On Demand
NIMBO (Not In My Back Ocean)
Friday, June 20, 2008
Offshore drilling is on the brain. Jim Presswood, energy advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor at the American Petroleum Institute, and Peter Maas, New York Times Magazine contributor, discuss the immediate and long-term impacts of drilling in U.S. waters.
- About the Brian Lehrer Show »
- Staff Bios »
- Contact Us »
- Tapes and Transcripts »
- Latest Episode »
- Show Archive »
Features & Series
Podcast
Stay up to date.
Subscribe to the Podcast
YOU PRODUCE The Brian Lehrer Show
Be a listener-producer with facts, questions and people you'd like to hear on the air.
More
The Brian Lehrer Show Scrapbook
Visit the scrapbook for daily photos and miscellany from The Brian Lehrer Show.
More
Shop at Amazon!
The Brian Lehrer Show picks
Start your Amazon shopping on WNYC.org and a portion of your total purchase goes to WNYC.
More
Comments
Refresh
The problem is not an oil rig in a back yard it is the fact the oil companies will drill at tax payer expense then sell this oil harvested from American public land then sell it at the highest price possible on the world market.
This does not bennefit the American People.
If this US harvested oil never left the US and was refined here and sold only here then drilling would be acceptable except in ANWAR.
I always hear this illogal statement on the news:... the Alaskan oil in ANWAR has a "X year" supply in it. Some say ten years, some say 5 years. But the news report never mentions the rate. If is is one barrel then we are talking of 5 or 10 barrels. The supply of oil is not a TIME or a RATE but a STATIC "STOCK" of oil. That is it is either 100 million barrels, one trillion barrels or a quadrllion or ten barrels. It is not how many days.
By the way, the amount of oil in the reserve when drilled will not go to the American people for free. It will go to the fungible open market, thus is the same as if the oil would come from a field in Russia, Africa, the Caucacuses or Canada!
The Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008 (H.R. 6251), introduced June 12 by Nick Rahall (D-WV), would seem to undercut the need for drilling in protected ANWR and Florida areas. It would require oil and gas companies to develop their current onshore and offshore leases, as coal companies are required to do, rather than just sit on them as they currently are. Geologist estimates show this could double US oil production and raise natural gas production by 75%, cut oil imports by a third, and would be more than 6 times the estimated peak production from drilling in ANWR.
We? Why does McCain say "we" have the oil? Unless we the American People get the oil and not Exxon, BP, or Royal Dutch Shell?
We only get oil after we PAY the market price.
It doesn't matter where the oil comes from. At $140 a barrel, alternatives become better economical choices.
I heard that the reason oil prices are so high is because the oil companies are holding on to huge reserves of oil. Can you confirm or deny this?
I have also wondered why are oil companies posting record profits year after year (while the rest of us struggle to pay our oil heating bills in the winter?)
One last question. I heard that gasoline prices are not related to oil prices. If so, then is it just a coincidence that they're both so high? And what really *is* causing high gas prices?
Ask why they don't develop the leases they have now before scamming to open more areas for despoiling.
Yeah, but other countries are drilling, and while I'm not thrilled about it, why can't the US start drilling SAFELY.
If everyone else is doing it, does it really matter if the US opts out? If anything, the US would be more safe.
When the Alaskan governer promotes drilling in Alaska, she talks about how little land, and how small a percentage of the wilderness area the drilling would occupy. In the interview I heard, she didn't mention peripheral effects. What are they?
Spills are not just a "decades ago" thing. What about the spill in the San Francisco Bay just earlier this year!
What is Rayola talking about?!!!!!
Does she not remember the BP Alaskan Pipeline spill 2 years ago?
Folks, Exxon paid major, major dollars in damages for the Valdiz. So it denies financial reality to suggest that they will not take serious precautions in their drilling.
What is the tradeoff -- some dirty shores vs. what?
Why don't we drill in Greenpoint's Newtown Creek and pump the 30 million gallons of oil out of that area!?!
