Off-shore drilling is a stunt because there is no shortage of oil. The idea that there was a shortage of oil has been artificially fabricated by the Bush administration, who has made every effort to sabotage development of better alternatives and who has prevented market mechanisms from setting the prices.
The Bush administration has deliberately distorted the market for many years and has manipulated politics to stop oil prices from reflecting the political and environmental cost of taking oil from countries such as Iraq and Iran. We've been made addicted to oil and this constitutes one of the biggest threats to national security, while the price we pay for this amounts to trillions of dollars and is obscured by the fact that it is paid for with borrowed money. Also, as said, the harm inflicted on the environment and our health isn't reflected in the price of oil. In an effort to hide this, the Bush administration has manipulated the EPA and many other organizations that have proposed a more responsible approach.
Instead of remaining addicted to oil and transferring our wealth to politically volatile regions, we should invest in clean and safe ways to produce energy at home, in the process creating numerous new domestic job opportunities and build up the skills and expertise that will also provide numerous opportunities to patent and export new technology.
Off-shore drilling won't make oil cheaper, because there is no shortage of oil. We don't need more oil! We need to reduce the practice of burning fossil fuel, and not just in the US, but worldwide! We need better alternatives and we need to stop this market distortion that the Bush administration has been practicing for so many years.
Will this make oil more expensive? Probably not, since a shift to better alternatives will reduce demand for oil and this reduced demand will lower the price of oil, even when fees are added to better reflect its environmental harm. As the prices of oil and of better alternatives will be allowed to be set more by market mechanisms, those better alternatives will become ever cheaper, especially if compared with this insane plan to drill off-shore for oil that is to reach consumers more than a decade from now. Off-shore drilling is a stunt that shows McCain's inclination and intention to use the same deceptive policies of the Bush administration.
By making this the cornerstone of his policies, McCain shows to have no intention to reduce the practice of burning fossil fuel. That is the point Obama should focus on! Obama should point out that oil is currently more expensive than better alternatives because of the market distortion by the Bush administration. If market mechanisms would have been allowed to set the price, there wouldn't have been any energy "crisis" in the first place. This idea of a "shortage" of oil and an energy "crisis" is something that has been deliberately fabricated by the Bush administration. There is no shortage of oil, there is a shortage of good politics. There is a crisis within the Republican Party, because they fail to come up with policies that make sense. But there is no shortage of policies that make sense - ideas are free, please feel welcome and encouraged to copy this message widely.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
 | This article is licensed under a Creative Commons License Please copy this article widely and - if possible - include this footer! |
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 320 ( 2 removed by Sam Carana )
Agreed there is no shortage of oil. There is a shortage of oil produced in America instead of being imported from Saudi Arabia.
Agreed also that drilling will not lower the price of gasoline. Since the off shore drilling is uneconomical, lets allow it and get that monkey off the table. As long as it is not allowed, it will remain as a bone of contention in the energy debate, obscuring the real need to get going on alternative sources of energy. It does not deserve to be allowed to do that!
With off shore and the ANWR taken out of the equation, we can get on with the business as we need to desperately and neither of those options is likely to result in much drilling. What is being gained by opposing that?
I support Obama's concept of allowing drilling only if it is a part of a comprehensive package that would develop alternative energies. We need to end the debate and start with the action!
The perceived shortage of oil has been fabricated, whether it's oil drilled off the US coast or from the Middle East or South America. Similarly, we don't need bio-fuel. We need good policies!
James: "..much drilling. What is being gained by opposing that?"
It's environmentally irresponsible, bad for our health, bad for the economy, bad for national security, for future job opportunities, what more reasons do you want?
James: "I support Obama's concept of allowing drilling only if it is a part of a comprehensive package that would develop alternative energies."
I'm not disputing this - after all. with more responsible policies towards better alternatives, there won't be a need for off-shore oil drilling. But the point is that Obama makes it look as if he's giving in to McCain, whereas he should highlight the failures in McCain's stunt.
Offshore rigs hurt the environment much worse than the natural gas and oil that seeps it's way to the surface naturally? The environment is of the utmost importance along with safety to the majority of our oil and gas companies not to mention the positive effects of the new habitats they create once the drilling is done...
I agree we do need to find new alternative energies, but really do you suggest we just stop drilling altogether? If we do not drill now, whose to say there won't be a shortage and those alternate energies will be in place by the time we would see the effects of the drilling???
