How Not to Lower Gas Prices

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust mixx.com

Posted July 14, 2008 | 01:56 PM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

President Bush's announcement today that he is lifting the Executive Ban placing a moratorium on new offshore drilling is disappointing, but really not that surprising. For the last 7½ years, he and Vice President Cheney have pushed an energy policy which focuses primarily on drilling everywhere. The result has been sky high energy costs for American consumers and record profits for big oil and gas.

As someone who lives in and represents Santa Barbara, CA and witnessed the horrible economic and environmental consequences of the huge 1969 oil spill, I know I have a certain bias against new offshore drilling. But even so, President Bush's call for more drilling as the solution to high gas prices hits a few dry holes.

First, a report last year threw cold water on the idea of new offshore drilling as the way to lower gas prices. It said that new offshore drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030" and that the impact on prices would be "insignificant." The source of this report is...the Bush administration's own Energy Information Administration!

Second, we simply can't drill our way to "energy independence" even if we wanted. The U.S. has less than 3% of world oil supplies, yet we make up nearly 25% of world demand. More drilling off our coasts (and in Alaska, for that matter) isn't going to change those numbers. No one should believe arguments that more drilling in these pristine areas means we will stop relying on oil from the Middle East, Venezuela or Russia. More drilling won't end our addiction to oil -- it just enables it.

Third, most people probably don't know that 80% of the oil and gas resources off our coasts are already available for leasing and drilling! While large swaths of our coasts are off limits to new drilling, the areas where most oil and gas are located are not. Listening to President Bush, Sen. McCain and others, you'd think we've been locking up all our resources -- the opposite is true.

Fourth, we are drilling more domestically than we have in years. Following on Vice President Cheney's ridiculous statement that conservation is merely a "personal virtue," the Bush administration's energy policy has basically been to drill for more oil and gas wherever they can and hope that the prices come down. It has leased public lands for drilling throughout the West, the Gulf Coast and elsewhere at a record pace over the last 7½ years.

Interestingly, right now the oil and gas industry is sitting on 68 million acres of public lands where it could be drilling but isn't. It has some 6,000 leases in the Gulf of Mexico (where the majority of oil and natural gas reserves are found) that are not being explored. According to Senator McCain and President Bush, the oil and gas industry wants to lower prices for American consumers but they can't because they're prevented from drilling. This couldn't be further from the truth.

So, we're drilling domestically more than ever, the oil industry already has access to most offshore resources, the industry is not drilling in millions of acres of public land that it has leased and, even if it did, it wouldn't release us from our reliance on foreign oil and it wouldn't lower prices. And more offshore drilling is the president's solution?

In contrast to these tired "drill only" proposals, Democrats have pushed a responsible, comprehensive energy policy to provide relief from these high prices and wean our economy off fossil fuels. In the short-term, we're calling on President Bush to immediately release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Earlier this year it took an act of Congress to force the Bush administration to stop filling the SPR while oil is at record high prices. Now we are calling on him to release some of the SPR oil onto the market to help drive down prices. Similar actions have been taken several times, most recently by President Bush following Hurricane Katrina. Each time prices dropped significantly. Taking this simple step would probably reduce gasoline prices more in 10 days than President Bush's offshore drilling proposal would do in 10 years.
In addtion, oil and gas companies should "use or lose" access to the 68 million publicly held acres where they can currently drill but aren't. There's no reason that companies should be able to lock up oil and gas reserves on publicly held land when we've made a choice as a nation to begin extraction in those locations.

In the long term, we need to extend and increase tax incentives for alternative energy, like solar, wind and biomass, and require utilities to get an increasing share of their energy from renewable sources. This is being done in states like California and Texas already, but President Bush is fighting our effort to make this a nationwide mandate. We also have to become more energy efficient. The new Democratically controlled Congress already passed the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars in 32 years and took steps to make our appliances and buildings more energy efficient. But we have to do more. Much more.

Unfortunately, President Bush, Senator McCain and Congressional Republicans have responded to our serious energy challenges pushing political gimmicks like the gas tax holiday and new offshore drilling. These are the policies that got us into this mess in the first place and they aren't going to get us out of it.

