. Even Guy Caruso, the head of the Energy Information Administration who was appointed by Bush, said that the price decrease was likely to be "muted" because "It does take a long time to develop those resources." For a great analysis of why offshore drilling is unlikely to be profitable and why the oil industry currently has plenty of undiscovered oil to tap into, check out Joseph Romm's post on Grist.

Strangely enough, McCain admitted that offshore drilling was pretty much worthless only a month ago during a campaign stop in Wisconsin. "[W]ith those resources, which would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels," McCain said. And in 1999, while running for president, McCain said just as much when he claimed that it was the "special interests in Washington" that wanted offshore drilling. At point, McCain supported the moratorium.

So where's the straight talk now, Mr. McCain?

Offshore Drilling Comes Up Empty

Bill Scher — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:34:57 -0700

As Sen. John McCain gears up to give a speech in Houston, repeating his call to lift the moratorium on most drilling off America's shores, MSNBC's First Read suggests, "McCain’s call for lifting the ban could ... be seen as a pragmatic, short-term solution to high energy costs that could play well in places like Michigan..."

Pragmatic, short-term solution? Only if the media doesn't report on how little oil is off our coasts and how long it would take to get it into people's gas tanks.

Last month, I noted that President Bush's push to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie -- would only reduce the price of crude oil per barrel by about 50 cents, 17 years from now, according to Bush's own Energy Department. My colleague Isaiah just pointed me to a new Department of Energy analysis, adjusting that estimate to 75 cents.

The price of crude oil per barrel has jumped 100 dollars in the Bush Era, leading prices at the pump to more than double. Shaving the crude oil price 75 cents by 2025 amounts to no savings at the gas station.

That's what we would get for ANWR's 10 billion barrels. What about the moratorium areas off continental America's coastlines?

McCain's speech today estimates that there 21 billion barrels in the moratorium areas. That seems a touch high. The Energy Department put it at 18 billion a few years ago. Popular Mechanics reports an estimate of 19 billion.

Regardless, it's about double of what's estimated in ANWR.

So, if lifting the moratorium on most offshore drilling has double the impact on price as lifting the ANWR ban would, that's only $1.50 off the price of crude per barrel. Combined with ANWR, it's $2.25.

Again, by 2025. Again, little to no impact on the price at the pump, today or tomorrow.

Not pragmatic. Not short-term. There is simply not enough oil.

UPDATE: Just to put a fine point on it, lowering the price of crude oil per barrel by $1 is roughly equal to a reduction in price at the pump of 2.5 cents per gallon. So lifting all of the above moratoriums, lowering the price of crude by $2.25 per barrel, would lower the price at the pump by less than 6 cents by 2025.

Meaningless, after prices have skyrocketed more than $3 a gallon between Dec. 2001 and today.