Posted on 08/06/2008 8:01:13 AM PDT by SE Mom
Since offshore drilling has become a top tier issue in this campaign, I've encountered more than a few readers who hold up the Energy Information Administration report like a protective talisman and declare, "No oil would be produced until 2017! No oil would be produced until 2017!" Obama himself mentioned it in his speech.
As I've noted, that report assumes nothing happens until 2012. Beyond that, offshore drilling skeptics haven't offered anything to refute the report that some California oil deposits could be accessed within one year; probably because refuting it would mean acknowledging it, and it's easier to win the argument when you pretend there's no contrary evidence.
Campaign Spot reader Rick points out another fascinating detail in that EIA report's final paragraph:
Although a significant volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and natural gas resources is added in the OCS access case, conversion of those resources to production would require both time and money. In addition, the average field size in the Pacific and Atlantic regions tends to be smaller than the average in the Gulf of Mexico, implying that a significant portion of the additional resource would not be economically attractive to develop at the reference case prices.
In other words, if oil is expensive, these fields will look like good investments; if oil is cheap, building offshore platforms and drilling will look less worthwhile to oil companies.
So what are the reference case prices for EIA's report? You have to look elsewhere on their site to find it:
In the reference case, increased non-OPEC and OPEC supplies are expected to cause a price decline from 2006 levels to under $50 per barrel (2005 dollars) in 2014.
Yesterday oil traded at $119; it peaked at $147 a barrel this year. I suppose it's theoretically possible that without offshore drilling, the price of oil will be cut in half over the next six years while demand from China and India continues to surge. But it sure doesn't look likely. And if oil is more expensive, oil companies will find offshore drilling more worthwhile — bringing more domestic supply sources online, reducing transportation costs, and eventually reducing prices.
The rest of the EIA range in that report is from $34 a barrel (!) to $101 a barrel by 2030.
I'm sure the folks at EIA are fine, fine people who try their best. But predicting future oil prices is difficult even for trained experts. On page 103 of their 2002 edition of their Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA predicted that by 2010, the range of oil prices from $17.64 to $30.44 per barrel. We're pretty close to that date, and again, a drop from today's $120 or so to $30 a barrel in the next two years just doesn't seem likely.
The EIA report is one assessment from an agency whose predictions have proven considerably flawed at best, and at worst, was completely blindsided the oil price explosion of recent years. It shouldn't be held up as the final word on why offshore drilling is a bad idea.
08/06 10:09 AM
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021179.php
Powerline has been all over this and they have more today.
Obama has put his foot further in his mouth.
EXCELLENT! Thanks for the link. I was completely away from the tv and computer yesterday- trying to catch up.
Eeegads Obama is SUCH a dolt.
This reveals not just Obama's ignorance of the subject, but his entire staff's.
Not to mention a large serving of arrogance, all around.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.