Harris Sherline: We’re Wasting Energy Debating Whether to Drill
The sooner we understand the solution to our needs is "all of the above," the sooner we can fix our dilemma.
World leaders, America’s politicians and the general public have finally realized we’re going to need all the sources of energy we can get. To meet the continuing rise in demand for transportation fuels and electricity, all technologies — existing and developing — will have a place in the mix of solutions. Everyone pretty much knows what the major sources are: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind, but there are big differences of opinion about which ones we should choose to develop.
And waiting for the ideal solution, currently touted as solar and wind, could take far longer than drilling here and now. Some potential solutions will surely take longer than others, perhaps a very long time, so trying one or two at time while we wait to see if they solve our problem means stringing the effort out over a very long period of time. For example, given current technology and zoning, planning and other government restraints, plus the litigation that will surely follow almost any large-scale effort, such as nuclear or building more oil refineries, just about anything we might do will undoubtedly be dragged out over a period of many years.
Oil, coal and gas are still the cheapest and most effective sources of energy for running large factories, trains, heating buildings, operating cars and trucks, etc. But, some new technologies are also currently being developed that could be very important as a future energy source of, one of which is wave energy. This is not some pie-in-the-sky alternative. It’s here now, with Portugal about to start work on the world’s first commercial wave power plant, which could ultimately supply 20 percent of that country’s energy needs.
If our politicians would get out of the way and lift the restrictions they themselves have imposed on our ability to develop America’s energy resources, there would be a surge of risk takers who are more than willing to invest the money and effort needed to solve our energy crises — and not in 10 or 20 years, as the obstructionists would have us believe.
One glaring example of illogical and foolish thinking is the fact that we cannot drill offshore, while other nations, such as China, India and others are entering into leases to drill off the coast of Cuba, in an area that intrudes on U.S. territorial waters.
Writing in HumanEvents.com, Chuck Norris recently observed: “Despite the fact that a recent poll found that Americans now believe (by a 3-to-1 ratio) gas prices are a bigger problem than global warming, The Washington Post noted that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., an avid opponent of offshore drilling, vows to block a drilling vote and even dialogue from occurring on the House floor. And Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., echoed the same sentiment when he eliminated energy amendments to his anti-speculation bill. At the same time, Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., canceled committee consideration of spending bills for fear that Republicans would include drilling amendments.”
The answer is not rocket science. Instead of holding out for the “perfect solution,” whatever that may be, the United States should jump in with both feet and start drilling, here and now, everywhere we can, while we move ahead to develop alternative sources of energy. Click here to listen to an impassioned speech from Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, about this issue.
Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu has been famously quoted with saying, “A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” Not drilling for oil and/or gas because it will take too long cannot solve anything. We need to take as many first steps as we can.
Harris R. Sherline is a retired CPA and former chairman and CEO of Santa Ynez Valley Hospital who has lived in Santa Barbara County for more than 30 years. He stays active writing opinion columns and his own blog, Opinionfest.com.
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 03:26 PM
It is so obvious where your head is when you cite a Fox survey and quote a right wing nut like Chuck Norris. The republicans, their extremist cronies, and the oil/corporate conglomerates have been dismissing, hindering, blocking, downplaying, alternative energy research and development for over 30 years and now put the pressure to drill for more of their depleting commodity. You don’t get the idea that this has been a planned strategy for decades?
If alternative energies were in place now, we would have very cheap oil and a much cleaner environment; with money in the bank to educate our kids, fix the infrastructure, and protect our borders.
You and your archaic thinking are one of the main causes of the problems we face today
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 05:59 PM
I have spoken of this many times before but lets be clear about it once again. We have no choice but to immediately start finding ways to produce alternative energy and stop using so much oil. That is the ONLY reasonable focus right now and drilling for more oil will not only not change the current situation for decades at best, but it will never create the change we need to endure the 21st century. However, even if drilling our oil reserves were to make sense, drilling for them now will never make any sense. Think about it a bit. Will our offshore oil be more valuable now or will it be more valuable well in the future when oil is far more scarce? Does drilling for it now make any sense when other supplies are available for what will most certainly appear to be a reasonable price when looking back from the future. These supplies will seem far more dear in the future when they are some of the very last oil reserves on this earth. Let other nation’s supplies dry up now before utilizing our own. Furthermore, maintaining these reserves right now provides just a bit of leverage against political and economic coercion from OPEC and other oil producing nations. The other suppliers cannot push too hard or we “might” tap these reserves. Don’t be swayed by ignorant views like Harris and bury your head in the sand. Think creatively about these issues and find appropriate solutions that so not continue the same old dark Republican dogma of yesterday. It is time for CHANGE in the United States.
