The argument for resuming offshore drilling in the United States is totally misleading. Roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly production leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. These leases should be exploited before the oil companies are allowed to get any more. Both McCain and the administration have not been honest with the American people. There are suspicions that the oil industry’s main objective is to stockpile millions of additional acres of public land before the Bush administration leaves town.
I’m strongly against offshore drilling. Because:
-
It will not lower the gas price that much by adding this tiny production to the global oil market.
-
It will only increase the demand for oil. The world oil can only be used for several decades now. What will we do next?
-
Keeping gas price high is the best way to stimulate the development of alternative energy.
-
While the Arctic is melting rapidly, why should we help make it worse by drilling more oil.
yes go for it
Human induced global warming belongs in the same category as evolution, in my opinion. Some questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction by GW proponents: What ended the ice age? How much CO2 and particulate matter does a major volcanic eruption release into the atmosphere? How does solar activity affect earth’s atmosphere? Are there any cracks in the earth’s ocean floors that release super hot temperatures? What is the effect of naturally occurring wildfires on our atmosphere and are they a recent occurrence (did they occur before the present GW theory)?
I understand that during Katrina oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico were virtually nil. I feel we should develop our resources. What I don’t get is how drilling will lower gas prices. If demand is static more supply would reduce prices, but with China, India, etc. becoming oil gluttons demand can only increase. Also, what incentive do US oil companies have to sell their product domestically for less than they can get on the world market? Are US oil producers patriotic or philanthropic?
I think energy independence and converting our country away from fossil fuels are actually two seperate issues.
A serious argument can be made to begin drilling to reduce our entanglement in foreign affairs. I don’t believe that we only invaded Iraq for oil, but securing a friendly Mideast oil producing nation was certainly seen as a side benefit. The more we produce on our own, the less we have to interact with rather unsavory foreign nations: Venezuala and the crackpot Hugo Chavez (who was caught funding narco guerrillas in other countries), Russia and the quasi dictatorship that Putin has built, and Saudi Arabia, a very friendly royal family in a country full of people that fanatically hate our existence (I don’t want to imply that every single Saudi citizen hates the US, some are busy hating Isreal I’m sure, and others are too busy eaking out an existence in a country whose oil wealth shouldn’t have been essentially absconded by the royal family rather than going to its populace).
If we’ve really reached the top of the production bell curve and new drilling technologies and exploration are no longer going to increase production to keep up with growing global demand, then we should expect to see dwindling supplies and ever increasing prices (even if the price right now is a bubble about to pop). If global production has not peaked then we should look at our offshore oil/gas fields and Anwar as reserves that should be held as long as possible. That we (earth) may finally have stopped producing more oil year after year and have topped out or have started declining is a real possibility that I’ve heard more and more of, even before this latest price hike in oil.
The bigger long term issue is converting the US population away from fossil fuels, unfortunately, the only effective way to do that is make gasoline too expensive for us to keep using it. This argument is a good one for NOT drilling for more domestic oil.
This isn’t the first high gas price scare I’ve lived through, each time the media does stories about dropping SUV sales and using mass transit, but the second prices drop again or the public just gets used to the new prices, we all jump back in our 8 cylinder vehicles.
I would actually say, the US public is adopting hybrids fast enough that we may have finally gotten solid traction on moving away from fossil fuel cars as more than just a passing fad. I don’t see Hybrids as the final solution, but a great first step on breaking away from gas guzzlers.
In 1993 the price of gas per barrel was $72 while the gas per gallon in USA was 83cents only. In 18 years the per barrel has gone up to $142 and mostly of this is happened in just few months while the price per gallon has gone way up, $4.29, as compare to per barrel. It is obvious who is making the big money and the new drilling schemes are only they way to make more money and not to sincerely help the people by reducing the price. Think about it. The price of the gas can be brought low without new drilling if THEY want.
Demand isn’t static. Demand for fuel is relatively inelastic until you get to $4 a gallon. At $3 a gallon, demand didn’t signifigantly change. At $4 a gallon, we are seeing a decrease if fuel use, and therefore, decreased demand.
I don’t remember gas being $0.83 a gallon in 1993, hmm. If that’s true, that makes me feel worse.
Your comment:
“Think about it. The price of the gas can be brought low without new drilling if THEY want.”
“THEY” is pretty vague. Foreign producers? Gas companies? Commodities traders?
The recent increase in price per barrel is a mix of these factors:
-Stagnant or declining crude oil extraction and production
-Commodities traders who keep bidding up the price much faster than the current production justifies.
There is some evidence that these are bubble prices and sooner or later there is going to be a pop and a sudden decline in price per barrel. This won’t mean that your gas price at the pump is suddenly going to drop to $2.00 a gallon, and there are still serious concerns about reaching the plateau in production that will go nowhere but down well into the futuer, but this oil market has the hallmarks of a speculative rush that will end.
I recently saw the Nova program “Car of the Future” and unfortunately I don’t see how as a people will be able to transition from an almost entire oil dependency to an alternate energy anytime in the near future (the $100,000 price tag for the 100% electric car for instance) unless we get a radical shift in mindset and I mean starting in school to change our children’s viewpoint on cars from the fastest and best looking to a car that will have little or no impact on the environment and be able to do more with less, but in the short term more drilling may be an answer but I don’t think that it will be the answer in the long term.
