"Do you think oil companies are going to sell [U.S. oil] to U.S. consumers for anything less than top price?," he asks. "The answer is no."
What if Congress mandated that the offshore oil could not be exported? "The question of how much of that product that comes out, where it goes, I don't think Congress can dictate," industry rep Penniman says. "It goes onto the market. It's a free market system…but it is up to Congress [to pass] the laws on what they will and won't open."
Such a move could in fact increase the nation's energy costs. "Any time you impose a constraint, like 'oil from Alaska cannot go to Japan,'" Kaufman notes, "you're saying, 'don't do the cheapest thing, do something more expensive.' So everybody pays a little more. Where the free market does work very efficiently is to minimize transportation costs" for oil—which are determined by many factors, including the location of the nearest refinery that can handle the particular characteristics of the crude oil being shipped.
Kaufman dismisses as "nonsense" any promises that offshore drilling could make the U.S. "oil independent." Even if it could somehow insulate itself from the ups and downs of the global oil market, he notes, the U.S. would have to make a huge leap in domestic oil production to replace what it buys from overseas.
"At its peak in production, which occurred in 1970s, the U.S. produced about 10 million [barrels of oil] a day," Kaufman says. "Now, after 30 years of fairly steady decline, we produce about five million barrels a day," whereas we consume 20 million barrels daily. "Whoever talks about oil independence has to tell a story about how we close a 15-million-barrel gap."
The McCain campaign did not return repeated calls seeking comment.
See what we're tweeting about
59 Comments
Add CommentNew drilling for domestic (offshore or otherwise) will make us more, not less, dependent on foreign oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe argument is simple. If we tap new domestic reservoirs now, we will have little or no domestic oil reserves available in the mid-21st century when the world oil supply/demand balance will be much worse (according to current projections). Even if we have replaced oil for energy use with some other form of energy by that time, oil will be in demand for chemicals, lubrication, etc. Because most of the world oil supply will have been burned up, oil will be a scarce strategic commodity which we will have to import (probably from Russia or the middle east).
Think of these reserves as our last strategic petroleum reserve and conserve them.
"Scientific" American,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the end of our 30 year relationship. I have seen the assumptions of this study whose conclusion it that only 18 billion barrels exist in the East, West and Florida Gulf OCS. The study uses the early Gulf of Mexico development as a model. It implicitly assumes that the last 25 to 50 years of technological, scientific and engineering progress did not happen.
This is something you have failed to mention and it can only mean that you have gone over to a political rather than a scientific point of view. Please remove my name from your list of subscribers and change the name of oyour publication to "Political American".
rutherford,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDomestic production of offshore oil brings us lease fees, royalties and tax revenue that totals 40% of the oils value. And jobs, lots of jobs.
Imported oil brings us trade deficits, a GREATER risk of spills (imported oil comes in tankers, offshore oil in much safer pipelines) and a dependance on enemy states - NO jobs, NO lease fees, NO royalties, NO tax revenues.
Domestric oil production, please!
While I am thinking about it, I just dump the entire "Frequently Shouted Misconceptions" list...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMisconception #0. Offshore drilling will bring us no benefit
The oil off our shore is OURS - we OWN it. The oil companies will get their share for their multibillion dollar investment to get it out of the Earth. We get like 40% (taxes, lease fees and royalties) just for being the owners - no investment required! Not including jobs!
When we import oil we get none of that. Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad get that and more!
Yes, it goes to the federal government but it represents taxes you won’t pay in the future. It represents social security that might still be there when you need it. It represents a strong dollar and therefore lower oil prices. If you allow drilling in state waters (as we do) the money goes straight to the state (hence our surplus).
Misconception #1. If we open offshore drilling, it won’t affect prices for a long time.
The opening of offshore leases for exploration would have an immediate effect on oil futures markets. The prospect of new resources alone would drive down speculation. What keeps prices going up is, to a great extent, the belief that they will keep going up forever. With a large unexplored area coming into the equation, it has to deflate the bubble considerably.
Update: In July the President withdrew the Executive ban on offshore drilling. Immediately thereafter oil dropped in price by over 10%. Just a coincidence? OK, there was also an increase of 3 million barrels in the supply numbers versus a 3 million predicted decline. Coincidence? OK, Several deep-water platforms in the Gulf of Mexico started producing. Coincidence? OK, Go jump in a lake!
Misconception #2. The oil can’t be brought to the market for a long time.
Drilling in mature areas like the Gulf of Mexico is difficult, expensive and time consuming. That is because all the cheap oil (near the surface, near the shore, in shallow waters) is gone now. The deep Gulf now being drilled requires billion dollar floating platforms and some of the deepest wells ever drilled. Some of them reach to thirty thousand feet (which is about how high a jet airliner flies - to appreciate the distance). They do that in waters as deep as 7000 feet. . This requires multi-billion dollar floating platforms, hundreds of miles from shore. Don’t get it in your mind that this is easy! These complex projects can only be completed by sophisticated remote and robotic mechanisms. Yes - “greedy oil companies” are going where no man has gone before, on the bitter edge of engineering and scientific advancement - far beyond mundane dreams.
I told you all that so I could tell you this: New areas have will undoubtedly have “easy” targets that require less intense development and whose oil will get to market within a few years. For example, there will be areas already targeted off Southern California before the drilling ban took effect. You will find them near the 23 oil platforms in federal waters still producing down around Santa Barbara. With pipelines and other infrastructure already in place it should not take more than a few years to boost production from those areas.
The infamous Santa Barbara well that blew out in 1969 was drilled to a depth of only 3313 feet. That tells me that the oil in that area is quite near the surface. There were wells plugged and abandoned that could quickly be re-established, so the “many years” argument is bogus. Oil in this area will be easily (and safely, OK?) extracted. The Santa Barbara rigs are also in sight from shore in less than 300 feet of water. They have pipelines in place, that can be extended to nearby areas and horizontal wells can be drilled out to new fields from existing platforms. This oil will be quickly brought to the market. California offshore oil is a cakewalk by comparison to deep water zones.
The oil off California is shallow, in shallow water and close to shore. There is production that has been shut in and can be re-activated in a year or two. The seismic data (echo sounding subsurface exploration recordings) for that area of California exist. I have worked with some myself about 25 years ago. Oil is so plentiful it oozes out of the seafloor and the land (You might have heard of the La Brea Tar Pits?)
It is, of course, a collection of old school 2D data that is imprecise in location, but I would guess that a few drillers would think it sufficient to spud wells now. New seismic techniques are much more precise and have cut the number of “dry holes” drastically. Once drilling gets underway the oil will come much more quickly, easily and safely than it would have just 20 years ago.
Misconception #3. We can’t drill our way out of the problem.
In fact, we have already begun to do exactly that. Drillers don’t need permission from Congress everywhere. Wherever drilling is allowed, production already has ramped up significantly. One of the most active areas is the deep water (over 1000 feet) Gulf of Mexico where estimates of recoverable oil have gone from 150 million barrels in 1985 to 15 billion barrels of proven reserves now and estimates of 25 to 40 billion more to come (Zuzek). Thirty years ago this area was considered impossible to exploit. New exploration techniques and new drilling technology (boldly going…) have made this happen, though it is still quite risky and expensive. Drilling is expanding nonetheless, because the potential rewards are equally large.
