If we don't drill it, someone else will

[Pangloss]

Namely Cuba and the Chinese. I'd forgotten all about this story, which came out in early May, but my wife reminded me about it last night. Cuba made a deal with Chinese and Indian companies to drill the same oil that Florida is now considering drilling. In the past Cuba withheld drilling, in part because Florida also promised not to allow it. But they made the first move here, not Florida.

 

The agreement is basically right down the middle of the Florida straight, but that straight is only 80 or so miles across, and the fields surely cross over that boundary down deep. So if they start drilling that oil, they're going to get oil we could have pulled up on our side. They even mention in the second article that there will be "slant drilling" involved.

 

And perhaps more to the point, any spills are just as likely to hit Florida beaches as Cuban ones. Gee, I wonder if Cuba has any environmental laws, or if Cuba would allow those laws to interfere with drilling. Hmm, lemme ponder that one for about 1.8 nanoseconds.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/09/news/cuba.php

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/china_starts_oil_drilling.html

 

Cuba has divided its side of the Florida Strait into 59 lease areas. As of the end of February, foreign countries had secured the rights or were negotiating the rights to 16 of them, according to Cuban government documents provided by the Cuban Interests Section in Washington.

 

I thought this quote from the first article was also interesting:

 

The Interior Department estimates that the Outer Continental Shelf has more than 115 billion barrels of oil and 633 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available for extraction. At current levels of consumption, that would satisfy U.S. oil needs for about 16 years and its natural gas needs for about 25 years.

 

Gee, that's a pretty fair amount of oil. Over 14 years' worth of US consumption, at our current (declining) rate.

[bascule]

Gee, that's a pretty fair amount of oil. Over 14 years' worth of US consumption

 

Funny, the US Energy Information Administration (a subsidiary of the DOE) claims 18 billion barrels, an order of magnitude below the 115 billion barrel figure:

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html

 

Mean estimates from the MMS indicate that technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS total 18 billion barrels of crude oil and 77 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

 

That long haired patchouli wearing hippie George W. Bush also claims 18 billion barrels:

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Economy/Oil_prices_soften_on_US_inventory_report/articleshow/3142917.cms

 

Bush chastised Congress for blocking his Republican administration's efforts to boost domestic oil production and called on lawmakers to increase access to the Outer Continental Shelf, citing experts who say access the OCS could produce about 18 billion barrels of oil.

 

at our current (declining) rate.

 

Oil consumption in the US is projected to rise in 2009:

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo

 

In 2009, total consumption is projected to rise by 140,000 bbl/d, somewhat less than the nearly 200,000 bbl/d increase projected in the previous Outlook.

[Pangloss]

Well this gets back to the confusion factor I mentioned in the other thread. Most of those "18 billion barrels" projections we've been talking about, including the ones iNow linked in the other thread (which also came from the government), say that that's the amount in ANWR, not overall. But other citations like the one you linked, say that it's 18 (or 16, or less) for the whole kit and kaboodle. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're not clearly right either.

 

But that projected rise is old, written before we had six straight months of declines. The new belief, as of last week, is that 2008 will see the first decline in recent years. I linked a story on that in the other thread. And of course if Obama follows-through on his promise for a new 40 mpg standard, and the current trends towards mass transit and away from gas-guzzlers, we could see it drop even faster. There was even a report last week that some realtors are saying that a lot of customers are asking for housing near mass transit hubs and closer to urban centers.

 

----------

 

Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, the more I think about this, the more likely it seems that offshore drilling is going to become a reality. The environmentalists might as well just stay home. The sleeping giant's awake, folks, and they're not brooking any nonsense about tiny percentage chances of a few gallons of oil on a beach here or there.

 

The motivation is wrong, of course -- nothing we DO is going to drop the price of gas (the only thing I can see dropping it is a change in speculation), but there could be significant benefit over the long haul, as we've discussed. We can drill it safer, we have a right to it, and there is tangible, predictable benefit. End of story.

 

I guess you could say the "debate is over" on offshore drilling in the US.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

To be clear, most of the drilling can already be done without opening up preservation area. Oil comapanies already own about 80% of the drillable area described as "US territory," they just choose not to drill it so they can keep inflating prices. I'd suggest they start there.

 

The whole ANWR thing is just a last ditch effort for them to open and control ALL oil available before Bush/Cheney leave office.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5220712

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25315527#25315527

[Mr Skeptic]

So, do we drill the oil reservoirs that are on the line at least? Actually, we'd probably have to drill all the oil so as not to look like jerks.

[Pangloss]

The whole ANWR thing is just a last ditch effort for them to open and control ALL oil available before Bush/Cheney leave office.

 

Can you really apply that spin to Florida, though, given what I've just told you about Cuba?

[iNow]

I'd known about the Cuba/China thing before you brought it up, so that knowledge was already intrinsically part of my posts.