Exactly! Tom Friedman describes it this way.
James: "Since the off shore drilling is uneconomical, lets allow it and get that monkey off the table. As long as it is not allowed, it will remain as a bone of contention in the energy debate, obscuring the real need to get going on alternative sources of energy."
You and I often agree on the problem - and just as often disagree on the solution. You might as well give the alcoholic a drink so he'll shut up. No - it's time for rehab.
My beef with the Obama campaign is that, due to his apparent passivity on this issue (along with Pelosi and numerous other democrats), this discussion is (unbelieveably) about drilling for oil. It should be about Pickens' plan, or Gore's challenge, or Nanosolar's powersheets, or Honda's hydrogen Clarity.
do you think the oil supply from the current wells will last forever?
no you say....then more driling will come
There are plenty of job opportunities in renewable energy. Instead of carrying oil in tankers and pumping oil through pipes, it makes more sense to transport potable water from places where there is a surplus to places where there is a shortage. That alone could give those now working in the oil business better jobs.
No, there will be less need for oil because better alternatives will be cheaper and also make more sense from so many perspectives that I'm not going to repeat all that.
I propose a framework of feebates, including fees on fossil fuel to fund local rebates on safe and clean ways to produce energy, and fees on gasoline vehicles to fund local rebates on zero-emission vehicles. That will make the shift easier for those who otherwise couldn't afford it.
Have you met a man who has thrown chain for 30 years or so? You tell me who is going to hire him with no college education, a man that carries himself like a true roughneck, complete with the scratchy voice, no tolerance for bs, complete with missing half his fingers and pay him what he's been earning while losing his body parts over for you to drive around and heat your home? Sorry he's gonna get passed up for some stupid college grad who truly knows nothing...
What do people in contracting auto industries do for a living? What did people NASA's Apollo program do for a living when those missions were discontinued? There will be jobs in clean tech industries. Do you think those people can't learn new skills?
BF: "Do you have a solution to get those who cannot afford new vehicles that use alternate energy a mode of transportation?"
Read Amory Lovins' Winning the Oil Endgame. In it he describes how to do this, providing new, reliable transportation for those, who even now cannot afford it.
BF: "What do you suggest we do now to get our service stations and country switched off of these fuels?"
About ten years ago, Exxon completely demolished all of their gas stations in this region (maybe others also), along with the minimarts - and then proceeded to completely rebuild them. Oil companies/gas stations should be incented to put a hydrogen pump in at every gas station. If hydrogen is available, hydrogen cars will start showing up in short order. Already, Honda is leasing its hydrogen Clarity in CA, where there are hydrogen pumps.
BF: "If we do not drill now, whose to say there won't be a shortage and those alternate energies will be in place by the time we would see the effects of the drilling???"
As Sam says, domestic drilling is a political stunt. McCain is lying when he says: "“We’re not going to pay $4 dollars a gallon for gas (when I am president) because we are going to drill offshore and we are going to drill now. We are doing to drill here and we are going to drill now....” Domestic drilling isn't going to have any significant effect on supply or price.
gotcha on that one lol...
nice try however
There are few jobs in oil - most of the money we pay for oil ends up in places with a volatile political background. Apart from the cost of purchasing the oil and transporting it halfway around the world by tanker, you should also include the cost of financing the lot (including the security aspects) and the cost we'll have to pay in future for environmental damage. Most of that money is borrowed and we're only paying interest. It's far cheaper to produce energy in the many safe and clean ways that are readily available in the US and that would create far more job opportunities than any jobs lost by burning less oil.
The way to lower the cost of energy is to stop the destructive policies of the Bush administration which has been sabotaging every development of cleaner and safer alternatives.
The scratchy voice is probably from smoking. You're painting an image of American machismo. We're just now getting over a toxic dose of American politics, dominated by the "cowboy" image. Don't you think images have done enough damage to this country?
BF: "he's gonna get passed up for some stupid college grad who truly knows nothing..."
Not if he's smart, and that has nothing to do with college. Even so, those college boys ain't doing so bad...
Scientists mimic essence of plants' energy storage system
Potential impacts of nanotechnology on energy transmission applications and needs
Windows That Double As Solar Panels
I'm not sure what you mean, Scott, but the need to reduce the burning of fossil fuel is recognized and supported by every professional scientific organization that I have come across. McCain is just showing that he is unfit to hold the office of the president. His politics are irresponsible and costitute a deception of the people.
