McCain Lies About Oil Drilling and the Media Yawns

I don't really see how there is any serious prospect for solving either our energy security problem or our climate problem if the traditional media doesn't do any policing whatsoever of statements by major politicians. Here is McCain yesterday:

"... it will be vital that we continue oil production at a high level including offshore drilling. Now, the briefings that I have had with the oil producers, there are some instances that within a matter of months, they could be getting additional oil."

Standing in front of a large California oil drill, in what appears to be filming of a new movie, There Will Be Lies, McCain went so far as to say:

But there's abundant resources in the view of the people who are in the business that could be exploited within a period of months. So offshore drilling is something we have to do.

Okay, I can understand why he believes whatever stuff the oil producers make up -- they are lining his pockets now. And I understand the three reasons that McCain would lie to the public:

1. His original "placebo" argument wasn't very compelling: "Even though it may take some years, the fact that we are exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial."


2. The truth is even less compelling: Ending the moratorium on coastal drilling holds no serious promise of reducing gasoline prices for US consumers even a single penny two decades from now according to Bush's own energy analysts (see "The cruel offshore-drilling hoax").


3. Since he has no actual plan for getting us out of the economic mess Bush got us into, McCain is now going so far as "framing his support for expanded offshore drilling and other energy proposals as economic stimulants in an effort to woo voters concerned about the floundering economy" (Greenwire 7/29, subs. req'd). Seriously!

But why does the media let a major party candidates get away with such disinformation? And it is disinformation. As a U.S. Energy Information Administration analyst told me earlier this month:




... the constraints on offshore drilling have little to do with the price of oil, but a lot to do with timing. Once the leases are available, it is a 5 to 10 years before you get to exploratory drilling. There is a tremendous shortage of drilling rigs and manpower. Plus, offshore drilling is so expensive, you don't want to make any mistakes. So you spend do a lot of seismic analysis to minimize your chances of a dry well.


And it is probably another five or more years from drilling your exploratory well to getting significant production from the area -- and that assumes you didn't dig a dry well. If you did, then you are probably going to be even more cautious. And all that assumes you have developed a pipeline infrastructure for delivering the oil. But the Atlantic Coast lacks such an infrastructure, so who knows how long it would take to get its oil?

On top of that, California won't allow drilling off its coast anytime soon. And Sen. Martinez won't allow drilling off Florida's coast anytime soon. And Big Oil has tens of billions of barrels of oil yet to find and retrieve from the Gulf of Mexico leases that were opened up two years ago.

So McCain's claim is spin wrapped in a lie wrapped in a hoax.

If there is no penalty in the public arena for lying, then we're just going to get more and more of it.

Comments

[njm50]

When you are a war hero, I guess its ok to lie, and still be called a man of integrity. How sad.

[CL696]

Mr. McCain has a 35 year documented history of character and integrity. You can attempt to attack his character but it will not work. It only draws attention to the experience gap between the candidates.

[zenlikejen]

I don't believe anyone here can deny McCain's service record - but as for showing "character and integrity" in this campain I have to STRONGLY disagree.

The attention he's bringing on himself isn't showing a gap in experience, but a gaping chasm in respectability. I actually used to have a modicum of respect for McCain before he began his presidential bid....the­se days it's more pity than anything else.

[drgrph]

Let's do the math: politician + Republican = LIES = politician + Democrat. I believe that to be a balanced equation. Absent real, hard data I will not believe otherwise. Thus from an honesty standpoint McCain = Obama.

Because the truly honest politician is a needle in a haystack, it really boils down to whom do you trust more. One can lie yet be trustworthy. Take, for example President Clinton. Despite being proven from a legal standpoint to have lied in a deposition, an awful lot of Americans continued to trust him as their President.

So who do you trust? Is there enough evidence or data to support one candidate over the other? Is character and/or honor part of the equation for trustworthiness? I believe it is worthy to mull over some of these basic questions before selecting a candidate worthy of your vote.