 
 

Comments
64
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- fishsandwichesr2good See Profile I'm a Fan of fishsandwichesr2good

"These are the policies that got us into this mess in the first place and they aren't going to get us out of it." Excuse me, but the policies that got us into this mess are those that restricted the supply of energy from sources like nuclear power and oil drilling. Fuel standards and subsidizing alternative energy approaches like wind & solar power (a.k.a., the Jimmy Carter approach) is hardly a new and innovative idea. In fact, it's an old and failed one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 07/16/2008
- bdaved See Profile I'm a Fan of bdaved

Saying that increased drilling is the answer to our energy problem is like saying that a new credit card is the answer to a spending problem. The main reason we shouldn't be expanding the scope of drilling for oil into prohibited areas is we've proven we can't be trusted with it. Until we prove that we're capable of making responsible energy choices, particularly about personal transportation, we should leave that oil for people who might someday know what to do with it. We need to learn that we can't just drive whatever we can afford however we can afford to.
My energy choices will affect you. I'll try to do right by you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:07 PM on 07/16/2008
- KingGeorgetheShrub See Profile I'm a Fan of KingGeorgetheShrub

We are all paying extreme prices for our energy.

The first thing we need to start working on is decentralizing the energy industry. The perfect way to do this is with home solar panels. If we take the 30 billion in subsidies that the oil industry enjoys each year, we could install 2 million homes a year with solar panels at a $15,000.00 discount per home. We will also need to mandate that all new home construction will be required to install solar panels. As the amount of homes with solar increase, a new power grid will also need to be setup to share the solar energy with the rest of the country.

CAFÉ standards need to adjust to at least 50 MPG. The auto industry will fight this tooth and nail as they always do for any change (i.e. seatbelts, airbags¦). The technology already exists to work on achieving these new standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

What benefits could we expect from these modest changes?
1. Create millions of new jobs that cannot be exported overseas.
2. Generated cheap clean energy for all of America.
3. It will not be as easy to compromise the power grid from terrorist attacks.
4. We will no longer be held hostage to oil.


Unfortunately the hardest thing to accomplish in formula will be changing the minds of Americans to turn away from fossil fuels.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:08 AM on 07/15/2008
- CaseyBabes See Profile I'm a Fan of CaseyBabes

If there was oil in the Federal lands already leased as Democrat leadership likes to lament, then there would be drilling there if allowed. So merely citing already leased areas is a shell game, in effect, we (Democrats) are for drilling and against opening up new areas. Cool........drill where it ain't, but leave the oil alone where it is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 07/15/2008
- scooperss See Profile I'm a Fan of scooperss

Wow. The oil companies are paying to lease land with no oil? How smart of you to figure that out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 AM on 07/15/2008
- CaseyBabes See Profile I'm a Fan of CaseyBabes

Leased once to explore for oil and natural gas, found none so the areas lay dormant.. Lease durations last for decades. See you're still diminishing yourself with snide remarks rather than logical responses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:42 PM on 07/15/2008
- onegandolf1 See Profile I'm a Fan of onegandolf1

So, The Bush Administration (and chief toady, John McCain) lies to us again. One would think that the MSM would just ignore anything coming from 1600, they would rather ignore news that they have to work for than something handed to them already for print. Just like the run-up to Iraq.

Big Deal !!!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 AM on 07/15/2008
- csavage See Profile I'm a Fan of csavage

Thanks so much for your Not in My Backyard attitude.
As a resident of Texas from 1964 on, I can tell you, we've had NO oil spills attributable to drilling in TX. We had a few attributable to the fact the oil we do import comes in to this country in the Port of Houston, among other places. We know where 80% of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico is, but not where 80% of the oil off the coast line is-the oil and gas companies are not going to explore in areas they can't drill anyway.
But, as you said, more drilling isn't the solution-getting away from the internal combustion engine is.

