Obama endorses more offshore drilling - or did he?
Rocky Mountain News
Published August 5, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated August 5, 2008 at 12:13 a.m.
Sen. Barack Obama's limited, qualified reversal on offshore oil drilling may be a hopeful sign of energy realism on his part. Still, it's far too early to tell how meaningful it will be in the effort to unlock huge deposits of oil and natural gas below American waters.
Obama continues to say - as recently as Monday in Lansing, Mich., for example - that more offshore drilling is a bad idea. But he also says he may be willing to accept expansion as part of a compromise package that includes other energy policies he favors.
Some such compromise may indeed be the only way to expand offshore drilling. But it depends on the other elements of the deal, since Obama is also pushing policies that could hurt energy production.
For example, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said "we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. But" - and this is a big but - "we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres [of federal land] they currently have access to but haven't touched."
The implication is that every acre of public land leased for oil or natural gas is a gusher in waiting - as productive as the Clampett family homestead in Bugtussle, Tenn. And that energy companies are somehow hoarding precious public resources by not covering every available acre with drilling platforms or surface wells.
Until those acres are drilled, the argument goes, no new lands should be open for leasing.
Yet as Marc Smith, executive director of the Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States, explains it, acquiring a lease "is the first step in a long, expensive process that may lead to exploration activity."
How long? "If all goes well," he told us, "it might take four to six years to begin production." Since the vast majority of federal leases last 10 years, a company might enjoy four or five years of production before the lease expires.
Smith should know, as independents drill 90 percent of U.S. wells.
Delays can arise from a host of causes, including litigation, difficulty in obtaining permits, seasonal drilling bans to protect wildlife, and lack of existing pipelines or other transmission infrastructure.
Offshore producers face different obstacles. U.S. News & World Report says an offshore drilling rig costs $700 million to build. U.S. companies are competing with producers in Brazil, West Africa and South Asia for a limited supply of specialized equipment.
So it's simply not possible to drill every leased acre at once. The argument that existing leases should be exhausted before new ones are offered also implies that all leases are created equal, when of course they aren't. Companies will deploy their resources where they believe they can get the greatest returns. Official estimates say some 18 billion barrels of oil not now available is beneath federal waters; potentially a 50-year supply of natural gas under federal lands remains off-limits, too.
Until the transition to renewable sources of energy is complete, those essential resources remain the lifeblood of our civilization. They can and should be developed responsibly.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
August 5, 2008
4:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
robbyr2 writes:
"For example, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said "we can and should increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas. But" - and this is a big but - "we should start by telling the oil companies to drill on the 68 million acres [of federal land] they currently have access to but haven't touched.""
"So it's simply not possible to drill every leased acre at once. The argument that existing leases should be exhausted before new ones are offered also implies that all leases are created equal, when of course they aren't."
Great straw man you've created there. Are you saying that there is no oil under that 68 million acres already open to drilling? Did Senator Obama say that offshore drilling could not happen until every square inch of the 100,000 square miles open to drilling is explored? I sure didn't hear that.
But it really doesn't matter. Big Oil told Congress last year they aren't going to build any new refineries regardless of any reduced environmental regulations or NIMBYism. That is as long as Congress has any plans to push for alternative energy sources!
Oh, that oil and gas might be in Colorado or Wyoming? We're all for drilling off the coasts of Florida and California but not on the Roan Plateau? I hope we're ready to give up all of our water and some tax money to start the flow of oil from oil shale too, right? Only in Your Back Yard is no more admirable than Not in My Back Yard.
August 5, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
denverone writes:
Obama is a puppet. Will say anything to get elected just like Hillary. Who is advising these stupid Democrats anyway? Neither one has stuck to their guns on anything. The true Obama is starting to surface, just like I thought.
August 5, 2008
7:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Obama doesn't endorse, deny, or commit to anything. I'm afraid this flim flam man actually believes and will commit to things that he is currently too timid to say. A spineless tool of the people or a radical tyrant are both possibilities, and both would be very bad for the country. Until he commits to something, I won't trust him.