At least I find it more useful than, say, juvenile considerations like Bush-McCain or the truthfulness or lack thereof of Fox News or slurs like General Betrayus. These are counterproductive to the average American, demonizing the accuser and not the target. Why? Try this one: distorting the truth = LIE (or at least is an equivalent).

[Danny]

See, the idea for the oil companies is to get their hands on valuable real estate. They get the "leases" FREE from the govt. Who in his right mind wouldn't be pursuing those in the name of "oil price rielief" even if it is b.s.?

[mjt218]

The last round of lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico brought in $3.2 Billion for the Federal Government.

[watchingthings]

It seems that "oil insecurity" started with the invasion of Iraq. The sooner the Iraq government is allowed to function [they want US troops out], the sooner stability should return in the middle East....ba­rring anymore wars. The main focus should be Afganistan and Lawless Northern Pakistan..­..the real "axis of evil". Real effort to liquidate "al quida" here shouldn't imact oil anymore then it has already.

[RENREVARD]

Plus there is a shortage world wide of equipement needed to start drilling.T­here is aleast a 5 year wait to even get that equipment to start drilling. Brazil has found oil of there shores but do not have the equipment to start drilling.

[watchingthings]

The new Brazil fields are very deep. They are pioneering the building of equipment to drill to the fields. Nobody has ever drilled this deep in the sea.....no­rmal offshore drilling has been on continental shelfs....­..nowhere near as deep. They have the confidence that they have found the solution and will expand it to build many rigs with this capability. Brazil is a very big country and has many natural resourses in abundance.­.....but the people will benifit from the profits of this oil instead of just certain [foreign] oil companies. Brazil will be in a position to sell drilling equipment worldwide for deep-sea drilling, including companies like Exxon mobil and BP to drill.....­anywhere except Brazil.

[GLaB]

It's not the media's job to pass along their own judgements about policy matters - only to report the positions of those who are actually responsible. Then WE VOTERS get to make up our own minds - butressed by any outside research we care to do or not do. If you can't persuade voters through your own efforts, don't expect the networks to do your work for you.

The last thing we need is an economic policy set by Chris "Thrill-Up-The-Leg" Matthews (or Rush Limbaugh, for that matter).

[holyhandgrenaid]

Ah, but the networks are obligated to report the FACTS, and that does not simply mean reporting what a candidate says, but also to vet every last word for truth, and if it is false to report the lie for what it is. In this regard the media is failing us in a terrible way.

Noone is saying the media needs to set an agenda. Truth and facts are supposed to be the media's ONLY agenda.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Nope, GLaB, watches fox. Just fair and balanced - they don't give a hoot about the truth.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

or facts

[Kynn]

Stating that it would only take months to start getting oil from offshore drilling is not a policy matter.

It's a statement of defined fact. This fact is false. It is the media's job to report the facts. Real facts, not just the good facts.

[havbrush]

There is such a thing as analysis . Responsible news outlets should run analysis articles along side reports where inaccuracies can be exposed.

[azyuwish]

News analysis can be had at PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer, each and every night, Monday through Friday 3 p.m. Eastern time.

News headlines and broadcast initially, then in depth coverage with journalists then analysts from respective fields of expertise. For example, after reporting on the recent Pakistan border violence last night, they interviewed the Prime Minister of Pakistan for several minutes. This is professional journalism.

Rush Limbaugh and his ilk cannot even be compared to this level of journalistic integrity; he is an entertainer merely.

[armadillious2002]

Amen! Even T Boone Pickens says it's all crap and that we can't drill our way out of this mess and he's been in the oil business all his life. Why does MSM keep up this charade. They know the truth but they keep on hammering at this offshore drilling deal like it's a matter of life and death - and in actuality it won't make one spit's worth of difference. And - if they don't know it - then they are much more ignorant than I thought.

[ShaunHammer]

I was listening to an interview with T.Boone and he was asked about the "we can't drill our way out of it" comment. He said "We need to do it all, drill, natural gas, wind, solar, everything". His point about not being able to drill out of it is that oil will not sustain, by itself, us for the next 100 years.

Listen to more of T. Boone than just his commercial ... he drives a Honda that runs off of natural gas, pretty cool.