Misconception #4. There is ‘not that much oil’ offshore
Tell it to the Brazilians. They have recently discovered two “Saudi” sized oilfields off their shores. Brazil has gone from importing almost all their fuel to energy independence by a combination of both ethanol and oil exploration in a few decades. They now become energy exporters and will be rich beyond their dreams. There is every reason to suspect that the same sort of resources exist off our own shores, but we are not going to find out if we don’t look.
People who have not been paying attention will tell you that it was Ethanol alone. The overall road transport sector (Including trucks and busses) in Brazil uses only 20% Ethanol (2006 figures - Wikipedia). Before you say that it is more environmentally safe, ask yourself how much Amazon rainforest was burned to make room for all that sugarcane.
Misconception #5. We should stop using oil and use alternatives.
Why does it have to be one or the other? We need ALL those options. Alternatives are already being developed. With oil prices up, many alternatives are becoming economically competitive. Many will undoubtedly become more efficiently produced and continue to grow in use. But, the fastest way to get energy prices down is to produce more oil. If and when alternatives are cheaper, faster and cleaner oil will not be able to compete. But, that has not happened yet.
The oils shock of 1978-79 led directly to more coal use, especially for electric generation and more natural gas for home heating instead of fuel oil. Those alternatives are also growing in use this time – with no act of congress required.
Misconception #6. Offshore drilling won’t bring any benefits and will endanger our beaches
Norway has offshore drilling and it has made them wealthy. Their shores are quite scenic (been there). Brazil has a few beaches and they don’t seem to be worried (wanna go there). In Texas (live there) where offshore drilling has happened for about 60 years, there is a place called Padre Island National Seashore, “encompassing 130,434 acres, is the longest remaining undeveloped stretch of barrier island in the world”. It is clean, go see it if you don’t believe me. There are other beaches in more developed areas. They are all unspoiled - not oil-stained as Texaphobes would have you believe. You want oil-stained beaches? Go to southern California where the stuff oozes out of the seafloor naturally.
As for benefits, be informed – oil companies pay for the privilege of exploring those offshore leases – and there is no guarantee that they will find a drop. All those billions go straight to the tax base and stay there, long before the drillers have a chance to make a cent.
Misconception #7. Offshore drilling spills oil everywhere.
With only two exceptions, major oil spills have traditionally been from tankers, not platforms. Tankers pass by Florida bringing imported oil to our Gulf Coast refineries, every day. I saw a Cuban petroleum geologist speak in Mexico a while back. He told of the Cuban “Exclusive Economic Zone” in the waters near Florida, in which they intend to drill aggressively (with the help of capitalists, who actually have the means to do so). It is as close to Florida as would be any domestic drilling. So, Florida will have tankers passing by and drilling offshore and get none of the jobs and none of the oil revenue! That’s not very clever, is it?
There has not been a spill from a platform for 30 years. That was a Mexican rig and even PEMEX has adopted safe drilling practices and they produce millions of barrels a day safely from offshore platforms, currently. They sell about half of it to us, by the way.
Misconception #8. We are safe from oil spills if we have no offshore drilling.
As you may have heard, oil tankers are far more likely to spill on your coast than an oil platform (which generally use submarine pipelines to transport oil). California has 21 refineries (1,856,000 barrels/day -Wikipedia) that are supplied, in part, by foreign oil transported in tankers. Some 750 tankers pass under the Golden Gate Bridge every year. New Jersey has a similar situation (780,000 barrels/day). Florida doesn’t seem to have refineries but remember that tankers pass Florida on their way to refineries in Texas (4,692,000 barrels/day) and Louisiana (2,946.000 barrels/day), Mississippi (364,8000 bbl/day) and Alabama (148,700).
So, which situation do you prefer:
A. Tankers coming and going in your ports or passing by your coast, bringing no oil-lease revenues, No royalties and no jobs.
B. Platforms sending oil in much safer pipelines bringing billions in lease revenue, ongoing billions in royalties (1/8 to ¼ of the oil produced) and lots of jobs. Oh, and taxes that, with royalties and leases, add up to a total of 40% of the oil produced.
And remember, you must have one or the other and you have option A. already, by default.
Misconception #9. Offshore drilling kills marine life.
Oil platforms have been proven to increase both the numbers and diversity of marine life by acting as artificial reefs. Fishermen actually seek out the rigs for that reason.
What does kill marine life is farm-country fertilizer run off that spills out into the Gulf of Mexico and has created a “Dead Zone” the size of the State of New Jersey. With more crops planted for the “green fuel” ethanol, the Zone is expanding. Attempting to replace all the oil in our economy with biofuels will accelerate this process enormously.
There is no energy source that has zero impact on the environment. Telling me biofuels are better is nonsense while farm run off is having such a devastating effect on my local environment..
Misconception #10. Any oil in the ocean is from a spill.
Come and listen to my story ‘bout a man named Rudesindo Cantarall. In 1971, this fisherman complained to PEMEX (the National Oil Company of Mexico) about thick tar that was fouling his nets in the Bay of Campeche. The oil people were puzzled, having no pipelines or drill rigs in that area. He took some PEMEX geologists to the spot where it was happening. What they found was natural seepage from what turned out to be one of the largest offshore oil fields ever found. It became the economic heart of Mexico’s oil industry is only now waning. Alas, Rudesindo did not retire to Acapulco Bay amongst swimin’ pools and movie stars, as we might like to believe. He died in 1997 in poverty and obscurity.
Seeps of petroleum happen anywhere petroleum occurs in abundance. It is not in the least surprising that someone would decide to drill where seeps occur. Venezuela is replete with such oil seepage and natural gas eruptions. I myself have seen these with my own eyes. In the Gulf of Mexico oil seeps out at a rate equal to 2 “ExxonValdez’s” per year (Science Daily).
So, when you see an oil platform and blame it for the tar balls on the beach, you have quite probably put cause and effect backward. Petroleum, after all is a naturally occurring substance that sometimes comes to the surface, as at the La Brea tar pits, to pick a well-known example
Misconception #11. But won’t drilling cause more seepage?
Au contrare, mon ami, pumping the oil out of the ground reduces seepage. Studies by the University of California done around an oil rig (Platform Holly) off Santa Barbara (Yes - oil platform - California) show that natural seepage has dropped by more than 50 % over 22 years as a result of oil production.
Studies of natural seepage in that area indicate that the amount of oil released in four years is equivalent to the Exxon Valdez spill.
Misconception #12. We should subsidize wind power or solar and abandon oil.
All or nothing, again? Wind turbines are subsidized by the Feds and going up all over. It will help with electricity generation, but of course, not liquid fuel. The petroleum in use here is almost entirely used for transportation. Electricity is coal, natural gas, nuclear, a little wind and a little hydro and a tiny bit solar.
Wind power plants are going up in many states. US wind capacity has increased from 2500 Megawatts in 1999 to 16,596 in 2007. That’s an increase of 596 % in 8 years. I love this trivia question: Which US state has the most wind generation capacity? …You said California, didn’t you? Wrong, it’s TEXAS (4296 MW to California’s 2439 MW – 2007 figures). I bet Texaphobes just hate that.