August 5, 2008
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
Obama DOES commit! He commits to being a fluff,fluff, elitist celebrity!
August 5, 2008
8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
Like all Democrats, Obama supported it before he stopped supporting it.
And then the low IQ crowd wonders why Obama is doing so badly in the race with McCain. No wonder that in the best environment in decades, the best the Democrats can do is a TIE!!!!!!
That's what Democrats deserve for nominating a flipflopping empty suit that NO ONE with any intelligence could ever trust.
August 5, 2008
8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Obama: "I am committed to a noncommittal approach...see it's like this...you see...ah...ah...ah...commitments should be flexible...what I'm saying is in order to commit you should be open to change ah...ah...ah...so that if your committed to something you are still free to commit to something else...ah...ah...ah...ah...hope...ah...ah...ah...they are trying to scare you."
August 5, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
Iraq has PROVEN oil reserves of 112 Billion barrels.
August 5, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Obama has always had a realistic view of energy policy. He knows that we cannot drill our way to energy independence and pumping what oil we have will have little effect on gas prices.
This is situation cause by an artificial demand created by the republican's deregulation. Obama knows that the republicans controlled congress for a dozen years and controlled the white house for 28 out of the last forty years. The mile per gallon standards for cars doubled in the seventies and early eighties because of action by Democrats and were stagnant for nearly thirty years because of republicans like Reagan, DeLay and Bush. The price of oil has dropped slightly because supplies have increased primarily because of reduced demand of nearly one million barrels a day and increased production by the Saudis of a half million barrels. That's more than you would be getting from ANWAR and the effect on gas prices has been negligible.
Obama knows we don't have the refining capacity to refine increased production because no one wants to build new refineries. Oil companies have no incentive to produce more fuel because they are making record profits on the tight supplies. The only practical immediate way to lower prices is to reduce demand by getting the speculators out of the market and reduce demand.
August 5, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Just another example of how Obama doesn't understand certain realities. "Drill the land already leased" without having a clue why they aren't being drilled. I'm sure he thinks there's also leases on those 7 other states he thinks exists besides the 50 the country has. I'm betting he flunked out on geography.
August 5, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
Iraq's energy reserves are an incredibly rich prize. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, "Iraq contains 112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves.
Iraqi oil is close to the surface and easy to extract, making it all the more profitable. James Paul, executive director of the Global Policy Forum, points out that oil companies "can produce a barrel of Iraqi oil for less than $1.50 and possibly as little as $1, including all exploration, oil field development and production costs." Contrast that with other areas where oil is considered cheap to produce at $5 per barrel or the North Sea, where production costs are $12 to $16 per barrel.
And Iraq's oil sector is largely undeveloped. Former Iraqi Oil Minister Issam Chalabi (no relation to the neocons' favorite exile, Ahmed Chalabi) told the Associated Press that "Iraq has more oil fields that have been discovered, but not developed, than any other country in the world." British-based analyst Mohammad Al-Gallani told the Canadian Press that of 526 prospective drilling sites, just 125 have been opened.
August 5, 2008
10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Tbone, if you actually try to inform yourself about the realities of it with an open mind, you might get it. I'm not saying the land already leased is dry, not sure where you're getting that from........ lol! What is a fact is the process isn't as simple as you'd like to think.
There's also something the article doesn't mention. How much oil can be removed from the current leases as opposed to drilling in areas some people have issues with? Let's put it in terms you might understand. You're having a party with dozens of people coming over. You want beer for the party, and you have a choice. You can use the six pack in your fridge for all of those people to divide or you can get a keg at the liquor store, knowing that will mean more for everyone. Which do you choose? Estimates of oil reserves not tapped offshore will mean more for everyone.
While everyone debates whether any new areas should be open fro drilling, Russia is going to the Arctic circle and claiming areas for themselves to drill from. You're okay with that then, and with buying the oil from Russia, meaning dependancy on oil from yet another country? Great..........
