If you�ve seen the TN GOP ad, or this McCain ad, you�d think Obama was responsible for high gas prices.

Why this issue is a red herring:

1) There are 172 US offshore drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, and 26 off of southern California. These rigs cover 77.3% of the known reserves or 68 billion barrels where drilling is already allowed.

2) The estimates of offshore oil reserves in areas where drilling has not been allowed amounts to only 18 billion barrels.

3) The untapped oil in the gulf would be extremely difficult and expensive to obtain. Most of it is under a mile of ocean, 1 to 2 miles of granite and a mile of salt. It would cost more to produce than it would sell for. In order to make this possible, the government would have to extend to oil companies subsidies and tax breaks. If you factor that in, we�d actually be paying more for the oil than we would have to pay if we just bought it on the world market.

4) The 18 billion new offshore reserves would amount to just over 2 years of US oil demand. This added supply would take 10 years to obtain and only affect global oil prices by less than a nickel.

5) One spill on the level of the Exxon Valdez would cost as much as several billion dollars to clean up, not to mention the possibility of ruining a coastal habitat for a generation.

Reminder: McCain, his staff, and other conservatives repeatedly lied by saying that no oil was spilled during hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Even LA Republican Governor Jindal was clueless about the oil spills created by Katrina and Rita. The Minerals Management Service reported that 113 oil platforms were �totally destroyed� � a total of 124 offshore spills. The US coastguard, which is responsible for the marine environment, said more than 6.5 million gallons of crude oil had been spilled - one of the worst spills in US history.

The fact is that Democrats want to see more domestic drilling where leases are already held.

House Democrats are pushing legislation they say would spur oil drilling on already available lands in Alaska, the West and the western Gulf of Mexico. Reserves in shale and land areas in the west hold far more productivity than new offshore drilling.

All data and facts here are documented on this post at www.tennesseefree.com

Posted by: William at July 26, 2008 1:12 AM

Talk about red herrings.

Yeah, there are 172 rigs. There need to be more, but Uncle Sam makes it very difficult for the oil industry to get drilling permits even in areas where drilling is permitted and they have leases.

The estimates of oil in the off-limits area are most certainly low. USGS estimates are routinely revised upwards once the drilling starts. If USGS estimates were right, Prudhoe Bay would have ceased production years ago, yet the oil continues to flow down the pipeline.

So the oil in the offlimits area would be too costly to produce? Then what's your objection to lifting the ban? If the oil companies aren't going to drill for it because they'd lose money by doing it, lifting the ban would - based on your assertions - have no affect.

On the other hand, the oil companies say they do want to drill for that oil. Why? Because they know better than you and the Democrat talking points you regurgitate that they can make a profit drilling for that oil, and they know the USGS estimates are routinely wrong on the low side.

As for the 18 billion barrels as current estimated, if the Saudis announce a production increase of 1 million barrels, the price of oil drops by far more than a nickel. There's also the psychological factor - if the U.S. shows it is serious about tapping as much of its domestic oil resources as possible, the Saudis will drop the price of Saudi crude to make it less profitable for American oil companies to drill in America, in order to keep Saudi market share.

It happened in the 1970s when the U.S. opened up the Prudhoe Bay area, even though the oil didn't start flowing right away.

As for oil spillage, the amount spilled from offshore oil platforms - even during Katrina - is dwarfed by natural oil seepage from the sea floor.

Your mention of the Exxon Valdez is another red herring, for a couple of reasons. One, we're talking about drilling platforms, not tankers. Two, very soon the oil companies will have retired all single-hulled tankers and replaced them with double-hulled tankers, making the possibility of another Exxon Valdez-sized spill very, very unlikely.

You write, "Democrats want to see more domestic drilling where leases are already held."

That's because they know those areas have already been explored and there's not much to drill for.

You write, "Reserves in shale and land areas in the west hold far more productivity than new offshore drilling."

Yes, the oil shale holds huge potential. Problem is, there's a congressional moratiorium on developing much of it, and Barack Obama even says he will oppose increased importation of oil from Canada's oil sands and shale in Alberta because he doesn't like the environmental impacts of recovering that oil. (Thus showing Obama's complete economic ignorance as Canada is going to produce the oil for someone else even if we don't buy it.)

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at July 28, 2008 12:33 PM

False assumption #1 - "There need to be more, but Uncle Sam makes it very difficult for the oil industry to get drilling permits even in areas where drilling is permitted and they have leases."

There has never been an administration more in bed with the oil industry

False assumption #2 - "The estimates of oil in the off-limits area are most certainly low."

Maybe high, maybe low, most certainly uncertain

False assumption #3 - "the amount spilled from offshore oil platforms - even during Katrina - is dwarfed by natural oil seepage from the sea floor."