[likeicare]

It's George Bush-think: tell 'em what they want to hear, and worry about it later.

Besides, the media is too busy selling crap to bother with something as unsexy as the truth.

Didn't you know that?

[dolphy]

There's a research out from a college that says Obama is getting 80% negative coverage. I forgot what the numbers are for McCain, but I don't think it will work this time.

[Aloisius]

Actually the one part of this that doesn't make sense to me is that prices are controlled through a speculation market. If the forecast in supply increases, wouldn't the market reduce the price per barrel ahead of actually obtaining the oil?

Sure these guys aren't exactly known for long-term positions, but it seems to me that if you say you're dropping foreign oil consumption by 5-10% in 10 years, the market should alter course unless they have something to counter it.

The counter I imagine could be speculation that foreign oil producers will drop their export rates to compensate thereby keeping oil prices steady.

Personally I believe that stabilization of the Middle East is and Africa's oil producing regions is the best way to drop the prices of oil combined with a strengthening of the US dollar so foreign investors stop pumping all their money into oil to compensate for the weak dollar. However I don't see why speculation markets wouldn't be affected by announcements of increased drilling in the US in the short-term.

[cheforacle]

It is possible that the announcement of opening new drilling sites could have some effect but experts would tell you it is minimal. Just as likely to change prices either directly by increasing production now or indirectly by affecting the behavior of speculators is the increase of production in Nigeria which has been plagued by a stoppage of drilling due to violence by militants who oppose the oil companies' appropriation of Nigerian natural resources or the unabated production of oil from Iraq.

[GLaB]

Don't confuse people with facts. It's a article of religious faith here on HuffingtonPost that increasing the supply of something will NOT reduce its price. Never mind ECON 1.

[Kynn]

You know, if it was just that easy there wouldn't be ECON 2.

[laocoon]

You seem confused about what these posts are saying. I have not read anything saying supply would not affect price. I read that drilling will have no effect on supply for years.

[strangelet]

Oil prices are largely controlled by:

1. Actual supply and actual demand

2. The value of the dollar (because Middle East oil is denominated in dollars)

3. Speculative trading in futures.

Most of the time, 1 is most important and 3 is least. We recently had a little excursion where it looks like 3 caused a spike; but note that a fairly small reduction in real demand has stubbed that off for now.

In any event, most of the futures trading in crude is for next-month, or the month after. Some fraction might even be next year. But none of it is several years out, because there are so many unknown things that could happen (or not) in that time frame.

So, no, ANNOUNCING that we are going to do more drilling will not affect short-term crude, or gasoline, prices.

[ShaunHammer]

If you did not have speculation the prices would not be falling like they are :)
The price is speculated up, and then the price is speculated down....

[FullChat]

I would argue that the "fear level" is a significant contributor. Every time Bush threatens war with Iran, oil goes up $5 a barrel. When the US and Iran were in the same room and didn't talk, oil fell $10, then $20 a barrel. OK, Iraq said we'd have to leave about this time, too.

Also, think about the cost of doing business. What would you charge to insure an oil tanker going through the Straits of Hormuz these days? How much do you think people get to work in the Iraqi oil fields?

I'll bet that if we made nice with Iran, oil would go down to $80 a barrel (which is what it would have been if the dollar had held even with the Euro, but that's another story).

[BlackbirdHighway]

You are kidding right? Frist, there won't be any increased drilling in the short term because there is a shortage of drilling equipment, because at the current price of oil everyone who can drill is drilling. Any drilling on any new leases wouldn't happen for many years.

So then try to put yourself in the shoes of an oil trader for a minute. Oil traders make their money betting on which way the price of oil is going to go. Would you be willing to bet a significant sum, lets say your salary for the entire year, on not just one, but this WHOLE STRING of events happening:

1) Oil companies MIGHT get leases some years in the future
2) They MIGHT bother to search for oil there (They already have 68 million acres that they haven't gotten to yet)
3) They MIGHT then decide those areas have some oil
4) They MIGHT decide to drill
5) The wells MIGHT actually hit oil, instead of coming up dry
6) That oil MIGHT be enough to change the supply/demand equation about 15 years into the future?

