Well, I guess it had to happen sooner or later. It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I have been an avid supporter of our current President. During the 2008 campaign, I attended rallies, gave money, and walked unfamiliar streets and knocked on the doors of strangers in an effort to bring his election to fruition. While I haven't always agreed with the President on everything, he has never truly disappointed me. Until now.
President Obama's decision yesterday to open up off-shore drilling along a variety of state coastlines is not only wrong, but counter productive. The argument that the President offered in favor of additional oil exploration simply doesn't hold up. His hypothesis that digging for "black gold" (Texas tea...) will reduce our reliance on foreign oil while being minimally invasive to the environment is completely flawed, if not disingenuous.
I know most people will choose energy independence over environmental conservation, but this move will not accomplish either.
Environmentally speaking, there are the risk of oil spills, and the further degradation of our coastlines. Why should we care about this? Well, anyone who remembers the Exxon Valdez crisis knows why an oil spill is a bad thing. The risk to wild life and ocean quality is argued to be minimal by the companies that intend to do the drilling. They will tell you the risk of a spill is almost non-existent. However, there have been 12 major U.S. related oil spills in the last decade. The cost to marine life and to tax payers (for the clean up) is massive. Not to mention the continual deterioration of our coast lines.
Probably the worst example of the negative impact from off-shore oil exploration revolves around the state of Louisiana. The loss of wetlands off the gulf coast greatly contributed to the disastrous impact that Hurricane Katrina had on the city of New Orleans. Wetlands create a barrier between tropical storms and the main land. Due in large part to off-shore drilling, the wetlands off the gulf coast have continually decreased in width and breadth. I know the media likes to talk about the porous levees that failed during the storm (and they certainly should), but they often failed to appropriately report the effect that the weakened coast line played in the magnitude of the disaster.
Ok, fine. Maybe you don't give two shits about the environment or marine life. Maybe all you care about is getting off of foreign oil and reducing gas prices. Which is certainly a worthy goal. Unfortunately, more drilling ain't gonna make that happen. You might ask why not? Wouldn't drilling and refining more of our own oil reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers while also reducing pain at the pump? Nope.
And here's why: First off, all this oil that we will be pulling out of the ocean is not simply going to stay in the United States. While the U.S. Government will buy a certain number of barrels for our oil reserves, by far, most of it will hit the open market, where it will simply be added to world consumption. Current estimates say that this decision will result in 14 billion new barrels of oil. Which sounds like a lot right? Well, it's not. Yearly worldwide oil consumption is 30 billion barrels a year. So, when all this "additional" oil hits the market, it will be swallowed up pretty damn quickly. Of course, other countries will still be producing oil, and therefore our new oil won't disappear in 6 months. But you can see that adding even 14 billion barrels isn't going to make a huge difference. And wait until you see what happens as the Chinese start buying more cars. China's economy is one of the fastest growing in the world, but right now they have only one car per 100 citizens. That will change greatly as the purchasing power of the populous increases. In fact, the only way that this oil exploration will reduce our foreign dependence is if we nationalize the oil industry and keep it for ourselves. Now, I know people like to refer to Obama as a socialist, but even he wouldn't consider that as a viable option.
As far as gas prices go, even if you throw out everything I said in the last paragraph, we won't see any of this oil for 10 years at minimum. It will take that long to set up, locate, drill, and refine all this new crude. And refining is a huge issue in this country. There hasn't been a single new refinery built in this USA since 1976, and many of the ones that do exist have merged together resulting in more refineries being operated by fewer companies and reducing competition. Which in turn reduces output. Most estimates state that at best, in ten plus years gas prices will come down a few measly cents. Hell, even John "drill, baby drill" McCain himself said that the benefits of off-shore drilling would be largely psychological. Psychological. I don't know about you, but I think we need real solutions not imaginary ones.
Real Solutions, like alternative energy. Fuel cells, ethanol, bio-diesel, hybrids, increasing fuel standards, whatever, is the answer, not this.
It's not that I don't think the President knows this either. During the 2008 campaign, Obama stated as much. Although, to be fair, he did hedge his bets by saying that he could find additional off-shore drilling acceptable as a part of a comprehensive energy bill that would focus primarily on alternative energy. But here's the thing, how's he going to get this comprehensive bill passed now that he's already given away a bargaining chip? Does he really think that Republicans are going to go along with any plan that he advances? There were over 200 Republican authored amendments in the health care bill, and he couldn't get one sorry vote out of either house of congress. They have already poo-poo'd this announcement by saying that he didn't go far enough. They aren't happy that he is still enforcing protections along certain coastlines (particularly the west coast). Hell, if Obama put on a hard hat and drilled straight through a baby seal resulting in a geyser of oil spouting from the ocean, they would still find a way to throw stink on it.