[Pangloss]

And what do you think about that?

[iNow]

I think that someone else drilling has little or no bearing on our own decision to do so... at least, it shouldn't.

 

 

If everyone were jumping off the Brooklyn bridge, would you do it too?

[CDarwin]

I think that someone else drilling has little or no bearing on our own decision to do so... at least, it shouldn't.

 

 

If everyone were jumping off the Brooklyn bridge, would you do it too?

 

Well, if them jumping off the Brooklyn bridge would have the same impact on you as it would on them, but you would miss out on the temporary fun of the falling, then yes. Aren't I a master of rhetoric?

 

Of course, the way world markets work, unless oil is purposefully diverted to the US, most of it drilled off-shore is going to go to other countries anyway. Oil loses value pretty quickly the longer you have to ship it (you're burning oil to move oil), so the majority of it will go to the nearest large market, which in the case of Alaska, would be Japan.

[Pangloss]

I think that someone else drilling has little or no bearing on our own decision to do so... at least, it shouldn't.

 

If everyone were jumping off the Brooklyn bridge, would you do it too?

 

You're missing the point, which I admit may be localized. I'm not leaping off a bridge because someone else is leaping off it, I'm being dragged off the bridge whether I want to go or not. The oil is going to be drilled, threatening the exact same coastlines that would be threatened if we were drilling it ourselves (just talking about Florida here for the moment).

 

I've no idea how that might apply to other coastlines. Can China drill for oil in international waters 201 miles off the coast of California? I don't see why not, but I don't know if that's currently being threatened.

[iNow]

So, are you suggesting this is some sort of property rights issue? That nobody technically owns this area so it's going to be first come, first served?

 

 

If so, that seems strange. I can't image our navy would consider waters off of our coast to be "shared by all earthlings."

[John Cuthber]

Just a thought, isn't it your patriotic duty to drill for the oil then run huge SUVs on it to make sure the commies don't get it?

[Pangloss]

So' date=' are you suggesting this is some sort of property rights issue? That nobody technically owns this area so it's going to be first come, first served?

 

If so, that seems strange. I can't image our navy would consider waters off of our coast to be "shared by all earthlings." [/quote']

 

 

There was a treaty signed by the US and Cuba in 1977 (mentioned in one of the articles I linked above) that stipulates a line along roughly the middle of the Florida Straits. They can drill on that side, we can drill on the other. But the oil fields under there don't follow any such line. So whomever drills in that area first gets the oil.

 

Of course, the Cubans are going to drill regardless, so I guess there's nothing we can do about that. But the oil's coming out, like it or not. And the Keys and Gulf Coast will be threatened by Cuban workers operating under Cuban laws, when they COULD have been threatened by American workers operating under American environmental regulations. Too bad; we snooze, we lose, both the oil and the beaches. Gosh, wasn't that smart of us not to drill?

 

As for the rest of the American coastline, I believe (and this is purely off the top of my head here) that resource rights are governed by an international treaty that sets the limit at 200 miles (which is why I said 201 above). Outside that line anybody can drill anything, anywhere.

[iNow]

Thanks for the clarification. Doing some more reading, I see that again we're talking about a piddly amount. 5B barrels at the high end? That's like 1/3 of ANWR, which we agreed was itself too small to have any significant impact.

 

 

Here's a useful page:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

Edited June 23, 2008 by iNow

[Rev Blair]

If we don't drill it, somebody else will.

 

Isn't that what the old perverts tell each other when ogling a 13 year old?

[D H]

Doing some more reading, I see that again we're talking about a piddly amount.

Both parties need to find some phony issue that lets them demonstrate that they are not in the thralls of the special interests that control the party. This issue is a perfect vehicle for this for the Democratic party.

 

Since "we're only talking about a piddly amount", the damage to the environment by means of increased CO₂ emissions will be minimal. The damage to the environment is even further reduced as a good chunk of the oil will come out whether or not the ban is lifted.

 

Since "we're only talking about a piddly amount", why not throw a bone to the American people? This piddly amount won't help the American people much, but it sure shows that the Democrats care. Showing that the Democrats care, regardless of outcome, is a hallmark of Democratic policy.

 

There are environmental concerns with regard to offshore drilling beyond increased CO₂ emissions. Oil spills, for example. The oil will be removed in US waters or Cuban waters. Who do you think will have stronger environmental controls on drilling, the US or Cuba? The Democratic leadership could well argue that opening this drilling under US control is more environmentally sound than keeping it closed.

 

If the ban on drilling is kept in place, I guarantee that the Republicans will use the ban to their advantage this fall. It doesn't matter if "we're only talking about a piddly amount". This will be a big issue for the Republicans candidacy -- but only if the ban is kept intact. If the Democrats do manage to pass a bill that opens up this part of the continental shelf to drilling, they will have stolen the thunder from a potentially major Republican talking point for this fall's elections.

