St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Earlier this week, I wrote a blog item about the debate over U.S. domestic oil exploration. It includes background information on the issue, including data about estimated oil reserves and U.S. production, importation and consumption.
Some politicians who have opposed expanded offshore exploration seem to be softening their positions in light of the current economic situation.
Below, members of the editorial board of the Post-Dispatch debate the controversial issue. But before they go at it, some political background:
President Bush: Wednesday morning, President Bush called for lifting the ban on offshore drilling and allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, construction of new refineries and incentives to develop oil shale in the western states.
Sen. John McCain: In a speech Tuesday in Houston — amplified further Wednesday in a policy speech in Springfield, Mo. — McCain signaled a shift in his energy policy and endorsed lifting the ban on offshore drilling to give states the option to begin oil exploration and production. As the president did, McCain also called for revising existing regulations to make it easier to build new U.S. refineries to process crude oil. McCain still opposes drilling in ANWR, and believes that in the long-term the U.S. “must shift our entire energy economy toward a sustainable mix of new and cleaner power sources.”
Sen. Barack Obama: Strongly opposes lifting the ban on offshore drilling. Obama also argued that developing domestic sources of oil would take too long and, in the end, not have a significant impact on gas prices anyway.
Environmental activists worry that expanded exploration and drilling would contaminate oceans and beaches, destroy animal habitats, ruin tourist dependent economies and continue pollution associated with the production and use of fossil fuels. The Sierra Club responded to McCain’s Tuesday speech by saying that McCain was supporting the “wholesale exploitation of our coasts.”
Now let’s hear from members of the editorial board…
********************************************
| Jim Gallagher, editorial writer:
The U.S imports about 60 percent of its oil. At $130-plus per barrel, that acts as a massive tax on the American people imposed by a collection of Arab oil sheiks, Iranian ayatollahs, Latin demagogues, African dictators and other foreign potentates that we’d rather not support.
It leaves the American economy vulnerable to flareups in violent parts of the world, which could draw us into yet another war.
Part of the solution - in addition to conservation and alternative fuels - is to produce more of the slick stuff at home. Federal data indicate that 17.8 billion barrels of oil sit off the American coast in areas where drilling is not permitted because of political opposition in coastal states. That equals 10 years of American production at current rates.
Pumping that oil would ease the upward pressure on price, and lessen the foreign tax on American consumers. More of our money would stay home. We’d be a bit less vulnerable cutoffs by foreign suppliers.
And it can be done safely. Hurricane after hurricane, including the monster Katrina, have swept through the offshore oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico, with negligible oil spills.
Restrictions on off-shore oil drilling should be lifted, now.
|
| Eric Mink, commentary editor, columnist, rationalist:
Framing this as an either/or proposition — either we put the California, Florida and gulf beaches and their economies at risk, kiss ANWR goodbye and rip up the west for shale or al-Qaida wins — is a false choice.
First, doing all the things Bush and McCain want to do would have zero effect — zero – on the price of gasoline for at least five years, maybe longer. But the environmental harm would be immediate and possibly irreversible.
Second, Jim, the smart editorial you wrote last week called on federal regulators to wake up and smell the oil speculation. A crackdown could bring prices down fast.
A couple of things that could save real people real money right now:
Tap the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve — 700 million barrels of oil stored in salt caverns in Texas and Louisiana. G. H.W. Bush did it during the Gulf War in 1991. A revived and enforced 55 mph speed limit could save drivers an average of 20 percent in fuel usage and costs — immediately.
Longer term, get serious — finally — about alternative technologies: Wind? Sure. Solar? Duh. And use waste heat to generate electricity — a.k.a. cogeneration. It could cut U.S. electricity usage by 20 percent. Develop biofuels that actually make environmental and economic sense. Get automakers to use lighter, stronger materials that would reduce weight and improve mileage. How about something as elemental as painting the roofs of commercial buildings white to radically reduce summer a/c costs?
|
| Kevin Horrigan, deputy editor/editorial writer/columnist/sage:
Eric, my Prius-driving friend, may I quote you here?
But the environmental harm would be immediate and possibly irreversible.
Yes, there would be drilling rigs in a small slice of ANWR. Yes, people on the beaches of California and Florida might catch a distant glimpse of an offshore rig far on the horizon. Is this the “environmental harm” of which you speak?
Eek.
I say there is a moral component to this argument. We in the United States use a third of the world’s gasoline and a fourth of its petroleum but bear a minuscule percentage of the risk inherent in producing, shipping and refining it.
Speaking as the only member of the editorial board who actually has worked in an oil refinery (Signal Oil, Pasadena, Texas, 1970, Cat Cracker No. 1; I spit black for months) I assure you that oil is a nasty, dirty business. There is an environmental risk that is not being shared.
I say: Drill at home but add steep surcharges on production and consumption of new oil to (a) discourage consumption, (b) fund research and development of alternative sources and (c) pay to repair any potential damage to the environment.
