Handy Guide to how Bush/McCain policy to lift offshore drilling makes no sense

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-19-08 02:08 PM
Original message

Handy Guide to how Bush/McCain policy to lift offshore drilling makes no sense

Although this map was produced in 2006, it shows the zones as part of domestic offshore drilling.

Boil it down (no pun intended), the oil that would be available from the offshore drilling moratorium being lifted (as McCain and Bush have flip-flopped on) would not be available for 10 years or more and would not be in full production for another 20 years. Add that with oil per barrel estimated to being $250 a barrel by 2013, it's obvious pandering and attempting to convince those without the facts to think "something is getting done":

...estimates based on the limited information available from the Minerals Management Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Energy Information Administration, lifting the bans might boost the nation's oil production by 1 or 2 million barrels a day by sometime next decade.

These estimates are for conventional crude oil. They do not take into account the vast amounts of oil shale or tar sands that do exist in the country, but are either very expensive to develop or come with significant environmental costs.

Either way, 2 million barrels of oil is not an insignificant amount. It's roughly equal to the amount of oil currently pumped in Nigeria, and would increase the current U.S. output of 8.5 million barrels a day by over 20%.

Places like the Atlantic coast, thought to be rich in natural gas, lack drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure. EIA estimates that if Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened for drilling tomorrow, oil wouldn't flow at full tilt until 2025.

(snip)

If the U.S. switched to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, the country would save 3.8 million barrels of oil a day - roughly twice what new drilling would provide - according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/ghybrid.asp

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/30/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?postversion=2008053011

Estimates from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) indicate that insignificant gains would be made and not even be evident for 22 years, as in 2030:

For the lower 48 OCS (Outer Continental Shelf), annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher�2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.

Similarly, lower 48 natural gas production is not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of increased access to the OCS. Cumulatively, lower 48 natural gas production from 2012 through 2030 is projected to be 1.8 percent higher in the OCS access case than in the reference case. Production levels in the OCS access case are projected at 19.0 trillion cubic feet in 2030, a 3-percent increase over the reference case projection of 18.4 trillion cubic feet.

(snip)

The projections in the OCS access case indicate 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.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

On a daily diet, the US consumes nearly 25% of the oil output a day:

The world consumes about 86 million barrels a day. The U.S. share of that is about 20.6 million barrels, 60 percent of them from foreign sources.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html

Here's an estimate on how such offshore drilling, which would be relevant in many years, would only last for a couple years:

One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19 billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8708_mccain_on_off_s.html

Even if production was to begin, estimates that oil price rates are going to continue to skyrocket, with estimates as high as $250 a barrel in five years:

Pointing to the reasons behind the analysis, Sieminski underlines, �Oil supply growth in non-OPEC countries is struggling at a time when OPEC has been cautious with its production policies.�

In order to analyze the situation further, we need to look at historical facts too. In the early 1980s, oil demand collapsed only after nominal oil prices rose by a factor of 10 between 1970 to 1973 and 1980 to 1983, from about $3.50 a barrel to $35. Based on the empirical example of factor of 10, Sieminski deduces that since oil averaged about $25 a barrel from 2000 to 2003, prices would have to increase to $250 a barrel in 2010 to 2013 to have the same effect on oil users this time around.

http://renewenergy.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/oil-price-may-go-up-to-250-warn-experts/

As for Alaska�s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to be drilled, the output would be fairly insignificant and would not be available until around 2017 if started today:

Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America�s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska�s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

(This is 4 years old - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/)

As for states that would fight for stopping offshore drilling, here is an assessment:

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed McCain, said Wednesday he opposes lifting the ban on new oil drilling in coastal waters.

(snip)

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, reversed his opposition to oil exploration off the state's beaches after the presidential candidate said he supported lifting the moratorium. Crist said the issue is about local control.

(snip)

Virginia and South Carolina have largely supported lifting the moratorium, as have the governors of Mississippi and Alaska. California is joined by North Carolina and New Jersey among the anti-drilling states.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080619/ap_on_bi_ge/offshore_drilling_states

One reason states that would be involved with offshore drilling is the fact that Hurricane Katrina did a LOT of damage to coastal wells and other structures:

113 platforms totally destroyed, and - more importantly - 457 pipelines damaged, 101 of those major lines with 10" or larger diameter. At least 741,000 gallons were spilled from 124 reported sources (the Coast Guard calls anything over 100,000 gallons a "major" spill).

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm
http://blog.skytruth.org/2007/12/hurricane-katrina-gulf-of-mexico-oil.html

This chart is a great reminder of just what the Bush years have brought the American people in terms of fuel costs.

Oil Per Barrel - $

http://www.oil-price.net/

Types of Offshore Drilling:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ian David

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-19-08 02:15 PM
Response to Original message

1. See also: REMINDER: Katrina oil spills may be among worst on record (113 platforms destroyed)

REMINDER: Katrina oil spills may be among worst on record (113 offshore platforms destroyed)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3482695&mesg_id=3482695

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-19-08 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. Yep... lots of damage that governors may want to think about on coastal states

http://www.mms.gov/ooc/press/2006/press0501.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Fri Jun-20-08 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. Perhaps with the Katrina anniversary, this can be brought up...

Offshore drilling in hurricance zones is not exactly something people in those areas would want, based on how Katrina-type disasters are due to happen again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cbayer

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-19-08 06:43 PM
Response to Original message

3. Very well done.

Thanks for putting this together.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jun-19-08 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Thanks!

It's such a phony dialogue coming from the Repugs saying "drill now!"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

RichardRay

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-21-08 08:55 PM
Response to Original message

6. Nicely done - bookmarked for quick reference as needed. n/t

Edited on Sat Jun-21-08 08:57 PM by RichardRay

K&R, too.

(on edit, well recommended in spirit - the DU automata says I can't recommend it because it's over 24 hours old - the news cycle, ya know)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jun-21-08 08:57 PM
Response to Original message

7. I was just reading up on this issue!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue May 07th 2024, 08:21 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.