McCain's Cruel Offshore Drilling Hoax
The GOP and McCain/Bush keep insisting that an end to the federal moratorium on (some) offshore drilling is a major solution to America's oil woes, even though Bush's own energy analysts make clear it is not (see EIA bombshell: Offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices").
That Energy Information Administration analysis is, however, a couple of years old, so I called up the author today and asked if it was being updated. Turns out a new version will be published in a couple of days, but she explained to me that the "answers are not very different" -- no significant impact for the duration of the analysis (through 2030) -- for reasons I will discuss below. First, however, it wasn't until I talked to her and looked closely at the original analysis -- Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf -- that I understood what a cruel hoax this whole issue is.
The oil companies already have access to some 34 billion barrels of offshore oil they haven't even developed yet, but ending the federal moratorium on offshore drilling would probably add only another 8 billion barrels (assuming California still blocks drilling off its coast). Who thinks adding under 100,000 barrels a day in supply sometime after 2020 -- some one-thousandth of total supply -- would be more than the proverbial drop in the ocean? Remember the Saudis couldn't stop prices from rising now by announcing that they will add 500,000 barrels of oil a day by the end of this year!
Here is the key data from EIA:
Look closely. As of 2003, oil companies had available for leasing and development 40.92 billion barrels of offshore oil in the Gulf of Mexico. I asked the EIA analyst how much of that (estimated) available oil had been discovered in the last five years. She went to her computer and said "about 7 billion barrels have been found." That leaves about 34 billion still to find and develop.
The federal moratorium only blocks another 18 billion barrels of oil from being developed. But, as you can see, most of that is off of California, which has bipartisan opposition to drilling from Republican Governor Schwarzenegger -- who, unlike McCain, seems serious about his commitment to greenhouse gas reduction -- and the Democratic legislature, which remembers all too well the devastating 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara. Indeed, Karen Bass, the newly appointed speaker of the State Assembly, said, "The idea of increasing offshore drilling off the coast of California I think is absurd, and I can't even imagine we would entertain that." Why would they, given the risk to their beautiful coasts and their commitment to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions 80% by midcentury?
So that only leaves about 8 billion barrels, which is about what the world uses in three months. Not bloody much. And that assumes every other state, including Florida, goes aggressively with offshore drilling, which is exceedingly unlikely.
You may ask why big oil hasn't gotten around to the 34 billion barrels already available to them offshore, given the staggering price for oil? The answer is pretty much the same reason why the EIA analyst told me that ending the federal moratorium is "certainly not going to make a difference in the next 10 years": It ain't easy being non-green off-shore.
As she explained, 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?
Here are the assumptions EIA makes:
Assumptions about exploration, development, and production of economical fields (drilling schedules, costs, platform selection, reserves-to-production ratios, etc.) in the OCS access case are based on data for fields in the western Gulf of Mexico that are of similar water depth and size. Exploration and development on the OCS in the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the eastern Gulf are assumed to proceed at rates similar to those seen in the early development of the Gulf region. In addition, it is assumed that local infrastructure issues and other potential non-Federal impediments will be resolved after Federal access restrictions have been lifted.
And here is what EIA projects would happen to offshore oil production if the federal moratorium were eliminated and none of the states block drilling and if exploration and development of resources in those areas begin in 2012:
Essentially no extra oil beyond the reference case until 2020. And then from 2020 to 2030, the extra oil production averages about 150,000 barrels of oil a day.
But of course that's not going to happen since, as noted, absent the federal moratorium, California is not going to allow drilling off its cost. So we are almost certainly talking under 100,000 barrels a day sometime after 2020. And yet Senator McCain said:
"Tomorrow I'll call for lifting the federal moratorium for states that choose to permit exploration," McCain said. "I think that this and perhaps providing additional incentives for states to permit exploration off their coasts would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis."
It is cruel to mislead the public on a subject that matters so much to all Americans. If only we had a politician willing to engage in straight talk on this important issue.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Oil companies have whined about running out of oil since the 1930s; what we're seeing now is nothing new. They want (and generally have received) money for nuthin. Read about the Oil Depeletion Allowance.
This site is full of genuises. Here is the mantra of the left:
> keep open borders, add 10 mm Americans per decade to 300 mm base population, give them middle class entitlements, and expect country to reduce energy usage.
> do not build nuclear power because it's dangerous (oil refineries & supertankers & LNG & pipelines & gas trucks are apparently not risky)
> do not drill offshore because it's dangerous to environment (2/3 of our oil that is shipped from around the world in thousands of supertanker trips is no problem to environment).