"The effect of price on demand was summarised during the last energy shock by Sheikh Yamani, then Saudi Arabia's Oil Minister, when he told greedier Opec colleagues that they would encourage replacement of oil by other energy sources. 'Remember,' he said, 'the Stone Age didn't end because the cavemen ran out of stone.'"
Scott: "gotcha on that one lol..."
Touche'
We're doing Obama's work for him. Hopefully, the boy wonder will have a clue when he returns from vacation next week. Regards.
Oh they'll put on a show but the oil companies will get what they want anyway.
They could spend their remaining time on impeachment,something really necessary,but they are too afraid.
This time, the ball is in our court and I encourage every blogger to copy my above article and point the finger at this deception.
We have no law in place that says that once the oil is extracted from our shore, the product has to be sold in America. The product will be on the market for anyone to buy. If China and India increases their demand by more than we drill, we would be in a worse shape.
Drill from the damn coast! Then, we will all say, "it did not work out." Duh!!!
So tired with this debate. When people want to be dumb, let them. Drill from the damn coast and we will all see what we see.
Being stupid is so annoying!
MyHotComments
LOL.
They won't use it. The oil companies will not drill if given more leases. Why? They can get it cheaper elsewhere. During this whole discussion, I have not heard oil companies say "give us more leases and we will increase the supply"
So I hope the Gang of 10 plan makes it through. The issue is off the table and we can talk about something else. 5 years later, we will talk about alternative energies again. Then the republicans will say ANWAR
McCain does not understand the basic mechanics of our econony. He repeats what they tell him. The people who tell him stuff and very close to oil executives. This is the party of Halliburton and Enron. The entire drilling noise is pure propaganda. They have no intention of drilling even if more leases are granted. It is simply a move to make McCain look like he is doing something. Since there wont be a drop of oil from off shore until McCain turns 82, he won't be proven wrong or right for a long time. So, why not? Feed them the garbage and they can't prove you wrong.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. The GOP has fooled them so many times. The places that are hardest hit by gas prices are the reddest states of the union. Hell, let the GOP fry them. I have very little sympathy for the people who buy their garbage only to be hardest hit by the fall outs of the wars and the Bush government tactics. I hope they fool them N more times.
People have been fooled. Even if oil companies will get the approval to start drilling, they won't because it doesn't make sense economically. It's just a political stunt. People have the right to hear it when they are being deceived.
Some safety! No job, no future for your kids other than the Army for the wars they will manufacture. Brilliant!
Appreciate your comment and agree that you could couch it in those terms. But if giving the alcoholic a drink prevents the destruction of our economy because of stalemate, yes, I'll sacrifice the alcoholic and give him a drink!
I think where we often differ in approach, Steve, is that I'm looking at it from a purely pragmatic standpoint. Politics has been said to be the art of the possible, and all of this is political, I'm sure you would agree. So I want to do what I believe will work rather than fight an issue on ideological grounds and loose the battle.
I see it as very important that we advance in the overall cause and if we have to sacrifice somewhere on our ideology, that we must do for the sake of the larger cause. When all is said and done it will not be totally ideologically correct. Sacrifices will be made. Compromises will abound. These are the facts of life, and I think really that you know that.
Some people are dreamers, planners and visionaries. They come up with the innovative ideas. They are seldom very good at the practicalities of politics and getting what is needed accomplished. Others of us lack that vision and innovative creativity but are much better at getting what is needed accomplished, making the sacrifices and compromises necessary to win in the end. One can get too hung up on a single battle and wind up loosing the war and this is one war we cannot afford to loose!
I've seen the question come up several times and never seen any answers so perhaps you can tell me, what is the ratio between the energy used to create hydrogen and the created hydrogen. I've read comments that it take as much energy as is created. Is this true? If not what is the ratio?
Clearly the whole off-shore drilling debate by the politicians and media is an absolute sham. As others have said, we could give away all the remaining leases and not one drop of new oil would be drilled. The "debate" has been created to deflect from the real issue, which is long term energy sustainability in a world just now revving its engines to ramp up resource utilization (hint: China, India).
I agree that John McCain and his proponents show a complete lack of judgment on this matter.