Photovoltaics are a good solution in places far from the electric grid. And grid connected solar panels can pay for themselves in 10 years or so, these days. Solar is an excellent addition to the electric grid and growing more economic with each new advance in technology. However, solar won’t fit in your gas tank and we cannot not replace the entire automobile, bus and truck fleets with electrics in one fell swoop.
Misconception #13. Maybe Nuclear is the single, all encompassing answer
Nuclear power is about as safe and clean a source of energy as you can find. I applaud any effort to expand nuclear, despite the greenzillas. But, here we go again - we cannot exist on one energy source – we never have and never will. We need as many different energy sources as we can get. You can’t get nuclear power into your gas tank, either.
Misconception #14. Conservation is all we need.
New technology is giving us more ways to use less energy and that’s great. Everybody in now financially motivated to conserve and they will. You think we need an act of Congress to get people to spend less on expensive stuff? It’s only rich folks who can afford to throw money away. But they didn’t get to be rich with habits like that, now did they? Unless, of course, they are politicians.
In any case, conservation alone is not the solution - diversity is. Conservation is a source of energy like any other and we need them all.
Misconception #15. The Speaker of the House says there are millions of acres of leases that are idled by the oil companies. Shouldn’t they be forced to drill?
As I said before, the lease gets you the right to explore and IF you find oil, you can develop it. Those “idle” leases are either still under exploration (which, in difficult areas, can take many years) or have already been proven unproductive. The Feds don’t give your money back when there’s no oil on your lease, despite what you may have spent on exploration. In short, you can’t drill it if it’s not there and if it is there it must be located precisely before it can be drilled.
After a set term the lease is again open to bidding, in case someone else thinks they can find something. Yes, “use it or lose it” is ALREADY the law of the land. Nevertheless, the majors are out in the Gulf investing billions in leases, exploration and infrastructure, though it might be decades before the payoff. All that lease money, incidentally, goes to the federal tax base immediately.
This is better explained in a Wall Street Journal piece by Red Cavaney, President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. I don’t have permission to reprint but you will find it in the references;
The 'Idle' Oil Field Fallacy
By RED CAVANEY
The Wall Street Journal June 20, 2008; Page A13
_____________________________________________________________________
Misconception #16. Cuba is not really preparing to drill off Florida.
Cuba has an “Exclusive Economic Zone” in the Gulf Just South of Florida. They have sold leases to many interests. There is an article in Cuba’s official website that says “CNOOC to participate in Cuban Resource Exploitation - CNOOC is Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation. It’s a dead link now - they probably pulled it when the story hit the US press, so it could be easily denied by anti-independence advocates. I suspect they have pulled the link by now, too.
Besides China - Repsol YPF (Spain-Argentina), Norsk Hydro (Norway), India Oil and Natrual Gas. Corp., Petronas (Malaysia), PDVSA (Venezuela), and PetroVietnam have leases and PetroBras (Brazil) is considering the possibility..
So, China, Schmina – Cuba is going to drill like crazy with the help of some capitalists who actually have money to do so. So expect the rigs off Florida soon.
Cuba will also attempt to nationalize once production is running, but this list of companies are not so easily fooled - with the possible exception of PDVSA.
Misconception #17. Evil Oil Companies could take oil from US waters and sell it overseas
First, between 1/8 and ¼ of the oil extracted is the property of the US government. These are royalty payments to the mineral owner and are above and beyond lease fees.
Second, The government also taxes everything and eventually winds up with something like 40% of the value of the oil.
Third, Platforms send oil ashore in pipelines and have multiyear contracts for delivery to refineries.
Fourth, in order to bring in a tanker and offload oil to send off to China, you would need a permit (and to pay dearly for it) from –guess who?
Relatively small amounts - never more than 7% - of Alaskan crude have been sold to Korea, Japan and China. Korea imports about half of this oil. (ncseonline.org). That was allowed because there was more crude available on the West Coast than could be handled by refineries there. For a while oil was sent through the Panama Canal to Gulf Coast refineries and the US Virgin Islands. It proved to be more economically sensible to export to Pacific markets to avoid the canal trip which prohibits large ships.
http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/natural/nrgen-25.cfm
Misconception #18 Production will only increase by 200,000 barrels a day, if we open all the outer continental shelf. Some government (Energy Information Agency) study said so.
This one gets quoted so much I must add it to the list. It is an idiotic statement from the very start. Off Canada’s eastern seaboard, there is a SINGLE platform producing 206,
000 barrels per day right now. Off California there are 23 platforms in federal waters that together produce over 200,000 barrels per day right now. There is a single platform that just began production in the Gulf of Mexico that will soon produce 250,000 barrels per day. There is a single field in Mexican waters that produces over a million barrels a day. It used to do twice that. Can you see that 200,000 barrels a day for the peak production of the entire east coast , most of the west coast and the Florida gulf coast combined is a ridiculous number?
If not, then you will believe it when I tell you there are 3 ounces in a gallon of milk.
Well said Geophys55!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrutherford: Even if what you said were true, and Geophys55 points out in great detail that it isn't, If we drill now AND develop "clean" fuel alternatives as one of our two political parties proposes then we wont need anymore oil by the mid 21st century so who cares if it's gone by then. It will be money in our pockets rather than someone elses. We have hydrogen cars now, and are refining the idea to make it marketable. We have electric cars with over 100 mile range on one charge ON THE MARKET NOW (see Tesla Motors) if we continue to develop and refine these ideas while we drill for oil and offer these vehicle alternatives to standard gasoline models then everyone who can't rush out and buy a car on a whim will have time to budget and plan on buying one of these vehicles while buying American oil so they can pay less in taxes and be able to afford one of those other vehicles sooner
Geophys55, what is your dog in this fight? By your ID I guess you are a geophysicist, or consider yourself one. Do you work in the petroleum industry? Do you work from time to time in the petroleum industry? Have you ever worked in the petroleum industry? Do you have hopes of working in the petroleum industry?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI say this because many of your outrages read like petroleum industry "fact sheets". To speak metaphorically, you quack like a duck, so I wonder if you are a duck.
That was a metaphor.
Anyway, if you come clean on your background, we can better analyze the veracity of your statements (some of which, on careful examination, are nothing more than your opinion).
justpat,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou didn't "carefully examine" anything. You just called me oilfield trash as if that makes you superior.
"Come clean"? How condescending of you! You attitude sucks (metaphorically speaking, of course)
I do not suffer fools lightly and all my comments are extensively researched and none are just opinion. My dog is the truth and you are not hearing my dog in the press.
I have worked for thirty years in the oil exploration and I might know a bit more about it than the instant experts. The press is so full of misinformation that I spent a lot of my own time researching and debunking the drivel I see published as if it were undisputed fact.
But I reckon you only accept information about a subject from complete ignorami, am I right?