Toodle-oo, caribou.
|
| Eddie Roth, editorial writer and all around reasonable guy:
The best evidence that the great oil rush of ‘08 is a bust is that it is being pitched like patent medicine in an emergency room.
Compare what’s being said about the virtues of off-shore drilling with claims made about “Elixir of Life” a 19th century sensation:
((T)here is absolutely no risk to run….The lame have thrown away crutches and walked after about two or three trials of the remedy. Rheumatism, neuralgia, stomach, heart, liver, kidney, blood and skin diseases and bladder troubles disappear by magic. Headaches, backaches, nervousness, fevers, consumption, coughs, colds, asthma, catarrh, bronchitis, and all affections of the throat, lungs or any vital organs are easily overcome in a space of time that is simply marvelous….
Sound familiar? Snake oil, folks. Wise up. For all the reasons Brother Mink cites, and more.
|
| John Carlton, editorial writer, voice of reason:
The days of cheap oil are over. That’s not a good thing, but it is reality. Does it hurt? Absolutely. But policy decisions we make now can lessen the pain in decades to come.
Political instability and speculation have driven the price of oil up temporarily. But the real reason oil prices are high and going higher is simple: increasing demand worldwide. The U.S. Energy Information Agency predicts that demand for oil from developing countries in Asia — read China and India — will grow by roughly 128 percent between now and 2030. North America, in contrast, is projected to increase demand by 33.6 percent.
Oil is traded on a global market. Pumping more oil in the U.S. might modestly affect the world price — maybe a decade from now. But whatever modest decrease could occur would be more than offset by rising international demand. China’s economy has been growing at 10 percent a year for the past decade. You want to pump more oil? That’s great, because China is overloaded with U.S. dollars. It will buy all we can produce, and more.
We need to be thinking about the next energy era. We must provide incentives for the kind of technological innovation that has always been America’s strength. Even if drilling off America’s coasts and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could lower the price at the pump soon — which it wouldn’t — we’d want to keep the price high to spur innovation.
|
The reason that I support off-shore and ANWR drilling in the US needs to become less dependent upon foreign oil. No, it most certainly curtail prices now. I’m not sure we will ever see prices go lower than 3.50/gal.
Most certainly we should be looking into alternative fuels. It boggles the mind that solar power isn’t more widely used. More and more advances have been made in converting solar power into electric power, costs should be decreasing in that area and making it more affordable for people to choose to convert.
Why don’t I see more rain barrels in people’s yards? That’s FREE water for watering your plants/grass in the summer. Why don’t more people compost their food scraps/garbage…this is way too easy to do I guess.
I think oil prices will stabilize at around $7/gal and yes it will take some major adjustment, maybe people will begin to see that there are other ways to get around, at the very least become more conscious of their bad habits and make adjustments.
Those of you who oppose the drilling may be correct that it will take years to have an impact, but if we keep waiting, it will take that many more years. I would hope the days of thinking we will rely soley on oil in the future but we FIRST must deal with today and the near future. Let’s get what we need and as MINKO states, let’s start developing alternative energy sources that have been around for decades. They have not been developed because there is no money in them, at least yet. It seems to me the simple solution will be to make us less dependent on foreign oil and provide our own while AT THE SAME TIME move forward with the next big thing. But no, the left and the right must fight to a point where everyone is burdened.
What a shame that oil companies make money, this does allow them to keep their employees paid and employed. Since newspaper circulation is in constant decline (not to mention how many trees are wasted on a daily basis) why do you newspaper folks want to continue with YOUR WASTEFUL job. LEt’s see, trees for the paper, all that fuel wasted in delivering the papers, etc. It would be so much better for our environment if all of you would just get with the program and go web based and stop your wasteful ways. Until you in the NEWSPAPER Business are ready to stop your wasteful ways, you should stop telling the rest of us how wasteful we are and do what is best for the nation. Just think how many homeless could be fed with all the money saved by not printing on paper, fuel for deliveries and repairs and upkeep on delivery vehicles.
All due respect, John, but this isn’t about the energy practices of any single industry. It’s about what energy policies the United States government should adopt and pursue in order to provide best for the needs and security of the American people.
Those needs include affordable transportation, food and heated and cooled shelter — as well as clean water, healthy air, beautiful natural places that restore the spirit and honor the glory of creation, and an Earth that remains habitable for future generations.
Most Americans agree that we need to ween off of oil. The problem is the that there is no instant solution. Can’t we drill for our won oil while developing new energies? Seems logical. Any wouldn’t the announcement that we are drilling for oil eventually drive the price down? Simply waiting for alternative fuels isn’t the answer. Simply drilling isn’t the answer. A multi pronged approach is the only way out of this mess.
Finally, wouldn’t it be nice if we had approved ANWAR Drilling 10 years ago and had that oil on the market today. More oil now, more alternative fuels for the future.