Barack Obama doesn't quite get it right either, but at least he's trying. I'm not particularly worried about some of the specific proposals put forth because the real bills will have input from a variety of stakeholders before being voted on in Congress. This perhaps is the major difference between the two candidates. McCain, with his hookup with Newt Gingrich to promote the drill here drill now lobbying effort, as well as his remarks following the Georgia/Russia conflict, show that he is quick to speak now and (maybe) think later. This is a sign of a weak and unconfident leader (or perhaps follower). Obama on the other hand more than not thinks through the bigger picture of an issue and tries to get full information from a variety of sources before making decisions. This is a sign of a strong and confident leader.
Many of the commenters have offered some good ideas and information. As Sam suggests, I highly recommend continuing the debate on honest and respectful terms and spreading the word around as far and wide as possible.
Please note that money is a product of the human imagination. That which distinguishes money from other pieces of paper and metal disks and patterns in computer memories is all in the human mind. If our money were different we would be moving ahead rapidly with many sources of alternative energy and conservation. It is what we think about money that prevents that.
Please read Invisible Hand to see a better way.
These alternatives are great but they are only marginally helpful if they end up costing more to use. Now yes I know that there are those who think that isn't a bad thing because we don't want the greedy SUV peopple driving and going any where. But I would like to see some real numbers showing how much it's going to cost me to go to my "new" job with this wonder fuel.
This has been brewing for decades as the US slowed its own oil production by cordoning off possible oil sites. The mantra of non used leases fails to address the point that exploration already is showing these aren't economical thus why waste money drilling there. Taking offshore and ANWR off the table signals a further lack of will in any short/mid term additions to US supplies. Reliance on current solar and other alternatives cannot take up but a tiny fraction of current or foreseen needs. Look at the amount of land needing to be cleared for ethanol alone should scare the hell out of an environmentalist. Add space for solar/windmills and it gets worse.
Solar is a source needing expansion but it cannot take up the industrial slack that oil/coal will fuel for the foreseeable future. This attempt to force conversions will result in huge waste and costs, alternatives as additions is feasible but replacing fossil fuels is (for now) nonsense
Most hydrogen used to be made from natural gas ,which once cost some $2 per Million Btu, allowing supply of hydrogen at under US $1 per kilogram. However, the cost of natural gas has risen dramatically over the past few years, driving up the price of hydrogen produced from natural gas. This makes it ever more attractive to produce hydrogen from water, by means of electrolysis. Recently, there have been some breakthroughs that promise to make the production and use of hydrogen a lot more economic. Also have a look at James B.'s coverage of this topic.
As the number of wind turbines grows, there will be a growing surplus of electricity at night, when there's plenty of wind but little demand for electricity. Given that this will be an electricity surplus, at least part of it could be used to produce hydrogen at very low prices, the more so as prices of electrolyzers and fuel cells come down.
Electricity from wind turbines can be transmitted over the grid to hydrogen filling stations to produce hydrogen, predominantly at night, and then store it in tanks, in order to supply hydrogen on demand to vehicles and ships in the area.
Hydrogen could also be produced from bio-waste, as described in my article on Agrichar. This allows hydrogen filling stations to be combined with waste management, at locations without grid access.
Furthermore, it becomes increasingly attractive to use solar energy to produce hydrogen, which can also be done at off-the-grid locations. Even when there is grid access, this can still constitute a more economic alternative, while it can also give more protection against grid-outages and glitches, which is important in many critical applications that currently rely on standby generators.
I propose a framework of feebates, including fees on fossil fuel to fund local rebates on safe and clean ways to produce energy, and fees on gasoline vehicles to fund local rebates on zero-emission vehicles. That will make the shift easier for those who otherwise couldn't afford it.
Note that vehicles with fuel cells are effectively electric cars - they will typically start and accelerate by using electricity from batteries/capacitators. For city commuting, most cars will be able to get by with the electricity stored in batteries. It's only in cases of extended travel that you'll require some extra power, so you'll need either extra battery capacity, a battery swap, a quick battery recharge ... or hydrogen. This range of alternatives means that hydrogen filling stations don't need to have the same density and coverage as gasoline stations. So, contrary to some studies, we don't need hydrogen filling stations in the same numbers as there are now gas stations, and we don't need to have hydrogen trucked or piped to each of these stations.
In conclusion, hydrogen will be a cheap, safe and clean way to store power, for later use, whatever that use may be. And if you're looking for a clean way to power the many ships that cross the oceans, I quite frankly see no better alternative than hydrogen.