You are as bad as the MSM-you throw out a bunch of referenceless statements and know that the pseudoliberals on this site will snap it up, just because it's antiBush. Houston ain't much but it's teeming with geologists.
And, by the way, why don't you use your power of office to get the oil and gas companies to start paying royalties on the leases they are using. They're nothing like seeing oil derricks off the coast, knowing that the oil is going to the company for the cost of exploration alone

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:00 AM on 07/15/2008
- TxAggie See Profile I'm a Fan of TxAggie

Csavage- thanks for the post but you are off just a tad off with you statement that oil companies receive production for the cost of exploration. Royalties in the federal OCS range from 12.5 to 18.75% depending on vintage of the lease and water depth. Some deepwater leases are royalty free up to a certain volume of production depending on water depth (the largest is 84 MMBOE). In addition oil companies bid competitively for the leases and the bid adequacy level is determined by the gov't. After the lease is awarded, the lessee pays rentals up to $9.50 per acre (DW blocks are 5760 acres) to maintian th elease absent drilling or production. The federal leasing program is conducted according to law- the MMS monitors OCS activities very closely and will demand the release of leases that are beyond the primary term that are not producing in "paying quantities". It is all well run and the GOM produces 30% of the oil and 21% of the natural gas produced domestically. The problem is the GOM can only carry the load for so long- we have been exploring in the Central and Western Gulf for 60 years, it is time to open up more promising areas now that we need the production more than ever. See you around town.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:48 PM on 07/17/2008
- retreat See Profile I'm a Fan of retreat

I would like to know just how much the US' Middle East policies have affected the price of oil and natural gas. Let's start with the First Gulf War and the following ten years of extreme sanctions on Iraqi imports of machinery /parts to keep the wells and refineries going. Then there was the Second Gulf War. Then there were the sanctions on Libya. The same number has been done on Iran.
The West, with US leadership, is dithering building pipelines across "Muslim" states. In the meantime, Russia has almost cornered the market on natural gas, and its wealth is increasing thanks to the price of oil. The US is cutting its own throat, and it has nothing to do with offshore drilling.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 AM on 07/15/2008
- PandeiroMan See Profile I'm a Fan of PandeiroMan

Go tell it on the mountain Rep. Capps. Keep fighting the good fight, you make us proud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:23 PM on 07/14/2008
- Leatherhelmet See Profile I'm a Fan of Leatherhelmet

Nobody cares about the leases. Pass a use it or lose it bill. It is irrelevant. What is important to drill offshore now, use oil shale reserves, follow T. Boone Pickens plan and build nuclear and continue the development of ethanol and cellulosic ethanol.

Blaming Bush and crying about an oil spill 40 years ago doesn't cut it. Crying about Bush opening up strategic reserves (for emergencies and times of war -- which we are in) is plain stupid. It is people like you that don't want drilling off-shore and cried wolf about nuclear plants for years that is causing the pain in this country.

Pelosi promised action and what you call a "sensible" plan is insanity. Raising taxes on oil companies does nothing, whining about oil leases does nothing and crying about strategic reserves does nothing.

We need a short-term plan, a "bridge" plan and long-term plan. This Congress and the Democrats is the worst most ineffective legislature possibly ever in the history of our country.

Remember, Bush's ratings are 300% better than yours. Get to work.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:12 AM on 07/15/2008
- MajorKong See Profile I'm a Fan of MajorKong

So, let's just assume you're correct (and I don't think you are) and we drill everywhere and the price of oil comes down significantly. Then we'll just go back to driving our 10 mpg SUVs and in 10 years we're right back where we are now except we won't have any more reserves to tap.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 AM on 07/15/2008
- akryan See Profile I'm a Fan of akryan

The main reason for the ineffecitiveness is that the senate has been the most obstructionist in history. It took them about month to set the record calls to recommit, and intents to filibuster. The house is doing a decent job but nothing can get through the senate. It's a far cry from "the nuclear option" they all wanted when they were in the majority.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:50 AM on 07/15/2008
- vippy See Profile I'm a Fan of vippy

