By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Fact check - McCain/Obama's support for offshore drilling

The Oil Drum is a very good site for learning about oil and energy in general, a topic which is perhaps the most important in this day and age. They're now starting to run a feature where they discuss the facts behind the presidential candidates' plans for energy.

Here is the first one, on offshore drilling:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4621

Senators Obama and McCain are both aware that energy is central to Americas future. However, they differ on the details, and since confidence and authority can sway peoples beliefs, it is important, as always, to 'check the facts'. In last nights debate, Obama, while pointing out the US holds 3% of world oil reserves but uses 25% of world oil production said that we need to 'change the way we view energy in our lives' (to me implying that becoming energy independent is unlikely). In contrast, while McCain agreed on 'ridding ourselves of dependence on foreign oil', his discussion of the "Drill Here Drill Now" strategy implied that such a plan would achieve both lower prices and more energy independence. How much of the energy debate issues are 'politics' vs. facts?


Below the fold is a guest commentary by Professor Cutler Cleveland, providing a needed 'fact-check' on recent political claims being made on offshore drilling.

FACT CHECK

In the run-up to the election, this is the first in a short series of brief fact-checking exercises regarding the major energy issues in the campaign.

Senators McCain and Obama have expressed support for increased offshore oil drilling as part of their respective plans for energy. Senator McCain specifically suggests that opening offshore waters in the U.S. to oil exploration will (a) significantly increase domestic production, and (2) put downward pressure on oil prices.

Is this true? The short answer is no.

The federal government controls access to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which refers to the submerged lands under the ocean farther than about 3.3 miles from the coast (about 10 miles from Texas and the Gulf coast of Florida). Land closer than that is under state jurisdiction; land beyond about 230 miles is in international water. Beginning in 1982, Congress passed and has subsequently renewed moratoria on the leasing of federal land off the coast of all states except Texas, Louisiana and parts of Alaska. All existing moratoria on leasing in the OCS will expire in 2012. Debate now centers on whether or not to renew the moratoria.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the U.S. Department of Interior estimates that there are about 86 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in the federal Outer Continental Shelf; the Lower 48 OCS accounts for about 59 billion barrels. By way of comparison, U.S proved reserves of oil are about 21 billion barrels.

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy used the MMS data to assess what impact a lifting of the ban in 2012 for the Lower 48 OCS would have on U.S. oil production. Basically, the EIA estimated what fraction of the technically recoverable oil would be economical to recover, and how fast it could be produced after 2012. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. The EIA found that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf of Mexico regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil production or prices before 2030. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in EIA's "no access" reference case.

The effect of that quantity of oil on the price of oil would be indiscernible. Oil prices are determined on the international market, and the addition of about 0.16 million barrels per day from the OCS in 2030 to total world oil production would have no significant impact on oil market fundamentals. The world consumed about 86 million barrels per day in 2007, and will consume about 112 million barrels per day in 2030, according to EIA forecasts.

Adding the Alaska OCS to the mix would not appreciably alter this conclusion, as that oil would be even more costly and in terms of dollars and time compared to Lower 48 OCS resources.

Thus, lifting the ban on offshore drilling will not significantly increase domestic production, nor will it put downward pressure on oil prices.

There may be other arguments for offshore drilling, such as domestic job creation and tax revenue, improved balance of payments, among others. But those are subjects for another analysis….

Professor Cutler Cleveland
Boston University
10/08/2008

Sources:
--Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf, Annual Energy Review 2007.
--Minerals Management Service, Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas Resources of the Nation’s Outer Continental Shelf, 2006.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network

wow...lol



Jandre002 said:
wow...lol


Care to elaborate? ;)

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

So? Not looking forward to the distant future is what got us into this mess. That article mentions that OCS drilling won't affect international prices... Who cares? The point is to make this country energy independent, provide US jobs, and keep that oil money within our borders, not to get oil barrels down to $30 again. Lowering the price of oil is the last thing this country needs right now. It will prompt us to go right back to our bad habit of relying on the crude to power everything.

We need more domestic oil, we need to cut energy consumption, and we need to start using alternatives and nuclear to power this country. This isn't a one answer approach.