August 5, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
southerner writes:
Ok, from the outside we can all see both candidates flip flopping their way back and forth on a variety of subjects. One of the problems with judging any one on the long term steadfastness of their policies, is that many of their policy decisions are based on advise given to them by members of their staff. There is a constant effort being made to examine the ever changing desires of the voter and to determine the best course of action based on those needs.
What appears to be flip flopping may actually be the outward signs that Obama is really listening to the needs of the people he wants to represent. It looks bad from where we all stand. That's one of the drawbacks of looking through the window at the party going on inside the house and not getting to participate.
At least give the man credit for that much. What I would like to see is whether or not he has the fortitude it takes to investigate the demise of the electric car.
As recently as 2004, GM by way of Saturn, Ford, and Toyota all had very well crafted all electric autos leased to members of the general public. Those people included, Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson. A well made documentary titled "Who Killed the Electric Car" is widely available to answer may burning questions.
August 5, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Sorry Tbone, your analogy is the one that fails. It's shortsighted people like you that leave us in a position where we have to rely on others.
What do you have to say about the Russians claiming areas for drilling? I see you failed to answer on that one because you have NO answer. So........ using your words, try again.
August 5, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
I hope you all realize that campaign rhetoric rarely translates into legislation. Both candidates are learning and evolving their positions. There is so much to understand about energy, for instance, how deep is the oil off the California coast? How deep off the Florida panhandle?
What does the availability of oil in Iraq mean to us? Isn't that their oil? Didn't the president say no war for oil? Did we see our friends and relatives go and come back in boxes for oil? If so why can't the administration tell the truth instead of hiding behind Saddam and WMD?
Unless you folks want to nationalise the oil industry, extra oil recovered off the coasts can be sold to China and India. Should we nationalise maybe just one or two companies for American use only?
August 5, 2008
12:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
temurlan writes:
Obama recently said this while discussing energy to a crowd in Ohio:
"The state of California has implemented such a successful efficiency strategy that while electricity consumption grew 60% in this country over the last three decades, it didn’t grow at all in California. There is no reason we can’t do the same thing all across America."
Let's see, aging infrastructure, rolling blackouts, recalled governor for a completely failed state energy policy and consumption not growing because of utilities inability to meet demand.
Yeah, let's do the same thing all across America.
Reason #12,652 NOT to vote for this guy.
August 5, 2008
12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Tbone, the Russians don't own the area either........ get it? They claimed it for drilling, see how that means they don't own the area? The Arctic circle isn't owned by anyone, just like the Gulf of Mexico. It's in international waters and if American companies aren't allowed by the Democrats to drill in the gulf, I'm sure Mexico will.
If the Russians drill there, sure, it increases supply....... and they control even more of the market, which is the problem we have with OPEC. When other countries are able to dictate the price to American companies, it means we pay more than we have to, like now. Simple economics! Speculation on where the oil would be sold is nice, but do you have something that says the oil currently being drilled in the U.S. is being sold to foreign countries? Don't you think doing that increases the operating costs for an oil company? Buying oil from the middle east, Mexico and South America yet the oil we have is sold outside of the country? I don't think so.
I'm sure you're one of the people that also think windfall taxes on oil companies will bring the price at the pump down.
August 5, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
JDub writes:
Although I agree with the premis of the article, there is a flaw. A 10 year lease only expires in 10 years if there is no production. Saying a company only gets 4-5 years or production until the lease expires is inaccurate.
The point of this is, just because there is a lease, does not mean there is economic production underneath it. It is absurd to say you would not allow any more leases be issued until all existing federal leases are developed. This is just an example of politicians and regulatory bodies trying to move irresponsible policies of which they have no idea the consequence. This is scary stuff on what should be considered the #1 issue in this election. It is not worth talking about policies that are to improve the world for our children if the American Economy is ruined by a plain bad, or stupid, Energy Policy. Oil and Natural gas are the bridg fuels to the future. Better think long and hard about your opinion and what happens in the real world, not some fairy tale of how fun it would be to have Gore get his way and watch America disappear.