We look everywhere but where we should. All congress has to do is put limitations on the future's market and they could have saved themselves the stimulus check. But no,
they are making too much money off these gas prices, so they aren't going to change
it until election time and then blame the whole mess on the GOP. Wait and see.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:38 AM on 07/15/2008
- gwpriester See Profile I'm a Fan of gwpriester

I automatically know that anything Bush is for is bad for me and bad for the country, and the world. Nothing he has supported has been good for anybody except his mega-wealthy friends who probably think of Mr. Bush as a likable, but simple minded person who hasn't a clue.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:54 PM on 07/14/2008
- alguien See Profile I'm a Fan of alguien

i was a child in san diego when the santa barbara oil spil occured and i can vividly remember, even as far south as san diego was, seeing globules of black goop all over the sand.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 07/14/2008
- Camarosc35 See Profile I'm a Fan of Camarosc35

I listened incredulously as Lou Dobbs lauded Bush's proposal to lift the Executive Order banning offshore drilling and commended Senator McCain's support of it. He even added that this would provide "immediate" relief to Americans; I say incredulous for surely Dobbs is aware that, first, any yield is at least a decade away and, second, would last only for a decade. I thought he was smarter than that and actually cared for the American people. You know, I will copy and send this to him, too. Anyway, refreshing to read such an insightful and valid piece. ...Posted :)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:49 PM on 07/14/2008
- fishsandwichesr2good See Profile I'm a Fan of fishsandwichesr2good

If Bill Clinton hadn't vetoed the ANWR drilling legislation 10 years ago, we'd likely be getting a million barrels a day from that location. You can't keep repeating that argument every decade and not expect to get laughed at.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 PM on 07/14/2008
- MajorKong See Profile I'm a Fan of MajorKong

We use over 20 million barrels a day at current consumption rates. 1 million/day is not going to make us "energy independent".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:15 AM on 07/15/2008
- got2Bkidding See Profile I'm a Fan of got2Bkidding

If Bush really meant it when he said we were "addicted to oil" and that he was "committed" to alternative sources, we wouldn't need that million barrels a day.

Instead its been all oil all the time. Actually cutting funds for research into alterantives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 07/15/2008
- akryan See Profile I'm a Fan of akryan

Allowing it doesn't make it happen. You have to give billions in tax incentives for oil companies to go after the oil. At the time of the veto gas was only about $1/gal. Oil companies weren't going to go after it at those prices. They would sit on the leases like they are with the natural gas leases they have up here now. This is coming from an Alaskan who wouldn't mind seeing ANWR drilled. What drives me craziest though is listening to people act like oil drilling is some sort of socialized activity. "We" wouldn't be getting a million barrels a day. The oil would belong to the oil companies that we subsidized to drill it. We would still have to compete with every other nation out there to buy it at market price. The oil in ANWR would belong to British Petroleum and be pumped straight into tankers headed to China because they are the ones willing to pay the most for it. Drilling is good for the states that depend on it as their tax base, but don't count on it to bring pump prices down folks. The only thing that will is decreasing consumption and figuring out some way to resurrect the dollar which hit another low against the euro yesterday.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:17 AM on 07/15/2008
- kodon See Profile I'm a Fan of kodon

Look, we have to ask ourselves if he really wants to lower gas and oil prices. He proposes solutions like coastal drilling that he knows won't help the prices, and that no one will accept, and then, when his solution isn't implemented, he can say, "What do you want from me--I gave you a solution and you rejected it. It's not my fault." And he keeps everybody in an uproar "debating" the nonstarter "solution," and he gets the blame pointed elsewhere. And he gets to stick it to California.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:12 PM on 07/14/2008
- chendri887 See Profile I'm a Fan of chendri887

Okay, Rep Capps. I completely agree. But it's time for people like you to do something about this situation. Another post on the Huffington Post blog is not going to cut it. I'm sick of Democratic rhetoric without action. I had enough of that with the Clintons, and it continues to this day. Does anyone on the left who holds government power actually want to stand up for what they believe in? Or, is it all just a game of rhetoric and playing it safe? Does the whole thing really have to collapse before we get another round of programs like those offered after the Great Depression? It appears that is more and more true with every passing day.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 PM on 07/14/2008
- Mildmannered See Profile I'm a Fan of Mildmannered

chendri887, maybe we should stop waiting for politicians, even seemingly reasonable democratic ones, to propose solutions, maybe we should propose solutions on this board. My opinion is (and I am glad that you asked) is that there is no magic bullet solution, well at least not yet, to the energy crisis. Rather, it is going to take a multi-faceted approach, a grand compromise, one which will essentially piss everyone off.