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 06:29 PM
As usual, Mr. Sherline presents a thoughtful, informed and rational perspective on an important issue. His views would be shared by a vast percentage of a fully-informed public.
The bone-headed attitudes of some Congressional leaders, supported and shared by the feeble-minded blathering of the economically illiterate, serve only to drive the country into deeper and deeper despair.
The attitude that alternative sources of energy have been defeated by politics demonstrates not only a complete lack of faith in free-enterprise capitalism, but also a frightening ignorance of the natural forces that drive worthwhile ideas to realistic conclusions.
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 07:00 PM
If only drilling offshore would lower oil prices. In spite of the common sense that more supply would in fact lower prices, not one economist or petroleum industry representative has come out saying that this would be a result.
Here in Santa Barbara County, we have one of the largest light crude deposits in the lower 48, yet it hasn’t been drilled. Why? Because the economics of meeting the county’s standards for clean operations would make it economically unfeasible. Now one could say that this is proof that the standards are too high. Except that this same county has Greka spilling all over the place. If Greka can operate here, why shouldn’t a savvy developer be able to make that onshore deposit in the Santa Maria valley pay?
Lots of oil sources that are far less expensive to develop than our shoreline or the ANWAR aren’t yet viable. So quick, in the heat of high prices let’s give them more public resources for little or no money and for no effect.
How about the feds just say that they will buy X amount of the cleanest energy offered, that they will eliminate the subsidies for all existing sources ( but not the $300billion we spend keeping the Straits of Hormuz open - not counting the two wars cost by the way) and see where that leaves the ‘risk takers’ in oil.
The brave here have put their investments in clean energy options without greenhouse gas laws on the books, and without significant subsidies or tax incentives that the oil folk have.
Sherline should write about the real costs of externalities in the current manufacturing practices and recommend how we should account for them.
» wrote on 08/31/08 @ 11:44 PM
The problem we have with short-sighted people is that they really don’t undertstand the situation.Aside from the fact that the sources that HS relies on have their head stuck in their pockets, he doesn;t have any idea of the extent of the problem. First of all, exhausting our resources does us no good, and the best estimate of time needed to obtain use of the findings, if any,will take several years, so while we need the oil now , we won’t get it for at least 8 to 10 years at the earliest, and every proposal that the oil industry come up with does not include the incentive to do the research that might help us reach energy independence, or at best reduce our need for foreign oil.
HS does not mention the tax protection that the Oil industry gets from our government that could be better used to encourage our people to invent a better mousetrap. as it were. Yes, we could drill, but I for one, will not suppoort any effort that does not include the necessary incentives to fund the research needed to reduce our use of foreign oil.
But the most important aspect of this situation is the need to protect our environment from the adverse affects that continued use of oil provides.There are people that do not believe in global warming, which is pretty short-sighted in that the basic law of physics that nothing is removed from our world, just changed in form means that burned oil is converted, and science has established that the conversion that occurs is to carbon dioxide , which poisons our atmosphere, and this makes breathing unhealthy.
Maybe , Fox news has new scientific rules that suggest that when one fills ones gas tank and it empties, that the burned gas disappears, but if they do, they are keeping it a secret.
On the other hand, any body who watches and believes Fox news doesn’t understand the reality of the situation.Poisoning our atmosphere for future generations is not quite the inheritance that I want to leave behind. I have lived in this beach community for almost 50 years and have never seen the tides come in as high as they now do, and frankly I expect that beach front property will in Santa Barbara terms, reach Cota street within the next 50 years, or sooner.
» wrote on 09/01/08 @ 03:41 AM
Rob, I respectfully disagree about those reserves. The resources are here and under our control, and it makes no sense to me to go elsewhere first. While I support the development of alternative energy sources, their reliability is just not market-ready in 2008. But the oil and gas are, particularly in ANWR, where it would take no more than five years to get that source flowing into our domestic supply. Perhaps within that period of time, American ingenuity will have worked out the kinks in the alt energy stream. But make no mistake: Those sources are NOT capable of replacing oil and gas yet. That’s what I see as the real hang-up to shifting our usage, in my opinion.