Newt's new organization American solutions for a winning future has collected over 1.4 million signatures demanding that restrictions be lifted on domestic drilling, poll after poll shows that the public wants those restrictions lifted and that is why Obama has softened his stance on drilling and McCain has made it a corner stone of his campaign, heck even Pelosi is hinting that she will talk about it. BTW I hear Pelosi has invested 50 -100K in T- boon Pickens company.
Yah I know that it is hard for people like Sam and Steve (who know better than all the rest of us) but the American public has spoken and the politicians are going to comply (just to get them votes).
Whether there is a shortage or not is irrelevant, last week a pipeline in the near east was bombed it had a capaciity of carrying up to 1 million barrels of oil daily, substantial but just a drop in the bucket considering global consumption, at the thought that that pipeline might be down for 2 weeks the price of oil rose 1.3 dollars a barrel.
When the U.S. declares a lifting of restrictions on over a trillion barrel reserves here in our country the price of oil will drop dramaticaly.
BTW take a look at the polls
The U.S. public wants alternative energy and conservation and domestic drilling.
Oh and a bit of sad news for large solar energy projects in our country, the Gov. has decided to do environmental impact studies on them before any are allowed to proceed, aprox. 2 years wait before they can proceed.
Wind turbines can potentially generate 72 TW, or over fifteen times the world's current energy use and 40 times the world's current electricity use. Even if only ~20% of this power could be captured, it could satisfy all of the world's energy demand for all purposes and over 7x the world's current electricity needs (1.6-1.8 TW).
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/global_winds.html
Wind turbines can be conveniently combined with other land usage, such as agricultural use. Also, there's much potential for offshore wind turbines. The market has already recognized that wind energy is economic. Billionaire oilman T. Boone Pickens is putting his money in wind turbines, making a $2 billion investment as the first step in a multibillion-dollar plan to build a wind farm in Pampa, Texas.
"A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured. Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns. That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain."
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
Solar facilities with molten salt stored energy, such as supplied by Ausra, could cater for almost all US day-and-night electricity needs, and would fit inside a square with 153 km sides. To additionally accommodate an entirely electrified vehicle fleet, the land area would grow to a square with sides of not more than 211 km.
http://ausra.com/pdfs/ausra_usgridsupply.pdf
If you add further alternative energy sources, such as geothermal energy and the above-mentioned hydrogen produced from bio-waste, you'll get a mix of clean and safe energy supply that can provide abundant amounts of energy at many locations, while electricity can also be transported for a few cents per kWh per 1000 miles over high voltage direct current lines across the nation.
What we need is a feebate policy that adds fees to fossil fuel, funding local rebates on safe and clean supply of energy. If we combine this with fees on gasoline vehicles that fund rebates on zero-emission vehicles, we won't be needing much oil to power cars in the near future.
Sure Dan, that's why I'm not a politician, I like to say things that make sense, rather than to say what people like to hear. And this is exactly why we here, bloggers, posters, writers and commenters, should speak out frankly on such issues when the opportunity is there, rather than to twist the facts in the hope of looking like a more attractive candidate for certain groups of voters. As I said in the article, I believe that McCain has gone too far in twisting the facts, to the extent that this makes him unfit to be president.
Appreciate the links on hydrogen production! Thanks.
I rated your article a 5 because that is what I believe it deserved. You are not raising "important issues" it was not much more than a rant against the mean evil and nasty Republicans without any substantiation of you opinion in any way.
If you want higher ratings from me write better articles, expand your writings outside your current myopic thinking.
BTW Sam,
Of the people, by the people, for the people, the politicians are doing what they are supposed to be doing, responding to the will of the people.
In my view, making such a combination of promises is a political stunt and constitutes a level of deception that makes McCain unfit to hold the office of president. But since you call yourself a consultant in energy, Dan, and since you claim that my analysis lacked substance, why don't you explain how McCain is going to increase oil production and reduce emissions.
Expanding domestic drilling, tax breaks and keeping taxes low on companies is good for our economy allowing greater investment in alternatives to help reduce the output of GHG's.
John McCain Will Propose A $300 Million Prize To Improve Battery Technology For Full Commercial Development Of Plug-In Hybrid And Fully Electric Automobiles. A $300 million prize should be awarded for the development of a battery package that has the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars. That battery should deliver a power source at 30 percent of the current costs. At $300 million, the prize is one dollar for every man, woman and child in this country - and a small price to pay for breaking our dependence on oil.
John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector.
