cite as: F. Bi. 2008. Just the hate, ma’am. Intl. J. Inact., 1:78–80
Drill offshore now to spite the Saudis and also Gore is fat!
A recent topic in the current US presidential campaign is whether, in the light of the current high oil prices, the federal ban on offshore oil drilling should be lifted. Of course, the natural question to ask is, ‘will such a measure be worth it?’ This is a question we can answer with science and facts. Kevin Zelnio at Deep Sea News quotes a CNN report saying
“If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let’s not kid ourselves,” said Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division.
Zelnio also mentions a figure quoted by US President Bush:
Bush: Experts believe that the OCS can produce about 18 billion barrels of oil. That’d be enough to match America’s current oil production for almost 10 years.
3. Oil companies have not utilized the leases they have now.
Why open up new areas to drilling when oil companies hold over 4,000 undeveloped leases in the western Gulf of Mexico? What’s more, the government already leases 44 million acres offshore, of which only 10.5 million — or one quarter — are producing oil or gas.
4. Offshore drilling would have an “insignificant” effect on long-term prices.
Offshore drilling in sensitive areas would increase domestic oil production by 7 percent by 2030 compared to a reference case, according to the EIA. But “because oil prices are determined on the international market… any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”
So, 3–5 years of waiting plus destruction of habitats and ocean productivity, to get less than 10 years of oil (and that’s an overestimate) at a price which is lower by at most 7%, especially when oil companies haven’t even used up all their offshore drilling leases? Is it all worth it? The answer should be obvious.
But the ‘skeptical’ Republicans don’t see it this way. Instead they decide to engage in the usual librul-hating and Gore-bashing and ‘we shall thumb our noses at Saudi Arabia to prove that we have testicles or something’ posturing. No need for cost-benefit analysis — not even the “on the one hand… on the other hand…” type of shmanalysis — let’s just throw all that out the window. Mission accomplished!
We’re wrong, but we’re still right, because Gore is fat!
In other news… guess what, I got banned from Free Republic :1
Your posting privilege has been revoked.
My crime? I commented on a Free Republic story story titled Global Warming Hypocrites — which in turn was lifted wholesale from Townhall — and in my comment I cited Tim Lambert’s post on the TCPR’s misrepresentation of Gore’s energy usage, and questioned why Townhall and FR were regurgitating TCPR’s nonsense. In response, the folks over there decided to show their utmost respect for
truth unencumbered by facts:
palmer: Thanks for posting the facts. No skepticism is not about mistatements of Gore’s energy usage. But this is not a thread about skepticism, just about losers like JFK Jr and Gore Jr who grow up in wealth and decide that the rest of us should sacrifice while they turn off a crystal chandelier or two.
rhombus: […] I appreciate your calling this factoid about Gore into question. It HAS been picked up by almost every media outlet there is. This tells me one thing at least… Al Gore’s days of respect have long since passed. […]
And the thread moderator decided to follow the great example of their hero, Galileo:
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
Looks like I was correct in my decision to be a blogfascist on my blog.
- By the way, I think Free Republic is almost certainly a forum for L-level discourse.