10 dumb reasons not to expand offshore drilling

Take a look. I don’t think even the author believes this nonsense. It’s as if to say, finding domestic oil is not finding domestic oil.

Not enough refineries? Build more. And think about that point for a minute. Not enough refineries. Most of us want more domestic oil drilling simply to replace some, say 10 percent, of the imported oil that is siphoning $700 billion a year from our economy. (That 10 percent makes American $70 billion a year wealthier.) You don’t need more refineries for oil that’s replacing foreign oil. It adds up to the same amount.

But I’d go for more refineries. We have too many of them in Hurricane Alley. I’d like to see the federal government build a giant refinery in Nebraska as a backup to all these refineries that shut down every time the wind blows.

The lame list. For the record, here are the Top 10 reasons to block new domestic oil, according to the Center for American Progress:

1. We can’t drill our way out of the energy crisis.

2. We don’t have enough oil to meet our demand.

3. Oil companies have not utilized the leases they have now.

4. Offshore drilling would have an “insignificant” effect on long-term prices.

5. Drilling could lock us in to a future of expensive gasoline.

6. Production would be expensive, would not start for a long time, and would have no short-term effect on oil prices.

7. There isn’t enough drilling equipment.

8. We can’t refine the oil we would extract.

9. Drilling more oil now is not the path to a future based on alternative energy.

10. Debating offshore drilling in sensitive areas distracts from real solutions.

Head shaking? Again, if you assume, as most do, that expanded drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf (and the Arctic National “Wildlife Refuge”) might replace 10 percent of imports of foreign oil, none of these “reasons” is reasonable.

With new domestic oil replacing 10 percent of imported oil, new natural gas could replace another 20 percent of imported oil, and perhaps electric (ultimately coal and nuclear) cars could replace another 10 percent of imported oil, all this over the next 20 years.

That gives the Democrats 60 percent of foreign oil imports to play with. They can replace that with wind, solar and geothermal power. Heck, if they want, they can replace it by closing their eyes and wishing it away. But I’ll bet you that, over the next 20 years, the oil, natural gas and conventional electric energy still does more to replace foreign oil than any program the Democrats launch. (And I hope I lose that bet.)

Stubborn practicality. Some energy is simply much more practical than others. And if we don’t soon get practical with our energy needs, America will become a land of computers, cars, heaters, coolers and light bulbs with nothing to keep them running.

Energy is a basic. Let it go, and there go education, transportation, innovation, health care, home building, agriculture and even national defense, right down the financial drain.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Neo]

These are 10 of the lamest excuses.

[David Holliday]

There was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal back in the beginning of July that I think was prescient. Take a look and see what you think.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486800837317581.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

[Nicholas]

This is a "can't win, don't try" argument.

[jj mollo]

I guess I'm one who is shaking my head. Maybe the only one. Here's my question. Do you believe that we are going to be using oil as a major energy source indefinitely?

If not, then when are we going to see movement toward that future configuration? The only movement I see is the ethanol requirement and everybody is crying the blues about the market dislocations involved in that small measure.

The only thing that will make us change toward any kind of energy diversity is high prices for oil. It's hard on the economy, but it'll be a lot harder to change later rather than sooner. I am in favor of any measure that reduces our dependence on foreign oil except the substitution of domestic oil. Burn coal. Burn old tires. Dump your nuclear waste in the Delaware. I don't care. Just wean yourself from oil.

Every conceivable change in the energy configuration will lead to more jobs than oil drilling. Maybe Alaska will have a short term benefit, but they could build the gas pipeline instead.

Fact is -- we cannot drill our way out of the energy crisis. For all the reasons stated. If what you are looking for is a quick return to buck-fifty gas, it's not going to happen. What you don't understand is that high prices, painful though they are, are good for the country. It's a shame that the money flows toward our enemies. We could fix that if we wanted to, but we can't fix the fact that we need to transition away from oil.

[Frank Warner]

We're not looking for a return to cheap gasoline. We're looking for a smooth transition to the next affordable fuel, a transition that allows us to maintain jobs, basic services and civilization.

We know we're using far more oil and gasoline than we produce, and we know we're likely to need something close to that same oil quantity for at least 15 to 20 more years.

So at a time when we're deep in debt on every other front, it only makes sense to use our own oil and begin to stop the financial hemorrhaging.

[jj mollo]

The problem in my mind is that domestic production will succeed -- in the sense that it will lower prices. If prices go down there will be no economic path to allow us to break free of oil. Oil is cheap, convenient and addictive. If the domestic production were combined with high oil taxes, I would be thrilled. The problem behind the problem is our national tendency toward self-indulgence.