Commentary: Don’t Be Duped by Big Oil & Friends

» Nancy Sokol on 08.12.08 @ 07:34 AM

Well written! Thank you for the myth busting information.

» Michael Lewis on 08.12.08 @ 10:17 AM

I love Noozhawk and appreciate the range of articles you offer. I’m not a big commenter but Deborah Brasket’s column today is simply inane. It just repeats the Left’s tired talking points that even now are being disproven in real time in the marketplace. And lefties are complaining non-stop about Harris Sherline? Give me a break!

To answer Myth No. 1, check the price of oil today vs. what it was when President Bush first called for the offshore exploration ban to be lifted a couple of months ago. Oil futures traders immediately responded to the possibility of more domestic production and barrel prices started dropping, so much so that they continue to fall despite Russia’s deliberate targeting of a major pipeline in Georgia. Americans understand supply and demand, which is why only 20 percent of Americans oppose new drilling (most of them probably are in Santa Barbara). Drill here, drill now, pay less. It’s a simple concept.

Further, Wall Street analyst Sanford C. Bernstein has noted that oil could begin flowing within a year if the drilling moratorium were lifted for coastal California, where the oil is under shallow water and the fields already have been explored extensively. Look out in the Santa Barbara Channel: Drilling platforms are already there.

To answer Myth No. 2, I believe MMS has reported that, between 1993 and 2007, there were 651 offshore spills that resulted in the release of 47,800 barrels of oil. During that same period, a total of 7.5 billion barrels of oil were produced, which equates to 1 barrel of oil spilled per 156,900 barrels produced. Interestingly, Ms. Brasket uses gallons and barrels interchangeably, a common tactic of drilling opponents. No matter. I’ll restate that last statistic: There are 42 gallons of oil in a barrel so that means there were 42 gallons of oil spilled per 6.5 million gallons produced — hardly a crisis.

To answer Myth No. 3, so what? The Coal Oil Point seep leaks 150-170 barrels of oil a day on its own — a far worse violator than Greka (whom I will NOT defend). Is there really any harm in experimenting to see whether Venoco’s increased drilling has any effect one way or another? If it lessens the seeps, let them continue. If not, make them stop. I’m sure Venoco would make that agreement. To the GOO crowd, I say prove that you really don’t have a warped perspective that is frozen in a 1969 time capsule. If all these other costly and unproven alternative energy solutions are so compelling, why not first try an alternative solution using existing technology? The oil is ALREADY leaking!

Finally, I see another familiar refrain from a commenter about the oil industry not drilling in existing leases. The “use it or lose it” line is a popular one but it betrays a ridiculous misunderstanding of how and why the leases work. It’s called oil EXPLORATION for a reason. Companies lease tracts to explore whether there are reachable energy sources. Sometimes there are, but most times there aren’t. Or there’s a source there that market conditions say is unreachable, at least for the time being. The questions I have for these opponents decrying unused leases are 1) would you really be OK with oil companies drilling on all of their leases? and 2) are you opposed to the government collecting billions of dollars in lease payments the oil industry pays for the right to explore?

» Bruce Allen on 08.12.08 @ 02:12 PM

The Santa Barbara County Action Network (SB CAN), shows what happens when advocacy groups begin making up information to try to stay relevant.  In Deborah Brasket’s opinion piece, she claims that existing or expanded oil production from Platform Holly might INCREASE natural oil seepage if expanded drilling were to occur.  A 22 year peer reviewed published UCSB study (UCSB Press Release Nov. 18, 1999), shows that existing offshore oil production has been reducing the oil seeps by over 50% in the area surrounding Platform Holly. I suggest she actual read the study. The natural oil seeps along our coast emit over 60,000 barrels of oil per year, while all Santa Barbara offshore oil production since 1970 has spilled less then 1000 barrels. The peer reviewed 1999 study also states that if oil production were to be increased, additional seepage reductions would be expected to occur.  The inconvenient truth that existing and future Santa Barbara offshore oil production dries up our coastline’s largest pollution source is a fact that Deborah simply wishes away.  Her statement “It’s also worth noting that the seepage SOS is so worried about comes from only one offshore oil field — the Ellwood field owned by Venoco.” is another example of an utter ignorance of the truth.  U.S. Geological Survey data identifies over 2000 active seeps along the ENTIRE Santa Barbara coast, which would be similarly reduced if the oil in those areas where also extracted. But most of those areas are off limits due to the state and federal moratoria. SOS California supports reducing all the coastal natural oil pollution that can be safely produced through offshore production, including from land based slant drilling to the offshore reserves. Go to SOS California’s website (soscalifornia.org)and read the material and compare it to Deborah’s Opinion piece and judge for yourself.  We consider ourselves a real environmental group. We also advocate using the large royalty revenue from new offshore oil production to fund solar and electric vehicle rebates for Ca and Santa Barbara, which would save Santa Barbara residents money and make us more energy independent. The revenue to Santa Barbara County could be in the hundred’s of million of dollars per year- providing the revenue for solar and electric vehicle credits. Its unfortunate when pseudo-environmental groups resort to making up information to fool the public in order to maintain a scientifically discredited position. UCSB’s Crustal Studies Institute lead the seepage reduction studies showing that offshore oil production has been reducing the oil seepage off of our coast.  Why not accuse them of being oil company stooges too?  Let’s have a face to face public debate and see who’s really telling the truth.

» Trekking Left on 08.12.08 @ 05:28 PM

“To answer Myth No. 1, check the price of oil today vs. what it was when President Bush first called for the offshore exploration ban to be lifted a couple of months ago…”

I just love this one from the Righties ... Bush basically caused oil prices to go down by just “proposing” off shore drilling.  You guys really expect to be taken seriously after making statements like that?