» wrote on 09/01/08 @ 11:29 AM
The solutions to the energy problem, involving cost, availability, and timing is vastly more complex and deserves more nuanced thinking than single-issue focus, politicization, and name-calling. Alternative energy supplies are needed and are not mature. Any energy program that ignores this reality is doomed to failure. The fact is that our economy and well-being today are based on petrolem products. We need more. And at the same time we need a serious “man on the moon” style (remember the early 60’s anyone?) program to develop realistic, economic, scalable (i.e. available in large quantities) alternatives and get them to market.
» wrote on 09/01/08 @ 04:05 PM
Actually, Egenoff has an interesting point, except for the statement “drilling for them now will never make sense”, which really means drill never (after all, “now” will be now ten years from now). But perhaps to ensure that these supplies effect the desired downward push on prices they should be developed and readily available to market even if not used currently. Remember that when President Bush lifted the Executive Order banning offshore drilling a few weeks ago, oil prices prompty dropped significantly. Now I know that many, many, many people won’t give Bush any credit for anything good, but consider this: just the threat of increased US offshore production drove oil prices down, i.e. took “speculation” out of the then-current price. And that act of his had no real teeth - it just put the states on the hook to make their own decisions. Just imagine if we really had additional supplies to put online IF needed.
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 01:48 AM
In response to John Locke,
While it is true that the price of oil did go down after the “announcement”, there is no evidence that prices decreased BECAUSE of the announcement. The price of an oil barrel is complicated and what you and others have described is a simple correlation - which in fairness to you, COULD actually have had the direct effect. The problem is that neither you or I can figure that correlation out. As such your argument is speculation.
What we do know is that there isn’t enough oil offshore to drive gas prices down. This is a fact, and I wish it wasn’t true. Drilling won’t have an effect if we start drilling today, yesterday, tomorrow, 10 years ago, you get the point. That is the opinion of experts, not mine. The US just doesn’t have the oil anymore. We’ve already peaked.
Now you could make the argument that we should drill in order not to buy from Russia, the Emirates etc. I agree but again, we don’t have the stuff, at least not to the levels we are used to consuming. It sucks. Furthermore there is plenty of land right now that is already waiting to be drilled. Oil production in the US will continue for at least the next 20 years. Now that I think about it, I bet you could drill every square inch of the US and still there won’t be enough oil to significantly drive prices down - Ok NOW I’M speculating…
One last thought. Gas in America is really cheap in comparison to other countries, so I think there’s a bit of panic being exploited on all sides - political sides that is, not Noozhawk readers.
Anyways, thanks for the interesting comments. This is really fun and informative.
Question for Mr. Sherline: what steps have you taken to reduce your energy consumption? Do you ride a bicycle? Energy efficient bulbs? Turn off cable TV news to conserve energy?
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 01:59 AM
Clearly Mr. Sherline is not properly fact checking. Chuck Norris has been dead for many years since this incident with Bruce Lee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HTj_CSQ3Xk
[Editor’s note: LOL]
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 06:49 PM
Have we reached peak oil? Though that may be true for the US the jury is out on global supplies. The peak may be near though since current geophysical data indicates we should be close. However, just saying no to drilling in the absurd assertion that alternatives will magically appear is ludicrous. You are not going to fly a plane on batteries. The amazing thing about those hydrocarbons we love to burn is the energy packed into them. Gasoline has 80 times the energy density of the best battery. Our entire world population is precariously balanced on this wonder energy storage medium called fossil fuel. Yes you can build thousands of nuke plants in order to spare fossil fuel consumption for electricity to use in transportation, but until you find a direct or better replacement for that high energy density fuel the worlds 6.5 billion people are in peril. Current alternative energy schemes cannot support the current world population at its current living standard level and there are a lot of people around the world who would like a living standard closer to ours. That is going to take a massive amount of energy production AND a very high density energy storage medium.
Look we are not consuming fossil fuels because we’re idiots, it’s the best high density fuels we have and the energy production end of it was done millions of years ago in the form of solar energy. We just spent the last 100 years burning through 10 million years worth of solar power. The resulting petroleum economies of the world have allowed a huge increase in the standard of living for much of the world’s population. That in turn has allowed the more advanced and highest standards economies to invest in areas of thought and development outside of mere sustenance. Imagine what a dark world we would be relegating ourselves to if we have to go back to spending most of our conscious waking hours just trying to find food and shelter. Yes it is true that much of this free time and lack of concern over food and shelter that our petroleum based economies has brought to us is squandered by hedonism and conspicuous consumption. So tell me o great wizards of alternatives, which one of you wants to volunteer to spend the rest of your life concentrating all your waking energy on finding your next meal or sheltering yourselves from the elements? For those who might think this wise extrapolate that to medical researchers, physicist, agronomist, engineers, etc… It’s easy to preach global warming and alternative energy when you haven’t done your damned home work. Go back to school boys and girls and re-learn your physics and chemistry and take a lesson or two in economics, then let’s talk about what we’re facing down the road. In the mean time, drill now, drill here!