John McCain Believes Alcohol-Based Fuels Hold Great Promise As Both An Alternative To Gasoline And As A Means of Expanding Consumers' Choices.
John McCain Believes That The U.S. Must Become A Leader In A New International Green Economy.
John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies.
John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants.
John McCain Will Establish A Permanent Tax Credit Equal To 10 Percent Of Wages Spent On R&D.
John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power.
Here's something you will like Sam,
John McCain Proposes A Cap-And-Trade System That Would Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions While Encouraging The Development Of Low-Cost Compliance Options.
John McCain Will Make Greening The Federal Government A Priority Of His Administration.
John McCain Supports Flex-Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) And Believes They Should Play A Greater Role In Our Transportation Sector.
There you go Sam.
The operative word is "if", and that's were the analogy is exact. Drilling will no more "save" our economy than a drink will save an alcoholic - but that's not what the alcoholic will tell you. Stalemate? I don't think that will be likely in the next congress/administration. So before you agree to drilling, make sure you vote - and send money to democratic senate candidates in "toss up" states. That would be the first thing to do.
James: "I've seen the question come up several times and never seen any answers so perhaps you can tell me, what is the ratio between the energy used to create hydrogen and the created hydrogen."
The issue you're addressing is efficiency, and I have written about it before as well as posted this link (refer to "myth #3, page 10).
In short, efficiency is an issue with any transfer, whether that is from crude oil to gasoline, or coal to electricity. Hydrogen is more efficient than coal and comparable with gasoline. Its superior end-use efficiency (the actual work produced per unit at the end-use site) makes hydrogen a very attractive energy carrier. Lovins (above link) provides numbers and comparisons.
I would favor a windfall profits tax if he turned around and gave oil compaines a comparable tax break for installing hydrogen pumps in their gas stations. Now that would be a tax/incentive that would make sense - consistent with Sam's "feebate" theme.
considering todays technology, existing practices give us 1 unit of energy in for every 1 unit of energy out using fossil fuels to create hydrogen.
If we use electricty to break the molecular bonds of water to produce hydrogen it takes 1.5 units of energy in to get 1 unit of energy out.
There is however some very interesting research going on involving a process similar to photosinthisis which may allow the production of hydrogen to be very economical.
As I wrote earlier in this thread, there have been some breakthroughs that promise to make the production and use of hydrogen a lot more economic and James B. also reported on this topic. It looks like this will be an economic way to produce hydrogen using solar power, in order to have electricity on demand around the clock. Also, as the number of wind turbines grows, there will be a growing surplus of electricity at night, and at least part of it could be economically used to produce hydrogen. Hydrogen can also be produced from bio-waste, as described in my article on Agrichar.
Now here comes the crunch: Is there any economic need to increase domestic oil production through offshore drilling? The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in their Annual Energy Outlook 2007 that "access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." As McCain himself said back in May, "[it] would take years to develop, you would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels... [we] have to devote our efforts, in my view, to alternative energy sources, which is the ultimate answer to our long-term energy needs, and we need it sooner rather than later." [source]
But of course, the many people who all feel bad about higher gas prices were fooled by sensationalist media into believing that there were benefits in offshore drilling. McCain, desperate to beef up his ranking in the polls, fell for it. My analysis? Populism and demogaugery of the worst kind, constituting a level of deception of the people that makes McCain unfit to be president.
Ask yourself, why does increasing domestic oil production top McCain's list? And, let me ask you for the third time now, Dan, even if all these policies that you include in your comment - as ineffective as they are - were indeed to lead to reduced oil consumption over time, why then would we need increased oil production? Moreover, how is increased oil production going to deliver the reductions of greenhouse gas emissions that McCain is promising?
Thanks for adding those helpful links, Steve. These myths have been widely discussed and if Dan indeed was the expert in energy policy that he claims to be, he should know better.
I followed your link and read your excellent article on hydrogen as an energy carrier. My only question involves the logistics of extracting hydrogen from water and storing it. To store it is going to require significant compression capabilities. This capability is apt to be expensive and cumbersome, with significant expense attached. Do you have any information on this?
Without a capture and compression system, hydrogen would escape into the atmosphere as quickly as it was extracted since it is the lightest element known to man. So just how is this captured and compressed/stored?
I guess I see things differently than you in that I am hell bent to get away from Mideast oil above all! Drilling off shore and in the ANWR would be a step toward domestic production a few years down the road, and by that time we have no knowledge of how our supply from the Mideast will supply us.