If you don't like what I say, then dispute my statements with FACTS, not elitist snobbery and innuendo.
gas prices spike to $5.00 a gallon here in virginia due to hurricane season, of course off shore drilling would increase our supply significantly, who knows how much recoverable oil there is in the alantic, pacific and alaska area's but if it continues to be banned and area's like texas and lousiana are major oil producing states continue to get hit hard by hurricanes that devistate the offshore drilling rigs and major refinery's then our dependance on foreign oil grows even larger. if we have this kind of oil reserve in banned locations then why is the government banning it? they should not only open it but give aid to oil companies that wish to drill for our own oil resources to be used here in the USA. not only that, they say we use 25% of the world's oil usage every year well 70% of that is used by our very own government. we have the technoligy to create synthetic motor oil, why not synthetic gas? natural gas is also an option we should be tapping into. especially the military they use some 50% of our countries yearly fuel comsumption. if they took the effort to convert all though's vehicles and stuff to natural gas we would see signifacant drops in oil usuage. the less our nation wide usage and the less we depend on forgien oil absolutely would change the global market but in our favor. they say the 70's was our peak domestic oil production. well late 70's was the gasoline war's and i for one remember those days countless hours waiting in line for gas and huge price increases, well guess what its the same situation but now its 10 times worse as we dont't have the oil production we use to have, why is that? simple the government has banned so much of our own natural resources and surpressed energy alternatives for decades just to please big oil companies. well now its time to move forward and consider that this backwards thinking for the last few decades has not helped our economy but hurt it tremendously. every denies that we are not in a recession, however pay rates remain unchanged and gas prices, grocery prices and consumer goods have tripled and in some cases quadrupled. this is a ression that rivals the 1930's but worse. so government officials get off ur duff's and do something about this crisis before the entire economy emplodes on itself and capitalism falls. in other words get your hands out of my pockets and fix the mess you created.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeophys55
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've always wanted to ask someone who uses the term -- what does "elitist" mean to you?
Do you think it is somehow "elitist" (whatever that means) to ask you to identify your connection to the industry? Is it "elitist" to want to know the WHOLE story, and not just the part you decide to tell at the outset?
The only person to use the phrase "oil field trash" -- which I'd never heard of before now -- is you. I don't think of you as trash in any form. I love you the way Jesus taught us to love all our brothers (but not in the "men lying with men" way forbidden in Leviticus.) (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
Your Misapprehension 14 is pure opinion. Not that there's anything wrong with that, either.
Is this a scientific website or a political website?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found economic and financial science part of this article disturbingly weak. The author demostrated less than zero knowledge of the dynamics of global oil pricing mechanisms, and very little understanding of the energy industry.
Absolute bunk.
Geophys55
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you read the part where they stated, flat out, that the old studies were pretty much useless and there could be far more (or less oil in those regions? Sounds to me like you're just spouting a lot of right wing/big oil propaganda. I bet you believe global warming is a farce too. Seems to me that Scientific American is doing exactly what they should when they bring genuine facts and figures to discussions like this; even if oil company shills like yourself don't much care for it.
By the way, as long as Scientific American has decided to become a partisan political blog, I'd like to point something out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are foreign interests who would like to see the United States NOT drill for oil. It's a good thing that countries like Russia, China, Cuba, and the America-loving Gulf States are all Boy Scouts who would never interfere in an internal matter here in the US just so they could make an additional hundreds of billions of dollars.
Seems to me it's the job of a science magazine to report on science based news. It only seems biased to republicans because they hate that pesky science that always contradicts their superstitions and voodoo beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve O, I want to understand how your mind works. How did "Scientific American decide to become a partisan political blog"? I'm seriously asking because I seriously don't see it, and I hope you can enlighten me so I can see the world the way you see it. Please?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou are correct about our needs in the next century. in nebraska the state and county vehicles have already been converted to natural gas, if they can do it why not the entire military and other states and government vehicles? our nationwide usage a year is 25% and the government uses 70% of that of which atleast 50% is military and a large portion of that is used by military jets flyiong traing missions and mantaining our world wide air supiriority presence. well if we convert our jets, tanks, and other vehicles to synthetic fuels or natural gas the effects to our national oil reserves for be astronomical. couple that with opening offshore drilling in all area's and allowing advances in technology for alternative fuels and energy sources for automobiles, heat and electricity by the time our oil resvre would be in danger we would no longer depend on oil. not only that but short term the effect on forgein oil would me terrmendous. our economy drives the worlds economy. what our nation is willing to pay for a barrel of forgein oil sets the price. if we change the varibles that effect the price in our favor then forgein oil would be out of luck. why send 700 billion a year to countries that don't like us when we have resources and alternative fuels here? the increase in domestic oil drilling, alternative conversions, and research in synthetic would create major increases in jobs as well as domestic indepancy. this would effect the world's economy in such a fashion as to show the middle east (a breeding ground for terrorist that hate the USA) THAT WE DON'T NEED THEIR EXPENSIVE BARRELS OF OIL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPrologue- Oil is a commodity. Oil companies have "share holders" whom demand that they get "top dollar" for their commodity....highest bidder wins and prices rise. My layman response to.....1. less oil=higher prices=less use=less emissions. more oil=lower prices=higher use=higher emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(maybe oil companies can donate all their profits to grow 10 million hectare of grass to offset the oil we burn. 2 faster you drill quicker to pollute. 3. drill your way into SUV gas tank. 4. if all nations put this much effort and expense in alternative fuels and natural gas exploration they wouldn't go into history books as " the people who killed the planet"!5. the world will always require petroleum, all the way till the end. thus, why not save our untapped sources . securing this we will have oil for future use.6. due to increased CO emissions many of our ice packs have melted away in many areas, the lakes and rivers have no more fresh cold water flowing in rivers, these rivers form algae which runs into ocean which creates more algae which reduces oxygen in water which kills off life forms thus increasing dead zones along coast. 9. see 6. 10. stockholders justifying use. 11. see 10 12. solar in tank (not gas tank) sure! plug in a hybrid!
13. nuclear- plug in an electric vehicle. 14. conservation- ABSOLUTELY! lets start by conserving our future oil by not drilling and pumping our oil deposits now thus conserving for the future. 15. DONT USE IT , DONT LOOSE IT! don't allow ANY nation to tap into US oil reserve areas! 16. just as OPEC decides output, a new USPEC decide global drilling's. 17. see prologue. 18. sum 1,656,000. barrels a day, more than we need problem solved, no more drilling needed!
Geophys55
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI definitely like all the updated info on oil drilling, and the amount of oil that's actually out there when utilizing the most recent techniques. My compliments on a well-written comment.
As someone without a "Dog in the Fight," I want to defend GeoPhys55. He gave a well-written, reasoned, and factually supported argument using sound science, reason, and logic. There is no reason to denounce him as a "oil industry shill" or the like. I for one am not sold on the idea of offshore drilling, and an enthusiastic proponent of alternative fuels, but I certainly appreciated a well-informed argument from someone who clearly knows what they are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe right's slap in the face to true science through their support of creationism means they have lost my vote, but it does not mean that I won't consider one of their arguments on its academic, economic, and financial merit
My compliments to you, GeoPhys.