I just hope that people will not fall for the pandering that Bush and McCain is offering us. Their solution to lift bans alone the coasts are not going to do anything to make much difference for you at the pumps.
Gallagher believes that part of the solution because it is THOUGHT to be 10 years worth of oil in theses areas where exploring is not allowed.
10 YEARS! What is that? Absolutely nothing that will offer any real solution.
1. How long will it take even if there is a 10-year supply? No one knows.
2. What if there isn’t any oil found? This is a possibility.
3. Then what after the 10 years?
Off shore drilling is not the solution. It certainly will not cause the U.S. to become less dependent upon foreign oil. People are responding irrational out of fear of the high gas prices we are experiencing.
Technology is here and is coming that allow us to depend much less on gasoline. We will soon be able to get 60 to 100 miles per gallon of gas. Don’t allow the pandering to deceive you.
One incorrect point that many of the environmentalists, such as Eric Mink, routinely make when discussing energy policy is that solar and wind will reduce our dependance on crude oil and foreign energy sources. The vast majority of crude oil derived products (such as gasoline and jet fuel) are used in transportation. Wind and solar are substitutes for other power generation sources since they produce electricity. The vast majority of power generated in America is fueled by Coal (~50%), Nucluer (~20%) and Hydro (~10%) with the remaining primarily consisting of natural gas. The vast majority of fuel used in power generation is produced in either the US or Canada (coal, natural gas, etc.). Wind and solar are not sources of transportation fuels. Therefore, the argument that wind or solar will somehow reduce our dependance on oil or on imported fuel is patently false.
D.:
“2. What if there isn’t any oil found? This is a possibility.”
Actually, it’s not. The U.S. Department of the Interior has estimated that we’re sitting on 82 billion barrels of oil and 60 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (based on geological data). The U.S. — especially in Western states — is covered in millions of acres of oil shale — enough to produce at least 1.5 trillion barrels of oil.
There are legitimate arguments against drilling and exploration — and you note some of them — but “there isn’t any oil anyway” isn’t one of them.
I like the format. Too bad there isn’t a single one of the editors who has a reasoned philosophy.
Mr Gallagher: There is no tax. The foreign countries have something you want. You give them some money you seem to be working so hard for on the editorial board and they give you some oil.
This is related to Mr. Horrigan’s “moral” point that the foreigners bear the burden in the case of an accident — but the moral is solved through the price you pay for the oil.
Mr Mink: I believe you have claimed in the past that you opponents use fear to bring people to their way of thinking. You are a hypocrite of the first order. The likelihood of any of the problems you wail about with collecting the oil are ridiculous.
But worse, Mr Mink is your lack of any reason. You say future oil production will have no effect on price now and in the next sentence you say we need to regulate the speculators. Increase future oil production and the speculators will have made the wrong decision, will lose money and prices will drop (now).
Finally Mr Mink, the oil reserves exist not to make it so you won’t have to pay less for gasoline, but for us to protect ourselves in the event of war. I do not agree with the first gulf war or the second going on now, but I do believe we should keep the oil in reserve in the event that we really need it.
Mr Roth the snake oil salesman happens to be the man you call “Brother Mink.”
Finally, if you guys all want to research other energy sources feel free, but don’t tax me or anyone else so you can do it. If you succeed I’ll be more than happy to pay you a fair price for what you give me, just like I am currently paying for the oil and gas and coal I currently use.
Thumbs up for Jim Gallagher, Kevin Horrigan, John Carlton, George W. Bush and John McCain. God forgive the others for they know not what they do.
Eric Mink is at least trying with his Prius but for ordinary usage he’d be way ahead moneywise with a Corolla. As for our strategic crude oil reserves, they can supply 1/3 of our crude oil needs for 5 months, but our refineries are maxed out, so we’d get no more motor fuel. The white roof idea is cute but what it saves in summer it loses in winter, leading some to use cheap paint that will cook or wash off before winter. The best way to save on heat and cooling is with adequate insulation. Solar panels have been working in our western desert for years. It took the Israelis and the Australians to put them there. As for wind, T. Boone Pickens is doing that in the Texas panhandle to the tune of eight billion dollars, but the Senator from Massachusetts won’t allow wind turbines within sight of Nantucket.
Alex Mayer,
You are mistaken when you say that I have given reason not to explore for oil. I have never contended that we should not explore for oil. But, that the oil companies should do it on the leases that they already have on federal land that they have not lifted a finger to explore, instead of Republicans pandering that the false ideal that apppproving off shore drilling is the answer.
Of course there is oil in the U.S., but exactly where to begin exploring to find these locations and how much is here are only estimations no one can be really certain of. It is estimated that we are sitting on 82 billion barrels, where again are we sitting on all this oil? You failed to mention that. I think that is why it is called oil exploration.