> build a new fuel cell hybrid or whatever magic car (the idea has been around since the 1960's. If it's so easy, why doesn't someone do it?).
> build wind, solar & wave farms (except in environmentally sensitive places and where the beautiful people live like California and Massachusetts because they are unsightly).
Read my profile for the facts about nukes and solar and wind.
Nukes: 25 years of the worlds energy with cheap uranium, the 1 million years of waste. The links on my profile are to the nuke industry itself, verifying these numbers. Breeder reactor are science fiction, not off the shelf reactor technology, decades away, and still deadly waste.
Sine and Solar are the fastest cheapest only sustainable energy source available.
20GW wind installed last year
2 GW solar last year.
one, 2M$ NanoSolar machine can produce 1GW-20GW of 1$/average watt solar cells per years.
You can't drill for oil, build a nuke or coal plant in less then 7-14 years.
Nukes coal and drilling are the fantasy, Solar and wind are the reality.
Plug in hybrid cars using the new nearly perfect lithium batteries will eliminate 90% of the oil used for vehicle.
Don't be a talking point...
Do the math.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
Why would republicans risk a lie as big as the one they are telling the American public about off shore drilling?
Because they are desperate to have a bogey man and that bogey man would be an environmental socialist wacko who can be scapegoated for all of the ills in America which were actually created by Republican degeneracy.
If the Dems stick to the argument that drilling off shore will not bring the price of gas down, then they will win the issue.
BTW, some of that oil out there belongs to me and I am selling just some of it at the moment and I want $145 a barrell for it. If other Americans want to sell their share for $10 a barrel to Rush Limbaugh so he can take his Gulfstream Jet to France for a week end of golf then so be it. but please leave my share alone. I also want to just sell a little at a time to conserve my riches. Hey! I'm beginning to sound like OPEC
These GOP scoundrels now are using off-shore drilling as thier 'Iraqi' war type issue, 'You are either with us or against America' -Bush/Cheney 's 7 1/2 years of no energy policy and just watching his oil buddies rack up profits. How despicable...Always remember in early 2001 when Cheney brought his big oil buddies in to the White House and gave them the thumbs up to do whatever they want.....
2030, that's 22 years from now. By that time i hope oil will only be a mention in the history books.
A few weeks ago I was watching NOVA or some other special. The notion arose that the goal for an efficient hybrid vehicle of the future is to develop a storage battery that can hold the excess energy developed while in the combustion mode and then plug that back into the system. Rather than grid to vehicle, vehicle to grid. Our vehicles are potentially generators.
We need to get a Manhattan project for energy security going pronto.
How about imbedding induction sensors beneath the concrete or macadam. Every time a vehicle runs over one a small amount of energy is tranduced and sent to the grid. I really don't know. I enjoy Science Fiction. LOL
The 21st Century is before us. I believe we can build a dream system.
Solar power added to automobiles to store electrical power would be another nice alternative. Most people will still own a garage and will likely hard charge their cars still, especially in storms, but the solar panels would be a fine way to keep getting a charge in your battery while you've got your car parked in the parking lot for work.
I read recently that Germany has already met a goal of producing 20% of its electric needs from solar and wind. The key was a mandate ( and tax incentives) from the government. While we were cranking out Escalades and Hummers Japan was perfecting the first and second generations of hybrid cars and now are producing zero emission fuel cells for both cars and residential electric power. I ask all the SUV driving repugs with the plastic flags and yellow ribbon decals who are so rabid about drilling, drilling and more drilling------Don't you think there's a certain poetic irony in the US so eagerly abrogating it's technological leadership role to the Germans and Japanese ? Go USA?????
As far as the Japanese hybrid systems, did you know that some of the research was funded by the US Govt as well as US car makers? They (US car makers) decided that the American public wouldn't purchase hybrid cars so they didn't follow up on it.
Which is why in a free market we should let the American Auto Makers collapse and fail the way Supply and Demand is supposed to work.
The additional offshore drilling is merely another delusionary distraction to parry Congressional action to establish an EXCESS PROFITS' TAX on the U.S. petroleum industry. This clarion call is, in effect, just a feint to justify their margins in the face of seeming travail at the fuel pump!
Set the environmental standards you want then get the heck out of the way and let oil companies find the oil we need. High prices are the result of Democrat efforts to prevent domestic supply.
"High prices are the result of Democrat efforts to prevent domestic supply.'
lol, sounds like you've been drilling for kool aid and hit a gusher...
I say build a few nuclear power plants. Put them in very populated areas. We would need to insist that the waste products created stay in those communitites. I can hear the not in my backyarders now!