» Trekking Left Needs a U-Turn on 08.12.08 @ 07:08 PM

Hey, TL, sneer all you want but do yourself a favor before you type and look up the facts. Prices did start falling as soon as Bush started calling for a reversal of the moratorium. Don’t worry, though. W’s not expecting an apology from you.

» Andrew M on 08.12.08 @ 08:11 PM

To trekking left:

How do you explain the current drop in oil prices?  I’d love to get a view into your “reality.”

» AN50 on 08.12.08 @ 09:05 PM

To Trekking Left, uh that’s what happened, duh.
To ‘Bruce Venoco SOS Allen is a Joke’ (you couldn’t fine a shorter moniker than that, you twit?!), Bruce’s response was far from an ad hominem tirade (though it describes yours to a tee). Why if you must attack Bruce, can you not provide some sort of evidence to back your claims? Deborah’s article was one long tired left wing talking point, lacking any credible evidence to back it up. Her three myths were challenged logically here by Michael Lewis, Bruce Allen and others while the response by those agreeing with Deborah lack any thing other than ad hominem attacks on those who would dare take on the Author.

» wrong place for flaming Tom Becker on 08.13.08 @ 06:16 AM

Tom Becker and his “dead marines” comments really is over the top, noozhawk, dont you think?

[Editor’s note: Yes, it certainly is. That sentence has been removed. Our apologies to our readers, among them former Marine Salud Carbajal.]

» tom becker on 08.13.08 @ 10:22 AM

“our apologies to our readers, among them former Marine Salud Carbajal”.

[Editor’s note: Tom, can you please e-mail me directly at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)? Thank you.]

» Those crazy lefties at Forbes on 08.13.08 @ 01:45 PM

From a recent Forbes editorial:
“Check out John Tamny’s masterful analysis on the meaning of oil’s four-week decline:

Last month, gold rose at one point to nearly $1,000/ounce, and oil hit an all-time high of $147/barrel. Since then, oil has fallen roughly 23 percent against a 17 percent drop in gold. So as is always the case, a large reason for oil’s current weakness has to do with a dollar that currently buys 1/827th of an ounce of gold, as opposed to nearly 1/1000th a month ago.

Still, oil has fallen further, and while rumblings of greater supply reaching the market due to presumption of liberalized drilling rules might explain some of the disparity, another realistic explanation lies in the aforementioned gold/oil ratio. As of last month, the ratio was roughly 6.8/1, so if history is any kind of indicator, oil was and is due for an even greater fall versus gold given the longstanding relationship between crude and the yellow metal. Looking ahead, no matter the direction of gold, oil has room for further weakness given a ratio that as of this writing is roughly 7.3/1.”

» AN50 on 08.13.08 @ 05:59 PM

What, give Bush credit! Are you kidding? Just look at ‘those crazy lefties at Forbes’ or Saunders response. I mean really let’s go out of our way to not give ole GW credit. But really, what is the point here if not to make excuses to not drill for our own oil. I don’t have any argument against conservation or developing alternative sources, but these are not going to replace oil for a long time unless everyone wants to sacrifice a very lot. And that is based on doing the math on energy efficiency, density and generation. We need to get out of the obstructionist business and get into the can do business and I mean can do everything, now. The SBCAN organization is nothing more than a bunch of liberal obstructionist can’t do whiners. Quite frankly groups like this have had their way for a long time and only managed to drive business out the country and make it way more expensive (aka less efficient) to do anything. When Joe Q Public wakes up and realizes he can do more for the environment with his wallet than an army of lawyers adding hundreds of new obstructionist laws, then we’ll get somewhere.

» Michael Jaffe on 08.14.08 @ 04:54 AM

If you drive to your anti-off shore drilling meetings in a vehicle using petroleum based fuel, then the unspoken commentary you make is that it is OK to exploit other countries to satisfy your need to drive and fly somewhere, but not ok to exploit your own. Either drive or don’t drive. There is no in-between,

» Andrew M on 08.16.08 @ 11:30 PM

Bush’s actions had a direct effect on oil prices as a large portion of the price is due to speculation.  When Nancy Pelosi gets back from vacation unable to sit down, the Dems will vote to end the ban on drilling and you will see oil far below $100 per barrel.  Conservation has also had an effect as has a stronger dollar.  Once countries like India and China quit subsidizing their citizens’ oil purchases, the demand will drop further.  Unfortunately, there are too many things out there that can disrupt the supply of oil and drive prices back up.  The Left won’t shed any tears over this.  Most Americans will, however.  So you environmentalists should start preparing yourselves for getting thrown under the bus by the Dems.  There’s no way the Dems are going to lose control of Congress over a few oil wells off the South Coast.  You will not be able to block more drilling.  You may, in the long run, get your desire for increased use of alternative energy, but you will not be able to block more drilling.

» Bill Brown on 08.18.08 @ 07:22 PM

Looks like Deborah does not know how the commodities market works. Hey Deborah, its called the futures market for a reason.

» criticalthinker on 09.11.08 @ 02:57 PM

Responding to Surfthe805: Check out the book Oil on the Brain, by Lisa Margonelli.  A terrific read, and you’ll also learn that there is virtually no accurate metrics on how much oil is produced, sold, etc.  So the elasticity between demand and supply is very arbitrary.  And consider OPEC: their role artificially affects price, too.  The point is that even if we drill for local oil, we (the USA) won’t get the oil, and it won’t affect prices to any significant degree.