I still say that the oil extracted will always be used for some of the many uses other than motor fuel. And even if we are successful in getting a substantial effort going in our government to advance alternative energy, ten years down the road, when off shore and ANWR drilling wold be kicked in, we will still be needing significant oil. If there is enough oil in these places, and if it can be extracted in a financially successful manner, it is sure to be used.
Besides, the off shore and ANWR will be drilled eventually, of that I am certain. If we allow it now, it will take that argument off the table and allow us to move on to the real task of getting meaningful alternative energy sources and infrastructure requirements supplied. This is a fight that is not worth the effort being spent on it, in my humble opinion. If the return is too low, the oil companies won't do the drilling. And I suspicion, just as Sam does, that that is the case.
I remain convinced that if we were to move too quickly (fat chance!) I believe it would be devastating to our economy and particularly those at the bottom end of the financial scale. That is what I was referring to in the comment above and the drink for a drunk.
Appreciate your comment!
As I said in an above comment, James, the EIA conclusion is that it will make little or no difference for at least two decades to come and even McCain said so himself a few months ago. But McCain now makes it look as if it does matter, and he cannot at the same time promise to increase oil production and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
BTW the price of oil is not determined by simple mechanics, it is in the hands of speculators and when they see our over a trillion barrel reserve opened up to drilling the price of oil will drop, which will be a great benefit to our economy
As you know, Dan, nuclear power plants are not safe not clean. But let's not get distracted by that, we've discussed that in detail elsewhere. The topic here is McCain's offshore oil drilling stunt. Zero emission vehicles will indeed lower emissions and I'm all for that, but the question was - and I repeat it for the fourth time now - how is McCain's plan to increase oil production going to lower emissions?
Dan E: "BTW the price of oil is not determined by simple mechanics, it is in the hands of speculators and when they see our over a trillion barrel reserve opened up to drilling the price of oil will drop, which will be a great benefit to our economy"
And BTW, if McCain says that he's going to increase oil production with a trillion barrels, then he's not going to meet his stated goals of reducing greenhouse gases with the percentages he claims he will achieve. Perhaps such a stunt will reduce oil prices temporarily, but the point here is that he's deceiving the people, because McCain still states on his website that he's going to reduce greenhouse gases. The price we pay for having a president who deceives the public would be unacceptable. We cannot have a president who promises one thing and then does something else, all in the hope that this deception will lower oil prices. This guy is simply unfit to be president.
Sam you have expressed your opinion that nuclear power is not clean of safe to which at every expression of erronious belief I have presented fact that contradict your belief.
"and I repeat it for the fourth time now"
McCain's energy plan will reduce emissions I don't know how to make it any more clear.
If you won't accept it then I guess that leave us at an impasse I can give reasonable answers all day long but if they are not the answer you want.
"then he's not going to meet his stated goals of reducing greenhouse gases with the percentages he claims he will achieve."
If he follows his energy plan I think he will achieve his desired GHG reduction.
"We cannot have a president who promises one thing and then does something else,"
Sam,
Name me one President that has lived up to his campaign promises, you can't do it there aren't any.
We will have Senator McCain as our President next year and he will do as good a job as any and probably better than most.
I urge you to read Lovins' article, Myths #1, 4 & 5. In short, hydrogen is already produced and stored in large quantities, mostly from reforming natural gas and used in the refining of oil. Also, hydrogen can be produced on-site, so storing large quantities is not necessarily an issue. The advantage of hydrogen in this respect is that you don't need a massive distribution infrastructure, which is necessary with oil.
James: "I guess I see things differently than you in that I am hell bent to get away from Mideast oil above all!"
No, we agree on the problem. We generally differ on the solution, and I keep wondering why you are so easily swayed by entrenched interests, which keep making promises while delivering deeper and deeper holes. When are you going to stop listening to these people?
James: "Drilling off shore and in the ANWR would be a step toward domestic production a few years down the road, and by that time we have no knowledge of how our supply from the Mideast will supply us."
Negligible effects - and alot of expense. It's a distraction - let's just let the oil companies continue to define our energy policy. They've done "a heckuva job" so far. Drilling, as Sam says above, is a political stunt. This is not about energy security or national security. It's about political manipulation. Thomas Friedman notes McCain's insistence that congress return and vote on drilling, while he missed 8 votes on S.3335, which, "Unlike offshore drilling..., could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile."