What the government is really trying to do is save oil and when the oil is almost rare, America will make profits by selling that oil to other countries. Otherwise I agree with your FAQ list.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" I bet you believe global warming is a farce." Global warming is not a farce, man made global warming is a farce. The earth has gone through countless cycles of warming and cooling. To believe we could warm the plant makes no sense. Common points for man made global warming include saying like the average temp is the highest now since 1930. Why was is that hot in the 30's? Not because of the automobile. Also the famous hockey stick graph that shows temp and CO2 increasing dramatically from 1850 to the present after staying constant for 300 years. What is not shown is the temp and CO2 were just as high 500 years ago as they are now. Why was CO2 so high then? Columbus wasn't burning oil discovering America. The temp of the earth is a cycle. It is determined by more factors than we know. When all these computer models that predict temps to increase over the 50 or 100 years are modeled backwards, they do not predict temps of the past. The fact is we do not have enough information to say we are warming the globe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho called Geophys55 an oil industry shill??????????? He called himself oilfield trash (when no one else suggested he was), and then tried to blame it on other people. Is this rational?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd one thing none of you have yet had the GUTS to answer -- is it _wrong_ for other people to ask if a poster has any sort of vested interest in a particular topic??? Answer that first, because that impinges on the entire direction of the thread.
Unless, of course, your type is simply interested in parachuting in, making a few outraged (and outrageous) claims, and then leaving with the self-satisfied certainty of an intelligent conversation derailed.
CO2 was not just as high 500 years ago. Most studies have agreed that they are the highest they have been in 10s of thousands of years and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRutherford, that is the worst logic. It's like the Mash episode where Hawkeye is trying to get piece of medical equipment to save lives and the supply sergeant doesn't want to give him one because then he will only have one on his shelf instead of two. People got that joke on television, but do not get it in real life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the goal to have a stockpile of oil untapped, or is it to have oil to use and lower gas prices??? Truth is, environmental groups have flooded the MMS website and hijacked the effort to open up drilling.
Supporters can go to www.fedupnetwork.com/?p=277 and find the link for the MMS website to voice their concerns. This site also has a lot of pertinenet information related to the energy issue.
I appreciate greatly the compliments of some of the other posters about my prose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks, guys!
On the other hand:
justpat,
Don't get all bent out of shape! You made me angry when you demanded I "come clean" and insinuated some kind of "vested interesst". Asking "what's your dog in this hunt" is typically a hostile preamble around here.
All I do (and have done for 30 years) is work my butt off finding oil for the likes of you and I am rewarded (by a vocal few) by being callied "Greedy".
I don't care for that attitude and I react to it freely and verbosely. Just remember that "Big Oil" is made up of a lot of inteligent, capable people who have been around the block a few times. We know what we're talking about, just ask us!
P.S. Power is back on after IKE. Oil production in the Gulf will take a good hit, though.
I notice that justpat still ignored the request to address the facts of the article, instead of attacking the author. I would like to see the facts also. Fact sources that could be researched would help too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWoe to the poor oil industry and its sacrifices! Brought by the government and foreign competitors!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing absolutes and ideals are as misleading as the misleading ideas alledgely used by the author of the initial article.
Ideal data and information is one thing, application in real life and its complexity is something else.
Lets consider Geophys55's overall viewpoint of conditions of the oil industry in the United States.
Ideal one: the 40% of the oil produced becomes income received by federal and state governments.
Ideally, that could happen according to state and federal laws, but government subsidies to the oil industry-- with tax deductions of capital depreciation and capital investments greatly reduces this income.
Ideal two: there is income generation and job creation for the public with oil industry investment and drilling at specific sites, such as in the Gulf. If this is true in an absolute sense, how do we explain the small state budgets and very low per capita incomes of the Gulf states (namely, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama relative to other states, especially those without a significant presence of the oil industry investment and its drilling? Also, how much income exactly flows into the state coffers of Texas and Florida from the oil industry and from what industry sources? Ideal information is ideally generalizing and misleading.
Ideal three: In general, if the oil industry must endure such investment sacrifices and must generate so generous amounts of income for states and the American people, why is it one of the attractive industries for investment and profit through the decades? Some might point out its recently dropping stock value to question this point. However, instead of looking at the stock and future markets driven by speculation, we could rather point at the oil industry's general costs, its revenues and profit margins to see why this industry is a consistent site for investment from other industries. The record profits of this industry, despite its increasing capital investment for technologies to extract oil at more difficult places underground and under water, would also indicate the oil industry's great value as an investment.
Anyone can point out and extend ideal views to try to make convincing arguments, but as Geophys55 would likely consider, its much more complex once we consider economic and political realities.
Given this and Geophys55 ideal picture, I would like to know-- who does Geophys55 receive funding from? Please response without ideal information.
Woe to the poor oil industry and its sacrifices! Brought by the government and foreign competitors!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing absolutes and ideals are as misleading as the misleading ideas alledgely used by the author of the initial article.
Ideal data and information is one thing, application in real life and its complexity is something else.
Lets consider Geophys55's overall viewpoint of conditions of the oil industry in the United States.
Ideal one: the 40% of the oil produced becomes income received by federal and state governments.
Ideally, that could happen according to state and federal laws, but government subsidies to the oil industry-- with tax deductions of capital depreciation and capital investments greatly reduces this income.
Ideal two: there is income generation and job creation for the public with oil industry investment and drilling at specific sites, such as in the Gulf. If this is true in an absolute sense, how do we explain the small state budgets and very low per capita incomes of the Gulf states (namely, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama relative to other states, especially those without a significant presence of the oil industry investment and its drilling? Also, how much income exactly flows into the state coffers of Texas and Florida from the oil industry and from what industry sources? Ideal information is ideally generalizing and misleading.
Ideal three: In general, if the oil industry must endure such investment sacrifices and must generate so generous amounts of income for states and the American people, why is it one of the attractive industries for investment and profit through the decades? Some might point out its recently dropping stock value to question this point. However, instead of looking at the stock and future markets driven by speculation, we could rather point at the oil industry's general costs, its revenues and profit margins to see why this industry is a consistent site for investment from other industries. The record profits of this industry, despite its increasing capital investment for technologies to extract oil at more difficult places underground and under water, would also indicate the oil industry's great value as an investment.
Anyone can point out and extend ideal views to try to make convincing arguments, but as Geophys55 would likely consider, its much more complex once we consider economic and political realities.
Given this and Geophys55 ideal picture, I would like to know-- who does Geophys55 receive funding from? Please response without ideal information.
Are temps the highest they have been is thousands of years? No. Areas of Greenland that are currently frozen were inhabited by vikings. If CO2 levels are the highest they have been in thousands of years, why aren't temperatures? Is it possible they CO2 is not responsible of increasing global temps? Water vapor has a greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre oil companies not allowed to make profits? The industry average profit margin in 8%. Is is not outrageous. In fact it is below most other industries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFull Disclosure:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeophys55 is a geophysicist born in 1955. He works for a seismic exploration company whose name is none of your business.
He got really tired of people publishing so very many misconceptions about offshore drilling and the oil industry in generalthat, instead of responding with patient explanations, one at a time, he collected all the misconceptions (on his own time, at his own expense), researched them extensively and gave his humble but informed opinion of their invalidity.
He will paste this list into discussion boards, space permitting.