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 10:17 PM
Dear editor,
Anso seems to be posting very condensing statements to numerous comments on many of your articles. It seems as though he has gone beyond logic and has resorted to name calling. A rational discussion is one thing but a rambling in which he makes fun of people, their opionion and their education without knowing them goes too far. We would appreciate it if you would please monitor him in the future. His comments are unnecessary, irrational, illogical, poorly stated and unacceptable. Please make this a civil discussion in a respectable forum. This is not the rant and raves section on Craig’s List.
» wrote on 09/03/08 @ 11:21 AM
From CNN June 6, 2008: “You’d think with gas prices topping $4 and consumers crying uncle, Congress would be moving fast to spur development of a domestic oil resource so vast - 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone - it could eventually rival the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.”
» wrote on 09/03/08 @ 11:24 AM
From CBS News June, 2006: “...There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves here [in Alberta, Canada oil sands]. That’s second to Saudi Arabia’s 260 billion but it’s only what companies can get with today’s technology. The estimate of how many more barrels of oil are buried deeper underground is staggering...The total estimates could be two trillion or even higher...”
» wrote on 09/04/08 @ 12:44 AM
Dear Amazing, or is That Mr. Truth again, hmmm, well only the editor knows for sure.
Anyway if you have a problem with my discourse, address me directly. Show some spine here. Begging the editor to censor those you disagree with is rather weak and feeble (oops is that to insulting?)
I judge the education of those I spar with by the level of logic, reason and intellect they respond with. Since I myself have no formal education it ought to be easy for you to meet that challenge and win handily. Instead you get emotional and weepy, calling on the editor to rescue you from mean, nasty ole AN50.
Tell you what, you take my previous posting wrote on 09/02/08 @ 03:49 PM and take it apart bit by bit with all your educated power of logic and reason and actually demonstrate what it is you are whining about. Then I’ll play nice and eat my hat when you humiliate me for all the other grown ups to see.
That is, of course, if you are up to the task.
» wrote on 09/05/08 @ 02:38 PM
Interesting that projected reserves need Congressional incentives to exploit isn’t it? If the ‘market’ is so high, why aren’t these sources being developed? Because, in the words of petroleum industry analysts and consultants- it isn’t profitable.
Foreign oil is still cheaper than the oil sands or shale, even under the current subsidies and rules, plus they have ‘external’ costs like destruction of the geographies they are in.
There are lots of existing traditional, domestic drill and pump resources available right now, that don’t have environmental restrictions, that aren’t being exploited for the same reasons, even right here in SB County.
The drill here and it will be cheaper thinking is at best a medium term mitigation- not a solution. Total projected domestic possibilities aren’t sufficient to make a significant contribution to this countries energy needs, much less the world’s. It doesn’t matter how many ‘billion’ barrels are in a economically infeasible form.
You cannot drill, scrape or chemically transform enough petroleum to alter the basic supply demand price curves for the next thirty to a hundred years.
Transforming petroleum to be like salt- you know that cheap commodity we used to go to war over- is the best approach. That means getting energy some other way.
There is more kinetic energy present today, available for the taking without drilling digging or poisoning us, to supply ten billion people at European living standards. What stops us for developing it? Those without imaginations, and those making money from the way we do it now.
» wrote on 09/05/08 @ 11:06 PM
US oil demand is about 21 million barrels per day or 7.6 billion barrels per year. If in fact there are 800 billion barrels in shale in Colorado, that is a 100 year supply at current rate of usage. What am I missing here? Just data, please, spare me the polemics.
» wrote on 09/06/08 @ 10:47 PM
Robert, Patrick is right about the extraction economics. It is going to be hard to justify extraction at a cost of $75 a barrel when the Saudis and Russians can pull it out of the ground for $4. The high cost of oil now is the result of strong demand, weak reserves and high speculation. In about 5 years there will be little room for the huge profit margins seen today as supplies start drying up. That is why, Patrick we need to get those high extraction sources under development right now and not 5 or 10 years from now. We will need those supplies to come on line right about the time the big producers are starting to run out. No time left for any more obstructionism.