August 5, 2008
1:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Conservativeslayer, unfortunately for you, I do get it. I don't just read a few things that slant the outcome the way I see it beforehand. Did you notice how the prices at the pump went down at the mere mention of drilling of the coasts? Maybe you might think it's coincidence, but it's not. More options for oil means lower prices, being closed-minded and saying alternative energy is the only way, like Al Gore and Obama have said, means the consumer will end up paying more. Also, think about what you said. "It could be 10 years before we see that oil". So with the leases already in place yet with no drilling taking place, how long do you think it'll be before we see that oil?
I agree that speculators are a big reason the cost per barrel is much higher than necessary, but blaming it solely on deregulation is a narrow view. If the problem is deregulation in the oil futures market, as you say, then why aren't the Democrats jumping all over it to have it changed? Nancy Pelosi, the great Democrat that she is, said a few years ago that now that the Democrats are in charge, things would change. Using that logic, the Democrats would jump at the first opportunity to use the oil issue against the Republicans. Why hasn't that happened? They can over-ride the Republicans blocking a bill, so what's the reason they haven't changed it?
I don't care to watch how Enron bent America over, because I already know it was wrong. I also won't watch Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" since it was exposed as full of lies and exaggerations....... some of which is used against the idea of drilling offshore or in protected areas.
August 5, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
"they can over-ride the Republicans blocking a bill"
Actually, they can't. You need 60 votes in the senate to over-ride a fillibuster, so the Republicans have been able to successfully block several attempts by the Democrats to address this issue.
August 5, 2008
1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
What I haven't been seeing in these discussions is why the price of gas has only dropped by a few pennies, when the price of a barrel of oil has dropped around 20% in the last couple of weeks. The price of a barrel I saw yesterday was at $112 per barrel - down from around $140. That is a 20% drop. Since at the height of $140/barrel oil, gas was around $4/gallon. Shouldn't it now only be $3.20/gallon????
Why is it that when the price of oil goes up, the price of gas immediately follows. However, when oil drops, gas prices take MONTHS to follow. And some people don't think that the oil companies are gouging the consumer???
August 5, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
danirobi writes:
If you want to learn about the real Barack Obama I suggest you read my friend, David Freddoso's new book...
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-...
August 5, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
A sane and rational deconstruction of why Nance Pelosi is certifiably NUTS when she claims that not drilling in the USA will "Save the Earth". The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/arti...
August 5, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
fairness writes:
Sure, Danirobi, I'll listen to a right-wing reporter with a whole 6 years experience covering politics for "inside" information on Obama. He has less credibility on Obama than any of the Bush insiders that wrote books that you and your ilk have denounced, but you are willing to believe him because his ideology fits in with yours. I would rather observe for myself if his actions match his words. I have certainly seen where McCain's don't - he is against torture, but voted to allow the CIA to ignore the Geneva Conventions on torture, for one.
August 5, 2008
3:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
mombo writes:
Barack Obama is proving himself as a reasonable & thoughtful leader. These comments on drilling show that he is willing to make difficult decisions & work out reasonable compromises. This is a compromise, not a "flip flop". The proposal on the table now can be considered because it contains real measures to increase energy efficiency & promote new energy technologies. Prior attempts by Repubs were "drill only". A limited amount of new oil & gas leases with proper royalty agreements (to make up for the freebies given to the Oil Companies over the past few years) are a reasonable compromise. It is what is in the rest of the bill that could really make a difference, not this limited off shore access.
August 5, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
YourNeilness writes:
LMAO, Tbone.
Good one!
August 5, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newenergycommie writes:
BOB ("Big Oil Barak") says what this week?
From MSN,
"In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.
However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry. "
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
The great and power Ob commands you!
August 5, 2008
9:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
coarizona writes:
I enjoy trying to understand a person's opinion or point of view.Obama is a very complicated guy. Just don't need one for a president.
August 6, 2008
12:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
fairness asked, "Why is it that when the price of oil goes up, the price of gas immediately follows. However, when oil drops, gas prices take MONTHS to follow."
I've never seen it take MONTHS to fall, but I'll give you the reason it falls slower than it rises.
