Home › Opinion › Opinion
On offshore oil, Obama offers outdated ideas, data
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionTo plan a long and challenging journey, would you reject Mapquest and GPS and only consult an atlas from the 1970s? Unlikely. But to pinpoint America's offshore oil deposits, Democrats, starting with Sen. Barack Obama, love disco-era maps. Despite his conditional, latter-day support for limited offshore drilling, Obama is the sole sponsor of legislation that would block geological research to locate offshore oil.
Federal officials currently employ estimates based primarily on two-dimensional maps that oil-industry surveyors produced in the 1970s and furnished to the Interior Department. Since 1981, congressional appropriations amendments effectively have barred Interior from financing or permitting survey expeditions.
In 2005, Congress mandated new, quintennial inventories, then gave Interior six months and $0 to assess how much oil and natural gas undergird the 1.76 billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf — a laughably impossible task.
Obama's "Oil SENSE Act" would repeal authorization of these inventories. S115 would leave decision-makers with maps drawn with pre-PC technology. Obama's bill would prohibit expanded use of 3-D seismic techniques that locate and measure underwater oil deposits. In 1999, President Clinton's Energy Department evaluated the environmental quality of 1970s' 2-D equipment against last decade's 3-D technology.
With the latter, Energy concluded, "Overall impacts of exploration and production are reduced because fewer wells are required to develop the same amount of reserves." In 1970, 17 percent of offshore wells struck oil. By 1997, that figure was 48 percent. Contemporary 4-D surveying adds the dimension of time. Satellites help find and quantify sub sea deposits, track their flows, and predict their next steps. Some 70 percent hit oil.
Obama's Don't Ask, Don't Drill policy spurns these marvels and embraces outdated information gathered with obsolete instruments. Adults should not make decisions in willful oblivion. Democrats like Obama prefer not to know what riches rest off our coasts.
Meanwhile, Democrats fled on vacation, rather than vote on Republican amendments to extend offshore drilling. Democrats chose suntan oil over oil production. Instead of voting on Republican energy proposals, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dispatched her colleagues to build sandcastles.
Across the Capitol, as Human Events' Jed Babbin observed, Senate Democrats favored doubling gasoline prices to considering further fuel development. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky, asked to debate pro-energy legislation. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., representing Democrats, objected.
Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., complained, "It's Christmas in July" as he denounced oil-industry earnings, even though that sector's 8.3 percent margin for 2007 lagged the chemical and electronics industries' 12.7 and 14.5 percent respective returns.
Naturally, it's hard for Big Oil to generate more petroleum when they cannot open new refineries, develop the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, broaden offshore production, nor even modernize their underwater maps.
For all their supposed sophistication, Obama, Pelosi, Salazar and Schumer are anti-intellectual eco-Luddites. Democratic bullheadedness deserves the republic's scorn.
— Deroy Murdock writes for Scripps Howard News Service.
Posted by harlan on August 12, 2008 at 8:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Federal officials currently employ estimates based primarily on two-dimensional maps that oil-industry surveyors produced in the 1970s and furnished to the Interior Department."
And after 8 years of Bush, whose fault would that be?
Posted by Deek56 on August 12, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice post fellas. I'm not sure what your solution to the problem is other than blaming "right wingers," but I guess we could always make sure our tires are fully inflated and our engines are tuned up. According to Obama, that will certainly solve the oil problem.
Posted by del on August 12, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The outdated data is the thought we should continue to be able to maintain the obsolete notion of one-person-one-vehicle. We only seem to be concerned drilling for oil, not conserving it or reducing our gluttonous ways.
Drop the national speed limit to 55mph.
Clear the drawing boards and begin work on bus and light-rail systems.
I think ol' Winnie says it best,
"You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities."
Winston Churchill
Posted by svwl on August 12, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We wouldn't have to blame the right wingers, Deek56, if they didn't hang onto a ridiculous hope that drilling offshore will somehow cure our oil addiction. Those of you pounding the drum for oil exploration, why don't you see that
1. It will have little to no impact on the price of oil for most Americans, 2. It is a ploy to get more money in the pockets of the oil companies and the politicians beholden to them, and 3. It is just an excuse so we can continue to avoid what we should be doing, investing in alternative, non-polluting energies.