I don’t remember gas being $0.83 a gallon in 1993, hmm.
It must have been in a place where it is historically cheaper than the national average, like Texas.
It’s certainly logical to call the present oil price speculative, since the price at which everyone was previously happy was around $85/barrel.
However, there are two other threads running that explain a large fear factor of supply interruptions, no supply additions, and a relentless incease in consumption from the developing world. A severe recession in the US may cut 200,000-300,000barrels/day from demand, but the developing world is adding nearly 1,000,000barrels/day to its demand.
Spare production capacity at this time is only 2.2% of demand, a historically low figure.
So the best brains are forecasting stagnant or lightly reduced demand in Europe, Japan, and North America with continued growth elsewhere.
So hoping for a collapse of the speculative bubble means you are waiting eagerly for a massive economic slowdown, bordering on collapse! The replacement cost of oil as an energy source is usually quoted as $250/barrel, the price at which serious alternative energy systems development will take place. That price will also cause massive econonmic disruption.
I’m not suggesting investing in energy futures, but cheap gas is a thing of the past!!! Don’t hold your breath for $2 gas, and when planning to buy your next car, chose one that can handle $6/gallon gas and have some resale value after 5 years.
In 1964, you could buy a gallon of gas for a quarter…With that same 1964 quarter, you could STILL buy a gallon of gas. The price of oil has not changed in 50 years. It’s the value of your money that has changed…
The subject is very involved and I’ll be honest; it’s leaps and bounds over my head. I’ve read a number of my sons books, charts, etc. and it’s mind numbing to put it mildly. What I don’t understand I have him put into plain English for me and that helps; a little.
My son can answer any question on this subject and there is a simple explanation behind everything. Just a few quick points here about claims made and the reality behind it.
- Greenland glaciers are melting due to GW. Not one word is mentioned of increased volcanic activity under earth’s crust in Greenland.
- Antarctic ice is melting and hunks are breaking off. True, BUT what is being omitted is the fact that ice is only breaking off in one area and is building up in others for a zero loss or gain.
- CO2 levels are about 375 PPM right now. 5 million years ago it was about 3000 PPM if I remember correctly, long before any man was wandering around.
- Recent stats show the average global temps have dropped almost .5 a degree since 1998 and all scientific data to this point shows a cooling trend over the next 30 years or so. This is one reason why you see an attempt to shunt the phrase “GW” aside and replace it with a generic “climate change” phrase.
Food for thought. Much of the temp data is provided by NASA and the GISS (Global Institute for Space Studies). Do a bit of reading on the nutcase at NASA who is behind this, Dr. James Hansen. This guy rails on and on about GW and guess what his degreed field is? Astronomy, not meteorology or climatology.
He is the guy, while drawing a paycheck from the taxpayers, is also drawing money from The Heinz Foundation (John Kerry) and Al Gore. He is also the guy who recently testified to Congress that oil company execs, utility company execs, etc should be “prosecuted for crimes against humanity” and “thrown in jail” for environmental damage.
There’s a lot of stuff like this that is not reported on the TV news, go figure. If you would like I’ll pose all of your questions to my son and post the Qs and As back here this weekend. He will be visiting over the 4th of July and we always have discussions on this subject anyway. Feel free to add more questions if you would like.
In 1964, you could buy a gallon of gas for a quarter…With that same 1964 quarter, you could STILL buy a gallon of gas. The price of oil has not changed in 50 years. It’s the value of your money that has changed…
NOPE…That was true 2 years ago. But gas prices have now far exceeded inflation. 25 cents from 1964 is worth less then $2 now. Gas is just under $4 here in NH.
What needs to be done is this, I was reading the Rant and Rave section and I completely aggree with Tom and Ray: Gas needs to be raised a 50 cent tax on fuel. That tax should then be sent to our auto companies to have them start banging out more hybrids, and more fuel cell or electric vehicles.
Nuff said.
I thought these were relevant.
Has anyone noticed that the President first said we were addicted to oil, and now he says we need to drill for more? Is he going to supply heroine and cocaine to patients in drug rehab too?
Good information, I wasn’t aware of the spare production capacity and global demand figures.
But, there is some disconnect between supply/demand and price. Price is heavily affected by commodity traders and the dramatic increase in price is not tied one-to-one with supply/demand factors. There is a bit of a bidding frenzy that has been going on in the last year.
What should be noted, long term, and I think your post agrees with this: We are not going to be the undisputed consumer for long with the arrival of other super-economies like China and India demanding oil. This weakens our bargaining position with OPEC and lessens our ability to demand production adjustments to suit our price needs. In the past we were able to exert some influence on OPEC’s production.
Recently, Bush visited an OPEC summit and requested an increase in production which they initially denied and then only in the past week announced a slight increase. We’re not the only big buyers, I hope in the future we barely buy any OPEC oil because we’ve transitioned away from it.
Loved the first one. I’ll bet Chaney has a nice seat on the board of directors for his old company Haliburton when he leaves office. He made that company what it is today…And all this he left to become VP.
I don’t remember seeing Clinton/Gore getting any blame for high gas prices when it approached near 3 bucks a gallon during their last year in office.