Trying to talk about offshore oil is like drilling into a brick wall
The folks at the Coastal Conservation League have learned what it feels like when those oil men drill a dry hole.
It is almost exactly like trying to talk substantively about this offshore drilling question with local politicians.
If there was any doubt the silly season is upon us, just ask local environmentalists to recount their conversations with South Carolina leaders. Usually, those meetings go something like this:
Did you know, senator, that oil companies' surveys have found that, at best, drilling off the South Carolina coast could produce about 203,000 barrels of oil a day? To put that in perspective, a year's worth of production at that rate would feed America's habit for exactly four days.
"Drill, baby, drill!"
Mr. Congressman, have you noticed that every time a tropical storm hits the Gulf of Mexico, where there is currently offshore drilling, it causes great turmoil in the market like the price gouging around Charleston this week? Can you imagine how volatile the market would be if it was based on the East Coast, also known as the Hurricane Superhighway?
"Drill, baby, drill!"
Dear State Legislator, have you heard that Hurricane Katrina caused 7 million gallons of oil to be spilled from the very kind of refineries and storage facilities similar to the ones that would be built in Awendaw and on the old Navy base if there is offshore drilling here?
"Drill, baby, drill!"
This is how complicated issues get over-simplified. There is an oil crisis, so politicians use it to pander for votes. They refine their message down to the simplest form for the masses, who are too busy keeping up with saggy pants and which politician called the other woman a dirty name to listen to a real debate. The voters hear plans for drilling, and hope that if they vote for the right man or woman gas won't be $10 a gallon by Christmas.
But it's not that simple.
"I think some of them understand this, and some don't," says Hamilton Davis, a project manager at the Coastal Conservation League. "They are handed sheets of talking points, and this is what the party tells them to say."
Here's what they don't say: The amount of oil to be had off the East Coast will not mean a hill of beans to the United States' oil supply. And the oil companies, if they had the right to drill, probably wouldn't even bother because it's not cost effective. Mitchell Colgan, a geology professor at the College of Charleston who used to do exploration research for Shell Oil, said as much in a Post and Courier story this week.
There is precedent here. Right now, the oil companies have about 68 million acres in this country they could pump if they wanted to, but there's not enough there for it to be worth the trouble to get it out of the ground.
Still, when there is this much commotion, somebody profits. There's the rub. Those reserves go on the oil companies' balance sheet, which helps them on Wall Street. You know Wall Street — it's been in the news this week.
Another little known caveat is that drilling would not begin, if the ban were lifted, for another decade. That's not going to help anyone anytime soon. By then, cars could be running on corn, or candy corn, for all anybody knows.
The Coastal Conservation League is asking state leaders to look at the Gulf Coast of Texas and Louisiana and consider the effect Big Oil would have on the ACE Basin, the Lowcountry and the Grand Strand. The question is whether politicians are willing to trade a few votes for the risk of turning the state coast — arguably its greatest asset — into South Valdez.
Davis says the CCL has not hit bedrock on every try. Republican 4th Congressional District Rep. Bob Inglis has been going around South Carolina telling folks that there is no quick-fix solution, that America doesn't have enough oil to become self-sufficient. And we have to drop our dependence on oil because foreign oil is just about the only kind of oil there is.
Like Rep. Jim Clyburn, a Democrat, Inglis is pushing for the development of alternative fuels, perhaps even things that could be grown in South Carolina. Fuel the nation, fuel the state's economy.
A politician willing to admit an unpleasant truth and ask for some sacrifice in the short-term to achieve a long-term goal?
It sounds like somebody is off their talking points.
Reach Brian Hicks at 937-5561 or bhicks@post andcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
laurasmorris (anonymous) says...
Good for Bob Inglis!
Another point to ponder is that, unless we plan to nationalize the industry, any oil drilled here will belong to the oil companies, not to us. This is an industry that has deliberatly closed refineries to reduce supply and raise the price. They then sell at the highest price they can find in world markets. Even if we had enough oil to make drilling for it worthwhile and we were willing to throw away beautiful coastal areas to refineries, we would have NO control over where the oil goes. We do know it would go to whatever customer is willing to pay the highest price. Most of the rest of the world is accustomed to paying much more than Americans. This is why most Alaskan oil goes to Japan. Does anyone seriously think that just because we have risked our primary cash cow, tourism, the oil industry is going to lower the price of gas in South Carolina? I don't think so, folks.