He response freely and verbosely to those who refer to him as an "Industry Shill" or a "duck" - all the while maintaining a quick wit and wry sense of humor. ;-)
Geophys55
-Houston-
Davidwinck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is the highest its been as far back as the ice core data goes---400k years, is a pretty long time. Humans greatly underestimate our impact on this planet. From your comment,
"The earth has gone through countless cycles of warming and cooling. To believe we could warm the plant makes no sense. Common points for man made global warming include saying like the average temp is the highest now since 1930. Why was is that hot in the 30's? Not because of the automobile"
-This comment reveals to all, your complete lack of knowledge on the global warming subject. Cars, although contributing to CO2 emissions pale in comparison to the CO2 output of coal powerplants.
-It was not equally hot in the 1930's- completely false statement.
-Your comment regarding the natural cycles of the earth is a common statement used that informs the reader you have not done your homework so to speak. True the earth does go through hot and cold cycles. For the past 400k years, we have CO2 data. It rises and falls associate with glacial and interglacial periods. Currently the RATE of rise in CO2 is unprecedented in the last 400k years.
Now, back to topic on the oil drilling debate. I come from a conservationist standpoint. So you can read this statement as being biased for the environment (just to upfront). At a time when America should be looking towards alternative fuel sources, I find it interesting how drilling seems to be to some, the answer to all our problems. We need to cut our CO2 emissions, not prolong our dependence on it. I know I'm going to see some comments on why human induced climate change is not real, though I'll recommend you to read some peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject and then tell me what you believe. I always find it funny to see regular people declaring scientific findings false, when they don't understand some of the fundamentals the science is based upon.
Ok, now to end my rant. Let us hope the history books will remember this time period as when Americans made some difficult, yet necessary changes to the way they govern and live in order to become more environmentally friendly. Sadly I'm not sure that will be the case.
Davidwinck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is the highest its been as far back as the ice core data goes---400k years, is a pretty long time. Humans greatly underestimate our impact on this planet. From your comment,
"The earth has gone through countless cycles of warming and cooling. To believe we could warm the plant makes no sense. Common points for man made global warming include saying like the average temp is the highest now since 1930. Why was is that hot in the 30's? Not because of the automobile"
-This comment reveals to all, your complete lack of knowledge on the global warming subject. Cars, although contributing to CO2 emissions pale in comparison to the CO2 output of coal powerplants.
-It was not equally hot in the 1930's- completely false statement.
-Your comment regarding the natural cycles of the earth is a common statement used that informs the reader you have not done your homework so to speak. True the earth does go through hot and cold cycles. For the past 400k years, we have CO2 data. It rises and falls associate with glacial and interglacial periods. Currently the RATE of rise in CO2 is unprecedented in the last 400k years.
Now, back to topic on the oil drilling debate. I come from a conservationist standpoint. So you can read this statement as being biased for the environment (just to upfront). At a time when America should be looking towards alternative fuel sources, I find it interesting how drilling seems to be to some, the answer to all our problems. We need to cut our CO2 emissions, not prolong our dependence on it. I know I'm going to see some comments on why human induced climate change is not real, though I'll recommend you to read some peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject and then tell me what you believe. I always find it funny to see regular people declaring scientific findings false, when they don't understand some of the fundamentals the science is based upon.
Ok, now to end my rant. Let us hope the history books will remember this time period as when Americans made some difficult, yet necessary changes to the way they govern and live in order to become more environmentally friendly. Sadly I'm not sure that will be the case.
Davidwinck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is the highest its been as far back as the ice core data goes---400k years, is a pretty long time. Humans greatly underestimate our impact on this planet. From your comment,
"The earth has gone through countless cycles of warming and cooling. To believe we could warm the plant makes no sense. Common points for man made global warming include saying like the average temp is the highest now since 1930. Why was is that hot in the 30's? Not because of the automobile"
-This comment reveals to all, your complete lack of knowledge on the global warming subject. Cars, although contributing to CO2 emissions pale in comparison to the CO2 output of coal powerplants.
-It was not equally hot in the 1930's- completely false statement.
-Your comment regarding the natural cycles of the earth is a common statement used that informs the reader you have not done your homework so to speak. True the earth does go through hot and cold cycles. For the past 400k years, we have CO2 data. It rises and falls associate with glacial and interglacial periods. Currently the RATE of rise in CO2 is unprecedented in the last 400k years.
Now, back to topic on the oil drilling debate. I come from a conservationist standpoint. So you can read this statement as being biased for the environment (just to upfront). At a time when America should be looking towards alternative fuel sources, I find it interesting how drilling seems to be to some, the answer to all our problems. We need to cut our CO2 emissions, not prolong our dependence on it. I know I'm going to see some comments on why human induced climate change is not real, though I'll recommend you to read some peer reviewed scientific literature on the subject and then tell me what you believe. I always find it funny to see regular people declaring scientific findings false, when they don't understand some of the fundamentals the science is based upon.
Ok, now to end my rant. Let us hope the history books will remember this time period as when Americans made some difficult, yet necessary changes to the way they govern and live in order to become more environmentally friendly. Sadly I'm not sure that will be the case.
Sorry for the redundant posts, having some browser issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO2 is not the only gas to have a greenhouse effect. The rate of CO2 increase is not unprecedented in the last 400K years, which is not a large enough time frame to make a conclusion. Temp cycles can be 10,000 years long. Solar cylces can be 100,000. This is not enough data considering the age of the planet. Major volcanic eruptions release more CO2 than humans have throughout their exsistence. For every paper on global warming there is a paper to refute it. I find to interesting when regular people look at data and draw preconceived conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeing pro drilling is not being against alternate energy. The choices are just not there yet. I would prefer to plug my car in every night or charge it at a solar powered parking garage, but be do not have the resources to produce enough electricity power 100 million vehicles. Until we do, we need to use our natural resources.
Somebody asked how much in royalties goes to Texas. When the oil production happens in state waters, the royalties of course, go to the state. That amounts to somewhere between 1/8 and 1/4 of the oil, either "in kind" (i.e., the oil itself) or in cash.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisState waters usually include bays and estuaries and extend three miles out from the the coast. Through a fortunate detail of history and a wiskey-swilling visionary named Sam Houston, Texas' state waters go out to "three marine leagues" which is almost 10 miles.
Lease fees, as far as I know, all go to the state in state waters as well. Those are auction based and so can vary greatly. Tax revenues go to every level of government as usual. Outside state waters, the Feds get all the revenue.
A side note: On land, the propetry owner (assuming he still has the mineral rights) is the happy recipient of the royalties. Just now, new technology has made it possible to drill formations like the Barnett Shale which underlies the City of Forth Worth and surrounding area. Horizontal drilling makes it possible to extrract gas from miles away. Many landowners don't know where the drill rig is but are pocketing one or more thousand per acre per year. The airport, city hall, parks, et al, are profiting nicely.
Does Texas benefit? Well, besides the jobs and direct royalties on land, we have no state income tax, a budget surplus, low unemployment, high wages and an impresive highway system. The air water and beaches are clean, despite what creative journalism you might have heard.
What else would you like to know?
How "good" are the estimates of oil on the US's continental shelves? Has anyone even conducted geophysical (or other) reconnaisance of, say, the East Coast continental shelves? How recently? How geologically similar are the Gulf of Mexico oil fields to the continental shelves?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore generally, why do geologists, oil companies, and/or politicians think there is enough oil in these areas to warrant building an extraction infrastructure?