6.5 million gallons of crude oil had been spilled - one of the worst spills in US history in a relatively small geographic area is not 'natural'

False assumption #4 - "That's because they know those areas have already been explored and there's not much to drill for."

This is the most audacious and baseless smear. It defies logic.

False Assumption #5 - "Yes, the oil shale holds huge potential. Problem is, there's a congressional moratiorium on developing much of it..."

Yes, thanks GOP...Most Republicans voted against the Drill Act last Thursday which would have encouraged greater development of oil shale reserves.

Posted by: William at July 28, 2008 9:18 PM

You ought to do a little research before you post assertions that you lack the facts to back up, or that are only somewhat related to the issues at hand.

The Bush administration may be the most pro-oil administration ever, but the bureaucracy in place, and the rules and regs in place, haven't been changed since before they came into office, and that process currently makes it very difficult for oil companies to get the necessary permits, in part because the moment they file, enviro groups file lawsuits. That is the main reason it takes 10 years for a newly opened field to begin to produce oil - the obstacles created by regulations and enviro group lawsuits.

Now, as for seepage versus spills: According to the National Academy of Sciences, 63 percent of the petroleum in American waters comes from natural seepage, while LESS THAN ONE PERCENT comes from drilling and extraction, and 4 percent comes from "transportion and tankering."

The remaining 32 percent comes from "cars, boats and other sources."

http://www.noia.org/website/article.asp?id=129

Further, the 6.5 million gallons of Katrina-related spillage you mention sounds bad, but in truth it is less than 10 percent of the estimated 76 million gallons of oil that gets into American waters each year due to seepage, spillage and the other two inputs.

Natural seepage of crude oil from geologic formations below the seafloor to the marine environment off North America is estimated to exceed 47 million gallons per year. Spillage from activities associated with oil and gas exploration or production is estimated at just 880,000 gallons per year. So, yes, 6.5 million was a "big" spill compared with normal drilling activity, but it is small compared to the natural seepage.

And, remember, Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane when it hit those platforms. Frankly, the amazing stat is how many platforms were NOT destroyed and did NOT spill oil into the sea.

Katrina proved offshore drilling can be done without significant risk to the environment - after all, Category 5 hurricanes are rare. The 6.5 million figure is an outlier.

If we doubled offshore drilling we'd risk doubling spillage to 1.76 million - still well below the Katrina-related spillage.

Looks like I was right and you were wrong on that one.

(Frankly, if you are worried about man-made spills, you should favor increased domestic drilling as it would reduce the use of tankers to move oil here from the Middle East. Fewer tankers, oil traveling less distance, adds up to likely a reduction in spills.

And it's a lot easier to clean up a spill from a busted pipeline than a tanker wreck. Pilpelines are built with sensors so that when a drop in pressure is detected indicating a spill, the pipeline shuts down. Tanker hits something, there's no stopping the spill.

Plus, pipelines like the Alaska Oil Pipeline have proven to be a boon to wildlife.

Next: Existing leases: The Dems are happy to point out the existing leases because it seems like a way to get off-the-hook for opposing new drilling, but it's a dodge - the oil companies have already explored much of that area, and have drilled in the best locations. If there was significant oil elsewhere under those leases, they'd be drilling for it.

Based on your side's claims about the existing leases and the off-limits area, it appears that your side believes the oil companies would rather drill in the off-limits areas for a little amount of oil than drill in their existing leased areas for lots of oil.

Which only shows that your side doesn't understand economics and business. Oil companies won't spend millions to drill for a little oil when they can spend the same amount or a little more to drill for a lot of oil. Drilling and extraction is simply too expensive to drill where the oil ain't.

Next: Shale oil. You know full well the Democrat bill on shale that the GOPers voted against was a CYA sham on the part of the Dems. It didn't go far enough, and contained things the GOP couldn't vote for, and didn't address offshore drilling satisfactorily.

I know you're bummed because about 80 percent of the American people agree with the GOP position on oil drilling and your side has the hapless Harry Reid and the ridiculous Nancy Pelosi standing in the way of what the American people want, but at least you could try to argue facts with facts, not with unsupportable and off-point assertions.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at July 29, 2008 1:50 PM

Nice try Bill.
You want facts?

If oil companies are allowed to drill absolutely everywhere they want to drill, they�d hit peak production in 15 to 20 years and that peak production would meet just 5% of US demand. How much price pressure do you really think that�s going to create?

If lack of domestic production is the problem, then why are we currently exporting about 13% of what we produce today? It�s more profitable for big oil to do so. We sell our oil to Australia and Japan, where they�ll pay more for it, and buy the cheap stuff from Canada and the Middle East.

If you understand basic market economics, the oil companies are currently selling every drop they can produce at top dollar, so where�s the incentive to charge less?

Oil companies already have drilling rights on 68 million acres but choose not to exploit them because of the expense of often having to pay royalties to the landowners.

Posted by: William at July 31, 2008 11:04 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):