The gas crisis is more than a wake up call. We need to use this opportunity to change our way of life in order to cease the destructive behaviours (socially, politically, environmentally) associated with this filthy energy.
The negative externalities are to great.
The world needs to change; the United States needs to lead the way.
Alaskan pipeline spill in 2006 was the worst spill for the north shore!
I’m not sure Anne, I’ve heard it has to do with speculation, refining, capacity, and international conflicts.
My concern would is this… Why is there no vocal Conservative population demanding conservation… It’s like saying someone has a rather expensive drug or drinking or even eating problem leading to financial dire straits. The proposed solution is lowering the cost, not quelling the addiction. Not a one-to-one comparison, but…
Why not keep the ban on off-shore drilling and use the 21 billion in proven reserves as a strategic reserve for the future of the United States?
Brian - PLEASE ASK:
How long untill we see a dollar reduction in the price of oil fromn increased offshore drilling? please exclude the increase oput form OPEC production increase (because that is speculation)
thank you
This gasoline crisis is more than a wake up call. The negative externalities of oil production and consumption (socially, economically, environmentally).
The world needs to change and this nation needs to take the lead.
it's foolish to think people can continue to drive SUVs in city alone commuting from the sprawl and not drill for new oil
Environmental issues aside, the economic argument for offshore drilling is a chimera (and though embraced by Republicans, it is simply not "conservative"):
"The Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates of how much oil might be within reach of U.S. offshore drilling in a 2006 report. It estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold 115.4 billion barrels. However, it also estimated that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in areas now banned from production probably hold only about 19 billion barrels.
…
The world consumes about 86 million barrels a day. The U.S. share of that is about 20.6 million barrels, 60 percent of them from foreign sources.
One thousand million barrels equals 1 billion, so if there are 19 billion barrels in the areas McCain would open to drilling, that's enough to provide about 920 days, or about 2.5 years, of current U.S. consumption."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/41379.html
Moreover, oil companies currently don't think it's smart for them to maximize off-shore drilling (so what should we do? force them? nationalize the industry?):
"About a third of the total area of the OCS is off-limits to drilling. But the area off-limits accounts for only 21 percent of the total oil reserves in the OCS, according to a recent Interior Department report."
http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200806180619
Let's stop giving bad ideas a free ride.
Thank you Brad. We wanted to know actual quantities. Not rates! With those as starting points we can form reasoned arguemnts...T
according to an editorial in yesterdays NY Times, which I do not consider an ultra liberal newspaper,the oil companies presently have the rights to 4/5ths of this land and are not drilling. The editorial implies that the real objective is to get total control of all the lands before their best champion leaves office, even as they are not utilizing those they have. The fact that they are spending much more of their money buying out stocks than finding more supply tells us something important. NOTE: A related item: ExxonMobil is responsible for a huge underground 'spill' under Newtown Creek, right here in NYC. It is larger than Exxon Valdez, and calling it an 'accident' is a euphemism. How can these oil companies try to pretend that they are concerned with anything other than their profits. They have been entitled long enough, thanks to the current administration, but they don't seem willing to let go of any of it.
A couple of points:
-If the oil stays in the ground, it's still there to use many years down the road. It's not a use it or lose it stiuation.
-Unless we all decide in the next 20 years to live like the Amish (perhaps not such a bad idea) we will probably always need petroleum to some extent and therefore it should be conserved. You can't fly airplanes with solar or wind power.
- The hypocracy that is inherent in a oil addicted society that outsourcesenvironmental damage is a valid point. There may be better ways minimizing envionmental damage overseas though and if 20% of our oil was able to come from relatively "clean" domestic extraction would it really help the rest of the world or just help us sleep better.
- I would support domestic offshore drilling if lifting the morritorium also came with real strict conservation legislation. Let's face it, the high price of oil is finally bringing on real "market force" conservation. Low oil prices with government imposed conservation would be treated by much of the country like communism.
Leave a Comment
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Back to EpisodeEmail addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.