And now an opinion (applies to ANWR, too): there may be lots of oil in these as-yet undeveloped places. There may be enough oil to there to make some companies and some individuals a lot of money. However, that does not mean there is enough oil to either effect the long-term price of oil, or to improve the strategic strength of the U.S.
Personally, I don't want to drill in ANWR or offshore until we have higher gas taxes and aggressive motor vehicle mileage standards.
Yes, we may need to drill and produce more oil domestically, but we would serve our children very poorly if we did it just so we could have another 20 years of $3.00/gallon gas.
Jarvis,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oil off California was proven long ago (before the ban). It is shallow, in shallow water, close to shore and easily extracted and transported. So abundant it is, that is oozes up through the seafloor in amounts comparable to the Exxon Valdeez spill every year.
You may ask why California wants to limit oil production to 50 miles where they won't get any royalties. I have no answer for that.
There was some exploration done off Florida. The structures I saw are certainly indicative of oil traps. There is one of the largest dry (no associated oil) gas fields at Destin Dome off Florida. Florida blocked it until Chevron gave up and asked for their lease money back.
A small amount of old-school regional data exists for the Eastern Seaboard. New seismic techniques are far more accurate, but also expensive.
However, no one in their right mind is going to spends hundreds of millions exploring where they won't be allowed to drill.
Davidwinck,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile I strongly disagree with most of the facts you stated, I do agree the infrastructure isn't there yet. Americans have had cheaper gas than the rest of the world for a long time. When our prices begin to approach that of the rest of the world its a 'crisis'. I just feel that the US should hold off drilling just to ease up gas prices for the short term.
Oh, and finally regarding global warming, regardless of the cause, I think we can all conclude things are changing. A forgotten consequence of high CO2 levels, is a process called ocean acidification. Through the dissolution of CO2 into the oceans, the pH becomes more acidic. This makes it difficult for organisms that use calcium carbonate to build their shells (corals, crabs, bivalves). This is going to greatly change the worlds oceans in the next century. If we have a chance to mitigate the effects of this to some extent, isn't it worth it? Even if humans are only playing a small part in global warming (which I believe is not a small part, but a large one), isn't it our responsibility to alleviate our impact to our potential?
Geophys55,
While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've said, I appreciate you taking the time to explain some of the details regarding where the money comes and goes in the oil industry.
The fact that a gallon of gas is getting so expensive may make us angry and therefore is red meat for political appeal, but since crude oil is an internationally traded commodity, we cannot by ourselves reduce its price. The price is the place where worldwide supply and demand come together, and demand is growing in many countries, and doing so faster than available supply. A larger contribution to the pool from this country will help but the impact would get lost in the static. A major reduction in US demand would have a bigger impact on the price.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut our country has two other related pressing problems. One is that we are spending more money for foreign oil than we can afford; the other is that we cannot reduce our carbon footprint without finding a better way to power our vehicles.
Drilling, anywhere, cannot solve the carbon/greenhouse problem (and we must), but it will certainly help the problem of sending money elsewhere. The ban on drilling is simply irrational; does anyone seriously think we're more environmentally conscious than Norway? I think we should save our country as well as the planet.
I expect this to be my last comment on this forum. I am abandoning my Scientific American Subscription because of their political stance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is to inform you guys (who, I am sorry to say do not examine you ideas thouroughly), that others in the world are not afraid to develop their resources:
Countries that actively participate in offshore drilling and production
United States* (only in: Gulf of Mexico (west), Alaska and Southern California (SIC!)
Angola Argentina Australia* Azerbaijan
Brunei Brazil Canada* China*
Congo Cameroon Denmark Egypt
England* Equatorial Guinea Germany India
Indonesia Ireland Iran Ivory Coast
Japan Kazakhstan Korea Malaysia
Mauritania Mexico* Myanmar Mozambique
Madagascar New Zealand Norway* Nigeria*
Philippines Russia Scotland* Singapore
South Africa Sweden Trinidad & Tobago Thailand
Tunisia Turkey Uganda Vietnam
Venezuela*
*Major Players
Wanabes: (those leasing, exploring or with plans to drill)
Argentina Cuba Colombia Falkland Islands
Iceland Peru Portugal
Some may have fallen off or there may be wannabes who are now drilling, Also, check me on the major players - it is entirely possible that I have missed some or made some minors major.
Absolutely right, drilling more is not the solution. We need an eternal and omnipresent option independent of geography and geology to avoid the exploitative actions by some vested interest. The latest development on the energy scene namely Gravity Power Towers can replace 70% of energy used in transport with gravity power, and thus leverages solar and wind power to become affordable at 1/3rd the current costs. ( Ref US Patent 12184151 Dt. 07/31/2008 and http://gravitypoweredtransport.blogspot.com) USA can avoid import of 8m barrels oil per day if gravity power towers are adopted at a cost of US $ 150 b. That is like adding the current Saudi Arabia's daily oil production to our economy! Why invest to drill more? Eternal and inexhaustible gravity power is the future path for us in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGeophys55 is correct. It is unfortunate that the ignorant would rather attack than find truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have recognized for a long time that SciAm has a liberal bias in any of it's reporting when the facts are not black and white. We are fortunate that real science is based on accurate observation, reporting, and verification of theories.
Another blatant example of SciAm bias is their position on man made global warming. It is abundantly clear that there is global warming as part of the ice age cycles for millions of years. SciAm does not report that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due to WATER VAPOR where CO2 is a small fraction of the warming effect. Manmade CO2, while real, is a small fraction of the CO2 content. The effect is in the noise. Much of the CO2 increase is due to warming of the oceans. History will report “Man made global warming” as the Piltdown Hoax of the early 21st century.
Since there are political over tones already, the US House bill restricts drilling to beyond 50 miles and does not share revenue with the States. All of the benefits described by Geophys55 are absent in the Pelosi “Energy” bill.
California has a $15 Billion budget short fall. If a bill permitted drilling off Santa Barbara and gave revenue to the state, the people of California would drill today.
rajarambojji
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerpetual motion machines will solve the energy problem too.
Get real, I know that the most recent US patents are 7, xxx, xxx since a few of mine issued last month. There is no US Patent 12,184,151.
Too bad the flat earth posters drove Geophys55 off this thread. Just because facts conflict with your BELIEFS, don’t shout down a truth teller. Don’t classify people who advocate drilling as ID or anti-evolutionists.
Also, all of you man made global warming advocates, what about water vapor? Admit to everyone that Water Vapor is more, significantly more, of a greenhouse gas than CO2. CO2 is less than .038% (380 PPM or .000380) of the atmosphere and has been significantly higher in the past. The current levels are about 17% of the levels of the deep geological past. CO2 has been higher, much higher, in the past well before man discovered fire.
Left wing man-made global warming advocates have exactly the same closed mind set as right wing Creationists.
CO2 is measured in PPM. Most manmade global warming advocates would lead you to believe that CO2 is some large fraction of our atmosphere. It's amazing to me that photosynthesis in plants works with a gas in such low concentrations.