All this leaves me at a loss. The only reason why I can logically see why the President would make this decision is purely a political one. It may move independents and conservative democrats in the polls. It probably helps the "Blue Dog" Democrats in purple states too. And I suppose it takes away a Republican talking point in the mid-terms as well as the 2012 presidential election. Maybe the President will prove me wrong. Maybe he will be able to move some Republicans over to his side for a more forward thinking energy bill. I don't think so, but this President has surprised me before with his resilience and ability to make lemonade. So, I'm left with nothing but the hope that I will be proven wrong. Thankfully, it's happened before (ask my wife, or look at my NCAA bracket--once you piece it back together), and I'm hoping it will happen this time as well. I just wish I could see how.
Sumo-Pop
April 1, 2010
He's simply playing politics. He'll have a few on the right that will appreciate what he's doing and maybe they'll forget about the health care debacle. The president is trying to win his peeps some votes in November.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if you put this in there but I dont think people realize how little oil there is in these places to begin with we need to stop putting all of our money on war and work on issues such as greener fuel resources and cures for cancers,aids etc
ReplyDeleteWill and I were talking about this last night. I think it was a political move, as well. But in this case he shoulda stuck to his guns, gave the other party the finger, and concentrated on alternative energy. I appreciate the way he has always stood by what he said he would do. This move is confusing.
ReplyDeleteWell, I got my answer tonight. After spending 2 1/2 hours with a local congressman, I found out that the plan will create 3 Trillion dollars in income for the Government. 1 trillion goes to the deficit, 1 trillion to new enrgy resources, and 1 trillion to the states. Still don't like it, but I understand.
ReplyDeleteAh, well, at least there is a reason somewhere in there.
ReplyDeleteThought not exactly popular with the Dems base. I certainly don't think it's a good idea. Contrary to the "drill baby drill" folks misplaced belief that finding new sources of fossil fuels closer to home means the country will dramatically be less reliance on foreign oil imports, even if we were to find and have most of the these new energy sites ... See Morefully operational by tomorrow--something that will take at least a decade, probably more just to have a handful of these drills producing enough crude--the combined impact is a paltry 2% increase in domestic fossil fuel production (just slightly improve feul efficiency in most autos alone can save more energy than all the new offshore oils combined!). Even then, we need additional refineries as the current ones operating are running to the max already, which means the US must either send the crudes to be refined in a second country like Mexico as proposed or build more oil refinery at home, requiring more resources, time and planning. Obama's proposal allowing new offshore drillings, while not popular with his base, amounts to a compromise to the fossil fuel proponents on the right in order to push a major "green" initiative in the near future.
ReplyDeleteDrill baby drill. My gas guzzler needs to keep polluting earth to speed up this mythical thing called global warming.
ReplyDeleteMy cat would have a 60 pt advantage on your IQ Mr. Parker.
ReplyDeleteShizzle
ReplyDeleteYes, I had read that as well, David, it was an economic necessity in his judgement to reduce the deficeit
ReplyDeleteNo drilling anywhere, drive the cost up so the average working person will not have any money left over after filling the tank and paying all the new taxes coming.
ReplyDeleteLikes this
ReplyDeleteThis is a great blog!
ReplyDeleteAlright. You can't use a market based argument to make your one point, then turn around and use an anti-market argument to make another. Your inconsistency takes away form your other valid points. Also, as our world advances (or disintegrates depending on your viewpoint) the environment loses. Let the backlash begin.
ReplyDeleteI believe that on occasion, two separate and seemingly competing points can both be true. My point is that it is neither good environmental or fiscal policy. I didn't think it was that hard to follow.
ReplyDeleteWell said David. The trivial amt. there will just be eaten up in increased consumption. The more oil produced, the more used. How can anyone with a fraction of a brain possibly think that this is worth it? I honestly don't think they are able yet to grasp the enormity of the situation.
ReplyDeleteDavid - Is that a beagle? I have one myself and he looks like my Daley!
ReplyDeleteExactly, Laura. Need we look any further than our Louisiana coast?
ReplyDeleteMark, that's actually my coon hound. Treeing Walker hound to be precise. She weighs 55 pounds. She is often mistaken for a super sized beagle.
She is adorable!
ReplyDelete