There may also be alternatives to petroleum-based plastics. Try not to accept such assumptions as fact.
James: "If we allow it now, it will take that argument off the table and allow us to move on to the real task of getting meaningful alternative energy sources and infrastructure requirements supplied."
No. It is designed to delay "meaningful alternative energy sources and infrastructure requirements" as long as possible. Why else has McCain avoided S.3335? Why else have republicans filibustered meaningful incentives and extensions of tax credits for renewables since democrats gained the house and senate in 2006? It's all lip service, and it's designed to keep renewables in a marginal role.
In case you haven't noticed, James, the economy ain't in great shape, those at the bottom are already hurting quite a bit. I think, though, moving quickly would have exactly the opposite result from the one you remain convinced of. Ever heard of Van Jones?
When people see McCain promising to increase oil production, keep troops in Iraq, keep giving oil companies tax support and the like, people will be convinced that the US needs more oil. Thus, prices will increase, while interest rates will go up, as the US will go further into debt. McCain's stunt is ruining the economy!
Instead, it makes more sense for the US to cut oil consumption, by shifting to cleaner cars, by shifting to organic plastics, by shifting to hydrogen to replace standby generators, etc. Making a firm commitment to reduce emissions will send out the signal that demand for oil will decrease in future, which will drive down prices. I'm convinced that Obama is the better candidate to execute this.
Dan: "McCain's energy plan will reduce emissions I don't know how..."
By INCREASING oil production? McCain states he will cut emissions 34% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 66% below 2005 levels by 2050. Transportation causes more than 1/3 of CO2, half of nitrogen oxide, and a host of other emissions, including methane, particulates, carbon monoxide, ozone, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and toxic metals. Increasing oil production (and offshore drilling will, at the soonest, deliver more oil by 2030) makes it impossible to reach those targets.
Dan: "Name me one President that has lived up to his campaign promises, you can't do it there aren't any."
So, you're finally admitting that McCain is deceiving the people. Not only is McCain's policy a lemon, it ruins the economy and he's obviously deceiving the people, which makes him unfit to run for president.
Steve: "There may also be alternatives to petroleum-based plastics. Try not to accept such assumptions asfact."
We need a commitment to dramatically cut emissions and this cannot be done without reducing the 2/3 of the oil that is used for transportation. And indeed, Steve, we should also look at organic plastics, carbon fibre, etc. Currently, we're making many mistakes due to the disastrous policy imposed by the Bush administration. We're taking carbon out of the ground by means of oil drilling in order to burn it and to make plastic. We're letting both plastic and organic matter decompose and emit GHGs. Instead, we should leave fossil fuel in the ground, shift to clean and safe energy, use better waste management that will produce organic plastic, agri-char, hydrogen, etc.
The longer we wait with making better alternatives more attractive financially, the harder it will be economically, especially for the poor. The best way to help the poor (as well as the rich) is by imposing a framework of feebates that will each time add fees to what causes emissions, while using the proceeds of those fees to fund local rebates on corresponding better alternatives. Just making such a commitment would send out the right signal to both consumers, suppliers and investors and this alone would get things started to shift in the right direction.
McCain is doing the opposite, he's discouraging investment in better alternatives and he's just continuing the disastrous policies of the Bush administration that are ruining the US economy, as well as the environment. Here's what McCain said in an Oct. 1, 2007, interview:
"I'm not one who believes that we need to subsidize things. The wind industry is doing fine, the solar industry is doing fine. In the '70s, we gave too many subsidies and too much help, and we had substandard products sold to the American people, which then made them disenchanted with solar for a long time." [2008 GovWatch Archive]
Sorry Sam we've already seen the market at work and pretty much know what will influence it and those things ain't it.
"Instead, it makes more sense for the US to cut oil consumption, by shifting to cleaner cars"
Like zero emission cars and EVs as in McCain's plan?
"So, you're finally admitting that McCain is deceiving the people"
No Sam,
You are claiming he is deceiving the people be cause you don't believe he will be able to lower emissions and drill for domestic oil too.
Not that he can't but just that you think he can't.
"especially for the poor"
Sam,
How does raising the cost of fuel help the poor? The average item in your local grocery store travels 2500 miles to get to the grocery store, raising the cost of fuel with your "fee bates" will raise the cost of just about everything and NOT help the poor one bit, and the cost of alternatives would never become low enough for the poor to take advantage of them even with your "rebates".