The Republican Energy Drill (VIDEO)

Energy is currently the most debated issue on Capitol Hill, and Republicans in Congress have seized the moment to stage a political coup, blaming Democratic resistance to expanded domestic oil drilling for high gas prices. Democrats have started to cave to some of the pressure. But would more drilling help anytime soon?

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

It's actually very easy. We have the data of what happens when we drill more because we tried that in the 1980s. And the surprising answer is that absolutely nothing of importance happened (except that a lot of people lost their investment - I happen to know some of them personally). Here is the chart that shows drilling activity (in linear feet drilled) vs. total oil/gas production:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/DrillingvProd1949to2005.gif

Enjoy. It will give you an idea of how little difference any new drilling will make. And hopefully you are wise enough not to put your money into that "oil opportunity" your neighbor tells you about.

[tcrho]

It never ceases to amaze me where people put their energies (comments). It makes me wonder where the minds of bloggers on this site really are.

Look, we have an energy problem. If you make changes in our drilling policies, the price of oil will come down before the first barrel hits the refineries. How? First off speculators will stop their aggressive buying and have been since the shift in the American public's view on the matter. The Bush move to drop the ban on off-shore drilling shows that. Prices started down almost over night. This act in itself will also improve the overall health of the economy. An overwhelming amount of Americans support such changes. OPEC will start lowering their prices because they know that domestic U.S. crude in just around the corner. While I am not crazy about drilling in ANWR, but I see no reason to avoid drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Drilling, while we develop other sources of energy and cars/trucks that run on other fuels, should carry us over until technology catches up with energy demands. Oil will then be needed only for making other products such as plastics, etc. Once it is no longer needed to fuel vehicles, the price of those raw materials will also drop. There is no reason not to do both drilling and creating alternatives, not for big oil, not for environmentalist, not for politics...but rather for the future of this nation and it's people...

[mjt218]

I agree that expanded drilling would be good for the American economy. However, I have to disagree with your OPEC behavior prediction.

Existing oil fields typically decline at an approximately 40% annual rate. Bottom line, we're going to need ANWR, the East Coast, the West Coast, and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico eventually to sustain our current domestic production levels. Unless a new multi-billion barrel field is discovered somewhere, OPEC is not likely to blink. They'll just be happy that the pressure is taken a bit off them for awhile.

The better tool for dictating OPEC's behavior is efficiency improvements and sacrificial changes in our way of life. However, these issues are not populate short-term political issues (as the video for the post shows).

[RememberTheAlamo]

Hi Mjt218,

Where did you ever come up with that 40% figure?

The decline rate for a well and a field are different. Factored into both are bottom-hole pressure, viscosity, temperature, permeability, porosity, drive mechanism (primary and secondary), depth . . . and a host of other variables. You place these into a mixing bowl, add the oil price, distance to market, state guidelines, the rate of inflation . . . and a few other factors and then determine the optimal production rate.

Maybe, back in 1903, when they blew off the discovery wells the decline rate was as severe as 40% . . . but not when it's your money. Not today.

Could you be confusing individual well performance with field performance? Most fields decline less than 10% per year . . . Many (and that is MANY) fields are producing more today than the original estimates. Kansas production is on an uptick . . . and that is without letting them drill more!

As to multi-billion barrel fields . . . they are there . . . both onshore and offshore . . . there is zero motive for anybody in the industry to release this information. . . . but, we all know where they are . . .

Would agree we need to focus upon conserving energy, reducing waste . . . and then focus on means to produce more fungible energy domestically.

[KillTheMessenger]

Somebody bought big time into the bull coming from the right.

[camipco]

Republicans, oil alcoholics trying to convince America that all they need is one more beer.

[OddManOut]

Democratic House and Senate leadership are terrible at countering political theater...they need to get a clue and stand up to these sinister attacks.

[60andcounting]

What I'd like to know is, if the Republicans know that this is the best way out of high gas prices and it will lower our gas by 2 dollars a gallon, did the just find out about it or did they know it when they had control of both House and Senate, the Precidency and the Supreme Court and didn't do anything about it?

If so, then they are ones that cost us millions in extra gas prices for 8 years.

[tubette]

excellent video

[ibsteve2u]

" But would more drilling help anytime soon?"

Another question...suppose the Republicans (well, really, the oil companies acting through their agents, the Republicans) get their way and both coasts of Florida are soon lined with oil wells.

Then, a category 5 hurricane - I'll call it Ray - shows up, and acts like tropical storm Fay is acting now by cruising back and forth between BOTH Florida coasts...

Is that going to be pretty, or what?

lollll...all of that flood water, to carry all of those oil spills deep inland...

[mjt218]

Your argument ignores two important points.

1) New facilities, built at or above current marine design standards, are much less succeptible to hurricane damage than older facilities. There are many oil platforms off the Louisiana and Texas coasts that have been in service since the 1950's. These structures are more succeptible to damage. Anything built off Florida or the Eastern Seaboard would be new, and thus less succeptible to damage.

2) The US has some of the strictest environmental standards for offshore development in the world. New development in the US is much more likely to have a limited impact on the environment, than oil production in third world places which the US government and US companies cannot control. Now, if you're a realist, realize that we probably are going to have a domestic need for oil in some capacity for at least the next 30 years. I would much rather see limited environmental impact from strictly regulated domestic development than let other countries dictate the impact.