Even right wingers should realize the facts, if they would just take off their Democrat-hating goggles.
Posted by cassandra2 on August 12, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Let's see, a Republican hack knocks the plans of Democrats. What a surprise.
And we can count on the oil industry to do whatever it takes to protect the environment no matter what it costs them. Sure.
Posted by NowHearThis on August 12, 2008 at 11:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand why liberals hate oil so much? It's a natural commodity the has shown to be very useful in our daily lives for over a century.
The left-wing nut jobs think that our military infrastructure can run on windmills and solar. We're losing our military might, thanks to left-wing ignorance.
Why should our rights be restricted because a leftist-liberal thinks drilling for more oil is a scourge?
We need to drill in ANWR, off shore, in Montana and where ever oil exists. This country needs oil refineries, nuclear power plants built. The liberals have for decades used lawsuits and their environmental whackoism to forestall much needed infrastructure.
Then these envirowhackos promote this global warming lie. When will liberalism end? Soon, I hope.
Posted by del on August 12, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It would be interesting to understand which of "our rights", as stated by NowHereThis, are being restricted.
Posted by jbees805 on August 12, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
what a joke this post is
Posted by nelsonknows on August 12, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TECHUSER, leftists seem to hate everything just like their ancestors, the NAZIs.
Leftists are in a VAST minority on this one, the American People WANT more oil exploration and refinery. It will happen one way or the other.
Posted by Deek56 on August 12, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Instead of attacks by both sides, especially those attacking "Big Oil," here's some useful info from the Editorial page of the Wall Street Journal from August 4th. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12178...
Exxon Mobil reported the highest quarterly profit ever and is the main target of any "windfall" tax surcharge. Yet if its profits are at record highs, its tax bills are already at record highs too. Between 2003 and 2007, Exxon paid $64.7 billion in U.S. taxes, exceeding its after-tax U.S. earnings by more than $19 billion. That sounds like a government windfall to us, but perhaps we're missing some Obama-Durbin business subtlety.
Maybe they have in mind profit margins as a percentage of sales. Yet by that standard Exxon's profits don't seem so large. Exxon's profit margin stood at 10% for 2007, which is hardly out of line with the oil and gas industry average of 8.3%, or the 8.9% for U.S. manufacturing (excluding the sputtering auto makers).
If that's what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery -- both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau's industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.
Posted by keem_s on August 12, 2008 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw1000 = jw
uses the same old 12mpg SUV lines as before.
I knew you would be the first to post here. With a title that mentions offshore oil I just knew it would attact you like horse manure attacts flies.
Hey did you hear Cadillac is coming out with a Escalade SUV hybrid? Woo hoo! Good gas mileage and its still a great big SUV!
Posted by cassandra2 on August 12, 2008 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Last I read, US demand for petroleum down 28% and with the Chinese cleaning up their act for the Olympics, more reduction of demand. It can be done. Good for us. Good for them. I am stunned that so many "got it."
Now is the time to continue reduction, not ramp up the addiction--not despoil our coasts or Alaska's pristine wilderness. Time to invest in rail, in small scale organic farming, in alternatives, in high MPG vehicles and public transport.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 12, 2008 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw, you've become a bad comedy act.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 12, 2008 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw, EVERYTHING I post to the Star is factual, and I back it up every time with links.
On the other hand, why did you lie in your posts several days ago claiming you had read the 911 Commission Reports which you clearly have not? I posted the link, and several of the quotes yet you STILL haven't read the 911 Commission Report.
It's pretty simple, YOU are a liar, have a nice day.
Posted by nelsonknows on August 12, 2008 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra, if the U.S. used
9,286,000 barrels/day (390 million gallons/day)at this time last year; http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoi...
and the decrease in oil use is 800,000 barrels a day, http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/...
how does that come out to a drop of 23% in oil usage?