[bascule]

To be clear, most of the drilling can already be done without opening up preservation area. Oil comapanies already own about 80% of the drillable area described as "US territory," they just choose not to drill it so they can keep inflating prices. I'd suggest they start there.

 

CNN just ran an article saying pretty much the same thing:

 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories

 

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

 

If all these areas were being drilled, U.S. oil production could be boosted by nearly 5 million barrels a day, up from about 8 million barrels a day currently.

[Pangloss]

Well, I guess if we're okay with the Cubans drill 5 billion barrels of oil 45 miles from the Florida beaches, then I suppose "catastrophic environmental impact" is no longer a concern.

[bascule]

Well, I guess if we're okay with the Cubans drill 5 billion barrels of oil 45 miles from the Florida beaches, then I suppose "catastrophic environmental impact" is no longer a concern.

 

Are Cubans allowed to drill 45 miles from Florida's coastline? I thought our waters extended 200 miles out...

 

And I'm not sure how the potential environmental impacts of what Cuba is doing somehow mitigate the potential environmental impacts of what we do.

 

By the same logic, should we pollute just as much as China since that's making them more economically competitive?

[iNow]

Since "we're only talking about a piddly amount", why not throw a bone to the American people? This piddly amount won't help the American people much, but it sure shows that the Democrats care.

I disagree. It's not "throwing them a bone," it's pissing on them. I also don't think it's showing anyone "that the Democrats care." I think it's showing them that they don't take us seriously enough to make REAL changes for the better. It's showing that they are willing to treat us all like stupid children instead of respecting our intelligence and doing the right thing.

 

This idea of drilling off of Florida isn't even a bandaid for the issues we are facing with energy right now.

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I guess if we're okay with the Cubans drill 5 billion barrels of oil 45 miles from the Florida beaches...

 

As for the rest of the American coastline, I believe (and this is purely off the top of my head here) that resource rights are governed by an international treaty that sets the limit at 200 miles (which is why I said 201 above). Outside that line anybody can drill anything, anywhere.

 

So, which is it? 45 miles, or 201? Let's try to be consistent so as to avoid confusion.

 

 

 

[EDIT: Looks Bascule already noticed this. ]

 

 

 

 

And I'm not sure how the potential environmental impacts of what Cuba is doing somehow mitigate the potential environmental impacts of what we do.

 

By the same logic, should we pollute just as much as China since that's making them more economically competitive?

 

I think it's possible that Pangloss has realized that it's far easier to try to make those who disagree with him look stupid instead of supporting his own arguements.

Edited June 23, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[D H]

Are Cubans allowed to drill 45 miles from Florida's coastline? I thought our waters extended 200 miles out...

Only if they don't bump into some other country. The Florida Straits are only 90 miles wide at points.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09drill.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Pangloss]

Are Cubans allowed to drill 45 miles from Florida's coastline? I thought our waters extended 200 miles out...

 

Yes, as I said above (and confirmed in one of the articles I linked), a 1977 treaty splits the Florida Straits in half. Cubans can drill on the south side of that line. It's about 90 miles from Key West to Havana, so I just cut that number in half. Where the wells would actually be placed, I couldn't say, but of course most of the Florida coastline is beachfront. Not all of it, of course (especially in the keys, where much of that coastline is actually a lot more ecologically sensitive than a mere beach).

 

Edit: I should turn the page before I reply, eh? Nice map, that suggests that much of the drilling area might not be quite as direct threat as I'd feared, although it's still a direct, nearby threat. We could talk to Cuba about that, if we weren't so dunderheaded about the blockade and pandering to the exile community. And of course anything in that NW area threatens the entire Gulf Coast and a great deal of Mexican coastline.

 

------------

 

One of the the funny things about this is that if Florida accepted one of the current offshore drilling proposals, any new rigs would be built fully 150 miles from the Florida shore (there are no proposals right now to drill in the Florida Straits). Which means that Cuba and the Chinese would be drilling closer to American beaches than Americans are.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

One of the the funny things about this is that if Florida accepted one of the current offshore drilling proposals, any new rigs would be built fully 150 miles from the Florida shore (there are no proposals right now to drill in the Florida Straits). Which means that Cuba and the Chinese would be drilling closer to American beaches than Americans are.

 

Now THAT is an interesting observation for sure. We are so damned backward sometimes as a culture.

 

Ditto on the thanks to DH for sharing the useful graphic.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, how does the thing about drilling in international waters work? Does anyone need to buy rights from someone, or is it first come, first served? Or is it just too deep to drill away from the continental shelf? I'd think it would be quite messy if there were oil there for the taking by anyone.

 

Re drilling near shorelines: couldn't they just make a ring around the rig to contain any spills?