The Huffington Post’s Michael McAuliff has a good piece of reporting on the potential impact of a bill the House passed last week that would make it easier to drill for oil.
The HuffPost pulls a couple of quotes from Republican House members to show the flawed thinking behind the bill:
“I think high gas prices and high energy costs are crushing jobs and are just unnecessary,” Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) told The Huffington Post. “When we have access to domestic resources, gas prices go down. That’s what happened in 2008 when Bush opened up the outer-continental shelf.”
It’s hard to know whether Thompson is just being a particularly disingenuous politician or whether he truly believes what he’s saying. Any impact opening that area up to drilling may have had is barely worth mentioning next to that whole global near-depression thing, not to mention the then sharply rising dollar.
But the more important reporting is on this, which we start to hear ad nauseum every time prices spike at the pump:
“Republicans are standing with the American people, who want us to increase the supply of American energy that will lower costs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create jobs here in America,” House Speaker John Boenher (sic) (R-Ohio) proudly declared. “And I’m certain — with $4 per gallon gas — the American people will remember who listened to them, and who didn’t.”
The really dumb thing here is the implication that drilling for oil in the U.S. will drive down U.S. prices more than those of others. Oil is a fungible commodity, sold on the global market to the highest bidder, as McAuliff points out.
And we just don’t have that much oil anymore, anyway. Even if we started producing enough oil to cover our own usage, the price benefits would go to everyone globally, not just us (unless we erected huge trade barriers, which I’m guessing these Republicans wouldn’t want to do). And even then the Saudis would presumably tap on the brakes to keep prices from falling through the floor.
“You might, under really optimistic scenarios, over five or six years, add 2 million barrels a day of production,” said Lynch, who favors more drilling, even if he rejects the politicians’ arguments. “On a global scale, it’s significant. But we would still be big importers — we would still be dependent on foreign oil”…
“In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices,” said the EIA’s Martin. “It just gets lost. It’s not that much.”
The HuffPost has some missing context here, like how much oil the U.S. and the world uses. We consume 19 million barrels a day and the world uses 84 million barrels a day. Those numbers would be useful in showing how small even Lynch’s pie-in-the-sky number is.
There are real benefits to increasing U.S. drilling for oil: More jobs, profits for ostensibly American companies (which is, of course, what this push is mostly about), and taxes. But there’s a downside: The easy-to-reach oil is almost all gone, and there are real costs to drilling ever further afield, as we’ve seen with the BP disaster.
Lowering our gasoline bills isn’t a factor. It’s a fake issue designed to get popular support for policies that benefit a small minority.
Keep that in mind next time you hear a politician talking “drill, baby, drill.”
About 1.8 trillion barrels of shale oil are thought to reside in deposits greater than 15 gallons per ton in the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
Keep that in mind next time you hear a pundit talking “we just don’t have that much oil anymore".
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 9 May 2011 at 01:06 PM
Trouble is, the environmental costs of shale oil (externalities, the economists call them) are incredibly high. We'll pay for those external costs sooner or later and the cost won't be cheap. Not to mention the cost of shale oil is much more than the cost of the liquid stuff.
Keep those costs in mind when apologists for oil companies tell you that the problem can be solved by drilling and mining.
#2 Posted by Ron R, CJR on Mon 9 May 2011 at 02:19 PM
Trouble is, the environmental costs of shale oil (externalities, the economists call them) are incredibly high
Define "incredibly high" ... and please dont use the Greenpeace cheat sheet for help on this.
#3 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Mon 9 May 2011 at 02:52 PM
Oh for christ's sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry
This is common knowledge territory you're arguing on, Mikey.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 10:33 AM
What was the Wikipedia link supposed to demonstrate? Was it supposed to tell me that all mineral extraction has externalities or that, in this particular case, separating kerogen from shale involves external costs that outweigh the benefits? Because it really didnt do that.
#5 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 02:09 PM
"Because it really didnt do that."
Sure it didn't Mikey. It's only water and air we're talking about. Nothing really matters when it comes to the expensive production of the black nectar.
http://www.etsap.org/E-techDS/PDF/P02-Uncon%20oil&gas-GS-gct.pdf
"Production of unconventional oil is an energy intensive process that requires significant amounts of heat. The energy used as a percentage of the energy produced is about 20 -25 % for extra heavy oil, 30 % for oil sand and 30 % for oil shale, as compared to 6 % for conventional oil and gas. The ratio between energy used to energy produced is relatively small for tight gas, CBM and shale gas. The associated emissions depend on the energy used in the production process. Natural gas is the most common fuel used for heating purposes during production. Associated CO2 emissions range from 9.3 to 15.8 g/MJ for oil sand and extra heavy oil, and from 13 to 50 g/MJ for oil shale"
So by using up cheap natural gas and boosting up CO2 emissions, we can all have all the oil we want for the time being. What crisis.
And it's not like we're not having problems getting natural gas out of shale as it is.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/study-high-tech-gas-drilling-is-.html
Naw, let's just concentrate on that whole 15 gallons per ton, that's 15/42 of a barrel per ton.
1.8 trillion barrels? That's only going to disrupt 5.04 trillion tons of shale. What's the "big" deal? Where's the "big" footprint? How could anything ever go wrong in something like this?
Think of all those barrels and haw haw at all your critics. Boy, being a witless contrarian is fun.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 10 May 2011 at 10:38 PM
More on that stuff:
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
that isn't happening according to Mikey H.
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/frack-tious_reactions.php
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 11 May 2011 at 07:13 AM