But skilled Union builders would greatly improve our tax base over the years needed to properly build a nuke plant. It is a lot of money going directly into the pockets of small business in these communities. Just like having a large military base in an area.
Except for the 1 million years of intractable deadly waste, and the fact the there is only enough cheap uranium for 25 years worth of the worlds energy, it's just like a military base.
Wind and solar: faster cheaper sustainable forever.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
Like Indian Point and Three Mile Island.
We must start to talk about reopening the leases for the tracts not being drilled at this time. What a windfall for our coffers! Raise the rent on the rich! The Oil Companies deserve it.
After we establish the true value of these tracts we could then open the entire of each of our coasts for lease. These companies are doing nothing now and will do nothing in the future. As long as record profits are being made there is no need to do anything.
"These companies are doing nothing now and will do nothing in the future. As long as record profits are being made there is no need to do anything."
Exactly right! Those figures of the tracts that can already be drilled and have yet to be show just how much of a smoke screen this whole "Drill the Coast" is. Not good tactics, but wouldn't it be interesting to call the Oil Companies bluff and open up those tracts with the caveat that they pay us for every day that they don't drill. I bet this whole farce would disappear like the cloud of CO2 that it is.
Tx: What do you know of the development and operation of oil fields, onshore or off?
Your suggestion of payment for every day that "they" dont drill will backfire in your face. At this time, with regard to Federal Leases, rental payment is already being made on non-productive leases. Requiring what you suggest will eliminate that payment from the Lessees. Many tracts are leased which include only a small amount which will be productive. It is like leasing all of ANWR to be able to produce the footprint, less than 1% of the entire area, then expecting the Lessee to pay a "fine" for not producing the other 99%. The percentages used here are for explanation only, and are very likely not accurate.
It will be years before any alternatives will able to replace oil. We need something right now!
Not trying to be sarcastic, what would you suggest that "something" be?
Just the opposite. It will be years before oil drilling can replace the 30GW's of wind being built this year and the 2 GW of solar./year/4 Million dollars of machines.
Very telling, Joe. And that quote at the end has a line that says what's going on here:
"providing additional incentives..." should put a few more bucks in the right (Right) pockets, don't ya think?
Oil at $200 a barrel is still cheaped than wind or solar . . . not to mention I can't put wind power in my car and food doesn't get to the store without gasoline.
false.
Even with the cost of the batteries, electric cars cost much less to drive then a oil fueled car. Wind is equal or lower in cost then nukes coal, therefore wind is cheaper then oil.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
wind and solar can replace nukes coal and oil for 1T$ in less then ten years. Less then oil subsides, cheaper then 2 years of US oil purchases.
THAT''s how much cheaper wind and solar are.
That's all very well but wind power ruins the view from the rich folks' backyards.
Ahh, but you can put wind power in your car, if you are driving an electric vehicle
Go within 1 mile of a wind turbine and tell me if you think it is a great idea. I know someone that lives near 1.5 miles away and all day and all night you can hear WHOOOSH WHOOOOSH WHOOOSH WHOOOSH (except when there is no wind in which can you hear its gas generator kick in to keep the supply of electricity steady).
Nuclear for electricity, Electricity for cars, Nat Gas for home heating, and Oil for fabrication. Wind and Solar for your conscience.
Too bad oil is running out and getting more expensive by the minute. Its finite and we have to depend on other countries for oil. Wind and solar on the other hand are infinite means of resources. I believe it will get cheaper as we rely on it more. Secondly we don't need anyone else but ourselves to supply us with an abundance of wind and solar.
Oil is so ingrained into our society that no one wants to move away from it. But we better. The pubic wants us to move away from oil. Soon Japanese EVs will be hitting our shores. While Detroit stick to making combustion engines, the world will be passing us by in renewable resources if we don't act quick.
Oil is running out? Who are you Jimmy Carter?
Easy to get oil is running out.
2 years of what we pay for oil in the USA, would pay to replace all coal wind and nukes with wind and solar.
Wind and solar are far faster to install then drilling, coal plants or nukes plants.
20GW of Wind last year, at 1.4$ per average watt.
2 GW solar last year.
NanoSolar has a 2M$ machine that makes 1GW per year for 1$ per average watt.
False.
Day4Energy (dot com) has the most energy efficient solar panels on the market (energy per square foot).
Thanks for the link? but there is nothing there.
Cost per watt is all that matters, within reason. The site you referenced had no efficiency numbers and no cost numbers. Why should I care?
Nano solar has by far the lowest cost per watt.
That's what matters.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