September 19, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
I do not support off-shore drilling, but the previous comment, I believe, is wrong.
Oil is sold on global markets, and its price is a function of global supply and demand, not just American supply and demand. If a new gallon of oil is sold in Japan, it will still diminish global demand by one gallon. Every extra gallon produced anywhere and sold to any customer will shift the supply and demand curves' intersection by increasing supply, and price will fall.
As to the other reasons for opposing this solution, I agree.
September 19, 2008 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justjerry (anonymous) says...
Just the mention of expanding drilling has sent oil from $147 to $100 per barrel. We have within our borders and waters (as a country, not a state) plenty of oil that we have not gotten to because of our government overpandering to the environmentalists. We need to develop wind, bio fuels, nuclear, natural gas and whatever other ideas our brilliant minds can come up with. In the mean time, we need to permit the oil companies to build modern and safe new refineries and drill for oil with new modern and safe oilrigs - whether they are on land or not. Drilling here and drilling now will increase supply physically and psychologically which will drive down the price.
September 19, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldandintheway (anonymous) says...
200,000 barrels of oil a day, what are we waiting for ?
We are not going to supply America for four days. That's an example of backward, illogical, and irrational thinking.
What we should do is supply South Carolina, exclusively.
If we would have started 10 years ago we would be seeing the benefits today. We have been blocked from drilling by liberal democrats and other environmental groups such as the conservation league.
We have to work out some way for the oil that is drilled off the SC coast to benefit the tax paying citizens of SC.
I, for one, am tired of the price at the pump.
drill, baby, drill.
September 19, 2008 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Geophy55 (anonymous) says...
Brian,
All of your points are based on misconceptions about offshore drilling or outright falsehoods. Do some research if you are going to publish your views. Look at how many other countries are now becoming wealthy from offshore drilling. Get your facts straight on how the lease system works. Get some real numbers about what resources may or may not exist. Google the term "oil seeps" and read what it says. Look up the story of a man named Rudesindo Cantarell. If you can't do anything but mislead the public, then you don't belong in journalism.
And some of your readers wrote in with equally erroneous "facts". Google the words "oil royalties" to see who actually owns offshore oil. Give you a hint, it ain't the oil companies.
I used to list all the answers but its time you folks educated yourselves. You and your ilk are doing great harm to our economy and security by opposing domestic energy.
September 19, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
JustJerry wrote: "Just the mention of expanding drilling has sent oil from $147 to $100 per barrel."
That is flatly wrong. Even the most optimistic proponents of offshore drilling don't think that it will produce oil for at least five years. The mere talk of the possibility of some uncertain offshore drilling program to generate oil several years away is, in no way, responsible for driving down the current cost of oil. That does not even make sense.
September 19, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
Reader,
Your position makes some sense. But if OPEC thought America was suddenly going to get serious about energy it would scare the living poop out of them. They do control supply and therefore price so it could have had something to do with it.
September 19, 2008 at 1:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oldandintheway (anonymous) says...
the economics of supply and demand concerning the price of oil make no sense.
there are a few contributing factors at play here.
arabs, money, speculators, and even the weather. let's not turn a blind eye here, this is real.
September 19, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jeffyoung007 (anonymous) says...
Here is a quote from this very article: "And the oil companies, if they had the right to drill, probably wouldn't even bother because it's not cost effective."
So...What is the controversy?
September 19, 2008 at 5:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PalmettoDP (anonymous) says...
If I used the same rationale as the opponents of offshore drilling, I wouldn't have gone to college because it would have taken me four years from the time I started to earn a degree. Developing infrastructure takes time.
We might not have much oil off of SC's coast, but other areas currently off limits have plenty of reserves. Many of these reserves have plentiful natural gas deposits. Liquefied natural gas would make an excellent transportation fuel. Once you add in shale and coal-to-liquid technologies, the possiblities are promising.
September 19, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.