Domestic Drilling Challenge
|
|
Two numbers have been seared into the minds of millions of Americans: $4/per gallon of gas and $145/per barrel of crude oil. Explanations abound for how we arrived at this seemingly inconceivable position. Increased demand from China and India, as well as price speculation appear to be the front-runners.
However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.
But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?
I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).
In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today's consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I've yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.
So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.
Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.
However, what is less clear is how we as a country begin to find solutions to skyrocketing costs. One idea that appears to be gaining favor among the general public is to step up exploration for domestic sources of oil.
But, will increasing supply through domestic exploration really help the average consumer?
I posed this question in a previous post, offering contradictory evidence to the claim that more drilling will solve our problem of run away pump prices. The basic message from the NPR story linked in the post was that even if we open up all available areas of ANWAR and the outer continental shelf, the possibility of increasing supply would not come about for at least ten years. Furthermore, the market for ANWAR and outer continental shelf oil would not be restricted to the United States. No, folks, it would be for sale to the highest bidder on the planet (think of those pesky Chinese and Indians).
In the intervening weeks, I have yet to see a credible study, a credible report, or a credible economic forecast regarding the utility (for today's consumer of fossil fuel) of increased drilling. I did find plenty of evidence regarding the daunting scientific challenges of global climate change, which is irrefutably linked to increased fossil fuel use. But, I've yet to uncover anything compelling on the broad economic advantages of ANWAR/outer continental shelf drilling.
So, I turn to you, reader of the Clearly New Mexico blog. Do you have credible evidence of how the American public stands to gain from more domestic exploration? If so, please post something in the comments section. Or, email me at mattbrix@gmail.com.
Really, I am interested in knowing if the evidence exists.
You are somewhat right. If oil companies can sell on the open market then it would be hogged by the 800 lb gorilla-China. Hedge fund buyers are only limited by caps in the US, but on the open market any country can buy unlimited futures for whatever they can afford. And since China subsidizes it's gas prices to it's people, they naturally consume more. That's what speculators have been doing too.
Then there's the problem of population growth. It was 1 billion two centuries ago and now it's approaching 7 billion. It's would take fusion development overnight to sustain the number, and I doubt any energy scheme other than that would be enough to bring people into a 21st century living style. But if the US puts a quota on what should be should here vers what can be sold oversea, with an alternative energy research tax and investment incentives on renewable energy production, then the US would benefit from not only the oil produced but the revenue generated. At the least the extra oil would provide for a breather in prices for domestic consumers.
The US should then start a program for sustainable energy development. It's not going to happen in just ten years and with any one program. It will take all viable technologies including nuclear and clean coal. It's not as simple as putting 3 guys on the moon, it's putting the whole US population on the moon and then the world. So figure in some more domestic drilling and mining to get the US out of it's present economic doldrums. The oil flow could start as early as 2 years if done in the oil shales with streamlining refinery development.
The big problem is getting people to voluntarily alter their affluent lifestyles either the easy way or the hard way(economic kayos). I know that the US has built itself into a corner and there are no easy solutions including wind, solar or bio, you've got to look past the hype.
And don't give me this crap behind AGW (climate change), it's a politico scam. So if the climate goes into another ice age what are you going to call that, negative Gorism? Such hijinks. And to the idiot that point's the finger at Exxon, they only produce 3% of the world's oil.
No question, it will take a variety of renewable technologies (so-called "clean" coal and nuclear energy wouldn't be a part of my playbook) to make the full transition away from fossil fuel use. It will take some major sacrifice on the part of the American people. And, it will take a national, untied effort to make it all happen over several decades.
So why not cut the talk about short-term drilling and get about the business of a long-term solution? I still have not seen any credible evidence suggesting more drilling is going to help the average person at the pump.
As for climate change being a hoax, or some kind of contrived story from alarmists, the evidence and leading scientists suggest otherwise: Link.