Any oil trader would easily see that they have a better chance of winning the lottery than to to win this bet. It's like you are asking them to bet $100,000 on who is going to win the presidential election in 2020. Nobody is going to take that bet.

[shystar]

What do you expect, the media is in bed with McCain so they have lost all objectivity.

And, this nonsense that the election is a referendum on Obama is in fact the media's spin on constantly giving these passes to Mc Cain.

[Photofarm]

McCain is right, and you are wrong. I farm and deal with commodity markets and pricing everyday. It is obvious that many people don't have a clue about how things are priced, and the emotional aspect of futures markets.

McCain is also right that some of the oil would come rather quickly if companies were allowed to drill offshore.

[peacefulworldcitizen]

So. McCain, who freely admitted he knew basically nothing about the economy is right and Bush's own energy analysts are wrong?

I seriously doubt what you say.

[hark]

Can we cut the crap, please? They ARE allowed to drill. They have access to more oil than they know what to do with. They choose not to drill for business reasons. This is a bogus issue, and you know it.

[ShaunHammer]

Just because you have acres to drill on does not mean there are any OIL on those acres. Or even oil that is "easy" to get to.

I don't understand liberals, you say the oil companies are so terrible and just want to make money. Then you say they have lots of oil that they don't want to get to sell, oil they could sell for 130 dollars per barrel. Does this make any sense?

[strangelet]

Or rigs to drill it with. Thanks.

[Photofarm]

The bogus issue is created by those that think there is oil under every square mile of ground. Most of the acres they can lease don't have oil, or it is too hard or expensive to get, at even $150 a barrel.

[KazooDan]

As The Boston Globe noted in a June 20 article, "About 86 billion barrels of additional oil may lie offshore, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration," and then continued: "Of that amount, about 18 billion barrels are subject to the moratorium­."

[Steve13133]

The MSM will never police the gov. They are owned by the same business interests that own the politicians. Let's talk about how many billions upon billions that these corporate interests make off of us taxpayers. How much food they divert from our children's mouths to make planes, tanks, and smart bombs (used mostly for wedding parties in Iraq and Afganistan). Also, to pay for the mercenary part of the corporate military industrial complex. Anyway, the problem is not that Exxon can't find oil, they know where it is. The problem is that they don't build refineries. nobody has built a refinery in this country in almost 30 years. The bottleneck is not in pumping oil out of the ground, it is in the refining capacity.

[mjt218]

When's the last time a gas station around you ran out of gas? Gasoline and petrochemical prices have been driven up almost entirely by the change in crude price.

Building new refineries has nothing to do with supply. A number of our refineries have sat on the same spot for over a century. Does this mean that they are only capable of distilling kerosene? No, they have constantly revamped and changed to modify the types of source stocks they can process, the products they produce, the methods they use, and the amount of product they produce.

Just search the internet for upgrade projects at refineries and you'll see that the no new refinery argument has no merit. Sure, if NIMBY wasn't an issue, we might have a few more refineries, however our country's total refining capacity would likely still be pretty much the same.

[SouthpawSass]

THANK YOU!

My biggest problem with the media is that when McCain makes a statement, they just let him blather on and on with no follow questions probing what it is the man is saying.

And the media wonders why the American public find them so unreliable.

[reasonshouldrule]

Yes yes yes. There has been no penalty for public lying for many years now, and that's why we have so much of it. The media shed its responsibility to tell the truth and challenge the lies a generation ago.

[GLaB]

"As for what is not true, you will always find abundance in the newspapers­." --Thomas Jefferson to Barnabas Bidwell, 1806.

[army193]

The courts have ruled that MSM can misinform America going back to the ruling in favor of Fox a few years back. It has been the courts position that it is up to the American people to be informed that just goes against the ruling of Fox...How many times in the MSM have you been told that Oil industry has over 68 million give or take a few acres on shore and off shore that they can drill on? But all you here is the need the drilling rights to protected land and off shore leases on protected off shore waters.