BTW, unless I missed something, no mention is made of ANWR in that article.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:

So? Not looking forward to the distant future is what got us into this mess. That article mentions that OCS drilling won't affect international prices... Who cares? The point is to make this country energy independent, provide US jobs, and keep that oil money within our borders, not to get oil barrels down to $30 again. Lowering the price of oil is the last thing this country needs right now. It will prompt us to go right back to our bad habit of relying on the crude to power everything.

We need more domestic oil, we need to cut energy consumption, and we need to start using alternatives and nuclear to power this country. This isn't a one answer approach.

BTW, unless I missed something, no mention is made of ANWR in that article.


If you read the whole article, you'd notice this part:

"There may be other arguments for offshore drilling, such as domestic job creation and tax revenue, improved balance of payments, among others. But those are subjects for another analysis…."

This article just disproved the claims that offshore drilling would significantly increase production and decrease prices.

Regarding ANWR, that's not offshore drilling. Maybe they'll do an article on that one later.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Around the Network

Ah, missed that line. Still, doesn't matter... Common sense tells you that with countries like Brazil, China, and India increasing demand every year, nothing the US can produce is going to affect pricing much.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:
Ah, missed that line. Still, doesn't matter... Common sense tells you that with countries like Brazil, China, and India increasing demand every year, nothing the US can produce is going to affect pricing much.


True, but that is something that most people don't understand. They hear "drill, baby drill" and assume it will be the magical solution to high gas prices.

It should also be said that the factors you mentioned are quite unpredictable due to the changes in the world economy. A big recession might change consumption patterns, but it can't change the geological ones.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:
rocketpig said:
Ah, missed that line. Still, doesn't matter... Common sense tells you that with countries like Brazil, China, and India increasing demand every year, nothing the US can produce is going to affect pricing much.


True, but that is something that most people don't understand. They hear "drill, baby drill" and assume it will be the magical solution to high gas prices.

It should also be said that the factors you mentioned are quite unpredictable due to the changes in the world economy. A big recession might change consumption patterns, but it can't change the geological ones.

 

Well, if we had actually started drilling there in 1985 (or when ever the idea was first thrown araound) we would be a hell of a lot closer to active production now wouldn't we? And we will be making the same argument in 2025 if we don't drill now. Look, the world's supply of oil is only going to get smaller, so why the HELL would you not drill for what you know is there? You know you're going to need it at some point, because there's no way an alternative tchnology is going to take over for oil until at least 2040. Also, nobody said that drilling now will instantly drop prices to $0.90/gallon, but starting drilling 25 years ago would definitely have had an impact on the insane prices of last summer. I don't understand the rational of not drilling just because it won't have any impact TODAY. Why not plan for the future? While drilling there definitely won't solve all our problems, every bit of oil out there helps some. I say go drill for it.

 



Not trying to be a fanboy. Of course, it's hard when you own the best console eve... dang it

Retrasado said:

Well, if we had actually started drilling there in 1985 (or when ever the idea was first thrown araound) we would be a hell of a lot closer to active production now wouldn't we? And we will be making the same argument in 2025 if we don't drill now. Look, the world's supply of oil is only going to get smaller, so why the HELL would you not drill for what you know is there? You know you're going to need it at some point, because there's no way an alternative tchnology is going to take over for oil until at least 2040. Also, nobody said that drilling now will instantly drop prices to $0.90/gallon, but starting drilling 25 years ago would definitely have had an impact on the insane prices of last summer. I don't understand the rational of not drilling just because it won't have any impact TODAY. Why not plan for the future? While drilling there definitely won't solve all our problems, every bit of oil out there helps some. I say go drill for it.

 

I'm not saying drilling shouldn't happen. Just putting things into much needed perspective.

Regarding what you said about starting to drill decades ago, notice this part from one of the sources:

Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

The best thing for oil prices to do are go up, drastically, until research into alternative energy is not just an option but necessary. This would be more efficient solar panels as a stopgap and then nuclear fusion as a long term solution. This would be supplemented by hydrogen as a portable fuel for cars, with the energy for that coming from the two mentioned. Drilling is just prolonging the problem.