Gas station owners have to purchase gasoline from the refiners. They also have to anticipate what the next batch of fuel will cost, which may not arrive for a few weeks. So they want to make sure they have enough money on hand to pay for that next load and are reluctant to lower the price quickly until they know what that load will cost.
If the price they pay goes up, they'll raise the price just as fast for the same reason -- to make sure they'll have enough money to pay for the next load.
August 6, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
patchsl writes:
Wow... we all need to review basic Econ 101 and let the market's "Invisible Hand" do what it does best. Government intervention has been a dismal failure - to think you can force oil companies to do anything that doesn't make economic sense is lunacy. Supply is down due to government intervention (a.k.a. bans on drilling and building refineries), demand is up due to exploding economies in China and India, and prices have increased. No political agenda can change those facts, so let's get past the posturing and figure out how to work together and get the oil out of the ground, refined, and pumped in to our tanks.
August 6, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
conservativeslayer, if you didn't notice, there was already less demand for oil long before the prices went down. Don't you pay attention? Also, if you believe the prices shot up at the mention of drilling in protected areas, you should take the blinders off. At the time, there was also a lot of rhetoric about Iran, which means the question of stability in providing oil comes into question and the prices jump due to that (along with other factors impacting the importation of oil). Try looking at the big picture instead of solely blaming Republicans.
Now, my question to you is, if the Democrats are playing fair like you claim, why is it Nancy Pelosi is blocking discussion on the floor in regards to opening areas for drilling? What you rant against the Republicans for is something you probably think is fair for the Democrats to engage in. The Democrats are the do-nothing party, and it's sad, because it just isn't even close to what the Democratic party was like under JFK, a President I think is one of the best in American history. He didn't back down from Russia when they wanted to put missiles in Cuba, even threatening war. Now, the Democratic party is the party of appeasement. Obama thinks America is at the root of all the world's evils, as evidenced by his campaign speech in Berlin to foreigners that can't even vote in our elections.
August 6, 2008
11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"the Democrats are playing fair like you claim, why is it Nancy Pelosi is blocking discussion on the floor in regards to opening areas for drilling?"
that's just the point, people. the dems are all for increased domestic drilling....and don't need to open up environmentally sensitive areas to do it. that's the big difference between the parties right now...and a made for tv press stunt by the republicans before vacation isn't going to change that fact.
August 6, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
jay, for the most part, nobody takes your comments seriously. Try looking at the failures of the Democrats instead of blaming their failures on the Republicans. Both parties have their share of the blame to go around.
Anyway, why is it you can't answer why Nancy Pelosi is blocking discussion on it? The popular opinion is that she's using it as a stunt for political reasons instead of giving a **** about us Americans. Seems at the national level, politicians are good for that, even your beloved Democrats!
August 7, 2008
10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Tbone, there's a difference between "you" and "nobody" so try to keep that in mind. I can honestly tell you I don't take yours seriously since all you want to do is blame Republicans, and furthermore, since you and a few liberals like to think I'm Republican as I find it too easy to pick on Democrats (because their lack of understanding reality and their full willingness to point fingers in stupidity), you should know I'm independant and more Libertarian than anything. The government is not here to take care of people like you who won't help themselves out, and the government shouldn't be about tax, tax, tax...... a favorite of the Democrat party. Quit looking at the country with such a narrow view, as I said, both parties are to blame for where our country's at. Open up your eyes and try, even if it is really difficult for you....... you might learn something. PS- I usually have people agree with me, or I agree with them, more often than not. Kinda' shoots down your lame attempt at a cutdown, huh?
slayer, why is it Nancy Pelosi said with the Democrats in charge, things would get done? What's been done? Still can't answer after how many times of it being asked, can you? Nice......... another that likes to point fingers instead of grasping reality.
August 7, 2008
3:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cwillyrun1 writes:
Good way to avoid answering the question, yet again! It's okay though slayer, I don't expect much out of you. Even your maturity level.......... it's about the same as a 12 year old. Name calling is usually a result of being wrong but not being able to deal with it, so instead of manning up and admitting the Democratic party has failed at their previous claim of "change", name calling is all you've got.