Natural global warming will affect us all. The ice caps will melt and the seas will rise. It happened before and is happening now. We will need every energy source to adapt to natural global warming. Wishing that stopping the use of fossil fuels will make it cool again is like the ID people believing that God will punish the non-believers.
We need to develop renewable energy while we still have fossil fuels. Independent of the man made global warming advocates, fossil fuels have a limit. These complex carbohydrates have better uses than just refining and burning. But let’s develop these renewable energy sources for the right reasons not for Al Gore and others to rob us through “carbon credits” or other scheme. Think “snake oil” when you hear carbon credits.
Geo Texas has a property tax 3 to 4 times that of other states to make up for the income tax. On top of that they have one of the lowest levels of incomes for most jobs. For instance in San Antonio the average construction worker earns $10.00 per hour with few or no benefits. In Chicago the same worker earns $30.00-$35.00 per hour with full benefits while the cost of living is almost the same. In Austin the average high level I/T engineer earns $55,000-65,000 per year while in Chicago $85, 000-90,000 a year. On the east cost the salaries are higher yet. If fact almost everywhere they are higher than in Texas. I really have a problem with that statement and I've been to Texas hundreds of times. I have two brothers that live there and about 30 relatives. They are all highly educated and earn less there than in most other parts of the country. My older brother loved his $300,000.00 home until he received his 12,000.00 property tax bill. At that point the state income tax didn't look so good. On top of that food is slightly more expensive and electricity is almost double what you pay elsewhere. So I would say booming Texas is NOT! But it's great for a McJob or a Wal-Mart episode! Furthermore they hold the record crime rate (they beat California) and high school dropout rate (40-50%) especially in the Houston area.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve O and others responding to this thread, it appears that after some fact checking of my own - Geophys55 is correct. I understand SteveO's desire for a reponse with references but a blog doesn't normally get reponses in APA format. Nonetheless, in two hours of researching some of the points made in the article and Geophys55 response, the article tells a very slanted part of the story and I have to reasonably doubt the veracity of the article and by implication its author and SciAm itself. As a result, the inquiry regarding dog in the fight is best pointed at the author, not the rebuttal. Because it didn't take me long to find confirming evidence in the rebuttal, it wouldn't have taken any of us long either. I have my research findings in a MS Word format, that you and others are welcome to. References include the Washington Post, enviromentalist web site in Santa Barbara, a tax watchdog group and a wind energy study and my own number crunching. Credibility is the issue here, it appears Emily Getz owes SciAm's readers (us) some form of apology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJustPat and others reading this thread - it appears after some research of my own that Geophys55 is correct. I understand the desire for references to lengthy posts such as the string of misconceptions offered by Geophys55, but blogs do not normally have responses in APA format. What I found this morning didn’t take long, JustPat and others are welcome to what I have found which includes references from The Washington Post, environmentalist website in Santa Barbara, World Atlas, a wind generation study from Colby and others. From my efforts this morning, it appears Ms. Getz article has a severe bias that is undeniable and a reasonable person would have to doubt the veracity of the author and by implication SciAm itself. In the context of a science journal and implied objectivity in science, we as readers I think are owed an apology from the author Emily Getz. Further, we should thank Geophys55 for bringing more of the truth to light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdude your misconception is were you get the majority of your oil its not the middle east its the great white north CANADA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGuyO, co2dog (and those I may have missed)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany thanks for your support.
Geophys55
________________________________________
Professor Ferret,
The internet makes us all the equal of the most diligent researchers!
Quoting you:
For instance in San Antonio the average construction worker earns $10.00 per hour with few or no benefits.
- In San Antonio the average construction worker is an illegal alien, Professor.
Quoting you:
I have two brothers that live there and about 30 relatives.
- Ask them why the live there Professor! Why dont they move to wonderful Illinois, eh? Check out the cost of living before you assume that dollars are the same worth everywhere! Perhaps you should go join your many relatives.
- On second thought - stay there, please.
Quoting you:
So I would say booming Texas is NOT!
- So, Professor, how do you explain that we have a budget surplus, a construction boom, People moving here in droves to take the new jobs? Is this just fantasy? Perhaps you should ask your 30+ relatives.
Quoting you:
they hold the record crime rate
1. The most crime happens where the most money is.
2. We took in over 100,000 Katrina refugees. The Hard-working-law-abiding ones returned to NO. The rest are still here.
3. I googled crime rates and found this:
Detroit Michigan tops the list for crime rate after that Baltimore, New Orleans (see 2. above) Newark, St Louis, Oakland (CALIFORNIA!), Washington, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Kansas City, Atlanta and Memphis. Houston after that - and the biggest city on the list, thus far. With Chicago (ILLINOIS!) only five spots back.
school dropout rate (40-50%)
-Scandal surrounds that libelous claim about high school dropout rates. I figure it is another lie by certain political entities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHey Prof,
Put Houston and Chicago into this comparison of cost of living:
http://www.bestplaces.net/col/?salary=50000&city1=54835000&city2=51714000
Obama is looking into all kinds of fueling options in conjuction with oil. I think using all of our resources now will only benefit us in the future. What if we found oil reserves like the middle east has. That would mean we could export oil and get rid of our national debt. I think it's worth drilling in the new areas to find out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat a useless article... it was a waste of my time to read it. Stating a few numbers and then ending with "...it is possible that areas currently off-limits to drilling might actually contain a lot moreor less, for that matterpetroleum than previously believed." is just plain weak. Where's the science? Where's the research?! Why even bother to write this tripe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShortly after this Article was written, Bush signed into law a lifting of the Congressional Ban on offshore Oil Drilling. Once that was done the Oil prices collapsed. What amuses me about this article is how they talk about how we only have about 18 Billion in Reserves offshore anyway and it won't make much of a difference, yet again, AFTER this article was written, Shell found a 27Billion reserve field in Alaska (which the EPA is refusing to allow them to drill). Additionally, BP found some very HUGE oil fields off the coast of Florida, which again are not being allowed to drill because of Bans from the State of Florida. Point is you never REALLY know until you try.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the rate that Solar Panels are progressing, by the mid 21st century a single solar panel will be able to power a car, and a small array of no more than maybe 20'X10' will be able to power an entire home, so you are mistaken my friend.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't have said it better myself!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmerica has the resources and technology to meet our challenging energy needs in the future. This will require both land and offshore exploration as well as fueling electricity generating plants with natural gas. The techniques have been proven safe and we have been fracturing wells here for 60 years safely-we just need to get the greedy politicians out of the way as well as the hippie tree huggers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisof course companies worldwide are investing billions in electric car technology because the world is swimming in oil....yuor a fraud and a not very funny joke
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI bet Geophys55 feels like a dumbass. Not even 2 years after his comment of how safe offshore drilling is we had the Deepwater Horizon explosion LOL. idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is NOT much oil left out there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have to go deeper and deeper now for less and less. We should start using more natural gas for cars and heating. We have a ton of it the private sector and government will not switch over. Why?
You can see from these interactive maps that the gulf is already over drilled and full of old platforms that need removing -
http://www.cccarto.com/leases/lakecharles/
http://www.cccarto.com/leases/lakejackson/
http://www.cccarto.com/leases/corpuschristi/
http://www.cccarto.com/leases/neworleans/