If usage was down 928,600 BBl per day it would only be 10% and usage is down 800,000 bbl per day which is less than 10%. (8.6%)
Posted by RebelGal on August 13, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The point here is that we need new information. The most recent siesmic surveys of the area were done in the early 80's. Our technology today far surpasses what we had then. Also, in the 60's when we ran survey lines it looked like we had a few oil fields here and there. On the maps created from the lines taken in the 80's we had grossly under estimated what we had. Who knows what we could find with the tech we have today. We could find little more oil fields or a bunch, the point is that we need the information to make educated moves.
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 13, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
RebelGal-- good point. If surveys can be made with a minimum of restrictions and if they can drill without restrictions tying them up, let 'em drill.
Posted by bbbdugout on August 13, 2008 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
so far you have said nothing to convince me offshore drilling is anywhere near the answer to our energy concerns - we are a nation of consumers - that's how the capitalistic system works - and we really don't care what damage it does to the earth as long as our lifestyle is not compromised - if we took the same money, spent over the same time, for renewalable energy (i.e. wind and solar) we would be better off - we would provide jobs for many, cleanup the environment and not be dependent on foreign oil - nah forget it - that's far to simple and easy to understand
Posted by RebelGal on August 13, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think we need to branch out and start tapping into alternative energy too. Problem is people keep saying that if we allow drilling now it won't help us till years down the road. Yes it will take time but has anyone realized that alternative energy is so new that it will take years and years to come into effect as well? The proposed wind farm in New England won't be opperating untill 2010, and that is even if they get the permits.... which take years. Oil is already in circulation, we have the systems to distribute and utilize it. It makes much more sense to re-up the drilling since it is a technology we know and are familiar with. In the mean time we try to get alternative energy on it's feet.
Posted by bugmenot on August 13, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the offshore drilling is just a POLITICAL TALKING POINT for this election.
The fact is, offshore drilling does not promise a huge benefit, nor a huge environmental cost.
But all of America is talking about it, we've all taken sides and we are repeating our parties line almost without realizing the pettyness we've gotten into. Energy crisis is not petty, offshore drilling is.
Another big point is on July 30th the senate voted for the 8th time on a bill S.3335 the NEITHER JOHN MCCAIN OR BARACK OBAMA showed up for. What's even worse a copule days later, McCains says this about Congress: “Tell them to come back and get to work!”
flippin hypocrite.
McCain missed the vote for this bill ALL EIGHT TIMES, while Obama missed it FIVE TIMES.
COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE OF OUR LEADERS!!
Posted by bugmenot on August 13, 2008 at 12:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
>>"TECHUSER, leftists seem to hate everything just like their ancestors, the NAZIs."
You don't help your cause with lines like that.
Posted by bugmenot on August 13, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rebelgal it also takes time to refine oil. We currently do not have the infrastructure to quickly refine oil.
Who says offshore oil is ours? the way i understand it our oil isn't government run. a private company will get the contract and the oil will go on the WORLD market. China would be able to buy it, just like us. i just don't see this as being as huge of an issue the politicians have made it.
Somebody please correct me if i'm wrong regarding the way oil is distributed.
Posted by RebelGal on August 13, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oil is tightly monitered, very tightly monitered by the federal government. All the rigs farther than 3 miles from shore are considered federal (while the closer rigs are under state regulation). The actual rigs themselves are owned by the company though (most out here are owned by exxon or smaller oil companies like DCOR). But every drop of oil taken from the sea floor is accounted for. Since the price of oil is so high everyone wants to make sure it is accounted for. The government gets royalties from each barrel of oil so we like to keep track of it. It is also much cheaper to refine the oil in the processing plants we have right here on the coast. You would never know it but there are actually quite a few. One of the largest is in goleta just off the 101. So you see, the oil from offshore california often stays close to home.
Posted by RebelGal on August 13, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I did not mean goleta sorry! that's our largest processing plant not refinery. There are a total of 14 refineries as of last year in california, the bulk near long beach and santa maria
Posted by dingo_designs on August 13, 2008 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What are Democrats really afraid of... lower gas prices?
Posted by mikeb6804 on August 13, 2008 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bbb---go somewhere and get a really good analysis of how much good wind energy will do. It looks less than practical.
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
- Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
- Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
- Threats, whether obvious or veiled.
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
There are 26 comments to this article.
Comments are found beneath the Yahoo! ad below.