Okay, your turn '887.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 AM on 07/15/2008
- chendri887 See Profile I'm a Fan of chendri887

Here's one, but I don't know how economically feasible it is, nor if it is a great way to save energy: I don't know why every house in the American Southwest is not equipped with solar panels. I've wondered that for years. Government subsidies could offset the costs. Even if these panels only reduced energy use by one or two percent, I am certain it would have a significant carbon reduction effect. It would also, over time, save people a great deal of money on their conventional energy bills. Perhaps it's not efficient? Is that why it hasn't been done? Oh, no? You mean it's because the government and energy companies are one giant oligarchy? Really? Anyway, that's one suggestion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:36 AM on 07/16/2008
- Nishnabe See Profile I'm a Fan of Nishnabe

Folks, I worked on the platfrom that blew out in 69 two years after the blowout. Guess what? We were drilling wells in the midst of the moratorium. Oh, it wasn't called "drilling" it was called "repositioning." In the mid-70's my brother worked on the Glomar explorer just around the corner in the Santa Maria basin. He knew then they had hit significant deposits of oil. Guess when that find was announced? In the mid-1980's. In the 80's folks in Oklahoma were told (after the unbelievable environmental mess the oil companies left) that there was no more oil in those fields in west Texas and Oklahoma. Guess where rigs are running right now? That's right, in those "dry fields." Dare I say it? WE NEED TO NATIONALIZE PIG OIL!!
A fourth generation oil field worker

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:45 PM on 07/14/2008
- Mike789 See Profile I'm a Fan of Mike789

Nishnabe,
What do you know of well heads that have been capped when they were deemed unprofitable when oil was cheap? I thought I read somewhere that well were capped at 35,40 and even 60 dollars a barrel.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:23 AM on 07/15/2008
- TxAggie See Profile I'm a Fan of TxAggie

Mike- there are wells that are "capped" at $145 oil. It's simple economics- if you drill a well and it is uneconomic because of price and or size- you do not complete it - you plug it. Nothing cynical or mysterious about. Currest prices justify drilling a lot of prospects that were uneconomic before. However- don't believe the hype about the thousands of wells containing hydrocarbons that have been "capped' by oil companies- i have worked for 6 independents throughout my career and have never seen a well plugged because it wasn't either (1) a dry hole or (2) uneconomic to complete. It is an urban legend that oil companies drill good wells and then "cap" them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:59 PM on 07/17/2008
- ProudNeoCon See Profile I'm a Fan of ProudNeoCon

"In the mid-1980's. In the 80's folks in Oklahoma were told (after the unbelievable environmental mess the oil companies left) that there was no more oil in those fields in west Texas and Oklahoma. Guess where rigs are running right now? That's right, in those "dry fields." "

That is incorrect - they were told that there is not oil left which can be pumped at cost bellow price of oil at that time using than vailable technology. Oil price changed so did technology. this those fields are viable again...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 07/14/2008
- Nishnabe See Profile I'm a Fan of Nishnabe

Proud Neo Con,

Then how come they capped a lot of wells in those days and simply did redrills or an acid wash to open them up? Once a well is drilled and transport is in place, usually by pipeline, the cost of production is set. They are drilling and producing in fields where the technology to produce the wells is the same as it was thirty years ago. The answer you ignore is simple. They sat on the production until the price went through the roof. The excuse they always give is the price must surpass the cost of production but the real reason is to suck all the oil out of the brown folks land over in the Middle East and then suck it out of here.