Virginian-Pilot: Too much oil or not enough?
By Brian Kirwin | Tuesday, May 10th, 2011 | Energy independenceI wish the Editorial Board at the Virginian-Pilot would make up their minds. In their latest whinefest about why we shouldn’t drill for oil (bet their “chief” uses more than his fair share cruising in from his Suffolk digs to downtown Norfolk every day), they simultaneously argue that drilling off the coast will give us lots of oil and hardly any at all.
I wonder sometimes if they have a dartboard of looney leftist topics to write about, walk in the office, pick up a dart and throw. Seems they hit these same issues over and over in a pretty steady rotation.
Whine Number One – Not Enough Oil
Government and private-sector economists alike have noted for more than 30 years that the United States doesn’t have enough oil to affect the global market.
Whine Number Two – So much Oil it could ruin the coastline!
If you can’t remember last year’s massive oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico or you don’t worry about a repeat – or you believe the best way to negotiate is to surrender – then members of Congress have a deal for you.
So, which is it?
Does Virginia have Gulf-like levels of oil offshore or doesn’t it?
The lames at the Pilot cannot simultaneously argue that there is and there isn’t oil off our shores.
Well, they can, in their own paper. But they risk their stupidity being called out by me.
Again….
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
The right wants to jeer him. The left wants to censor him. Moderates usually want both. Brian Kirwin is a political consultant and public relations strategist in Virginia Beach with a lightning-rod flair. Brian also serves on the VB Arts & Humanities Commission and frequently appears on Hampton Roads theatrical stages, if only to prove that all actors aren’t liberals. Kirwin’s columns stir up debate and hit the political scene with no punches pulled.
Comments
25 Responses to "Virginian-Pilot: Too much oil or not enough?"
Amen, the Pilot editorial board is so out-of-touch with this area its appalling.
BK,
I rarely agree with you so strongly. I too have noted that environmentalists will cry there is so little oil out there but then switch and complain we face astronomical risks even with the limited drilling that would occur if the resources are so limited.
Weak. Oversimplied.
How much oil in the water is too much? Just right?
I am going to expound a little bit.
The 4th largest provide of imported crude oil to the United States is Nigeria. The Niger River delta has experienced the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez type spill every year of the past ten. The majority of American environmentalists do not seem to be too concerned as they continue to fill their personal vehicles to get back and forth to work each day. If we increased production here in the US, that would result in greater protections against environmental damage. They seem to be in favor of maintaining our dependence on sources where great environmental is occurring.
I believe this is called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard).
Brian,
They are both correct statements. Are you saying you disagree with those? What you’ve italicized are facts, not opinions. And they aren’t mutually exclusive
Whine #1 – The odds of finding any significant reserves of oil are pretty small. If a large reserve were found it could affect the price of global oil, but not for a while due to the amount of time it gets a field operating. However, given interest by the major players there probably isn’t that much of a chance of a large deposit.
Whine #2 – An oil spill the size of Deepwater Horizon or Exxon Valdez would destroy what’s left of the Chesapeake Bay economy and ecosystems. We can’t deny that if/when drilling does take place. You shouldn’t take such things in vain.
For such a proud resident of Virginia Beach, you’re awful comfortable with the possibility of an oil spill rolling in and destroying the only thing that sets it apart from Hopewell.
Should we continue to subject third world nation citizens to the almost guaranteed environmental damage if we are not willing to take on even a modest amount of the risk ourselves?
When was the last time you filled up your gas tank?
Brian is dead-on, and the issue of whether the arguments are mutual exclusive is irrelevant. Yea, we get it, there may be enough oil to dirty the water while still falling short of supply signficance. Clever libs may even proudly pat themselves in noting that this line of reasoning is an entirely consistent benefit/detriment analysis; taking the ‘risk’ of ruining our beaches ought to be done only when there is a significant payoff, or benefit. But they’d be wrong, and once again hypocritical.
The only thing the matters is whether market forces believe there is enough of a financial return to drill, if supplies are as paltry as the Pilot claims, then oil cos. will drill elsewhere. The value of ‘supply’ is a market consideration, not a judgment to be made by the Volvo calvary in a newspaper boardroom.
The only environmental concern is whether the method of extraction is ‘safe’ enough to hurdle a true cost/benefit analysis. If the Pilot thinks drilling in water is inherently risky or costly, they ought to have the integrity to stop creating demand from these sources, visit a Schwinn store and use hand-cranked printing presses. But as Brian points out, their disgust with drilling does not approach affecting their personal lifestyle, only the lifestyle and prosperity of others.
This is the result of lib elitists who selectively choose the argument of choice depending on the issue at hand. If hypocrisy were oil, the Pilot could power the whole city for years.
Way to go Brian; simply dismiss concerns about the effect of an oil well leak gushing ashore in Hampton Roads. I wonder how your readers on the Peninsula respond to your apparent lack of understanding about the importance of the seafood industry? I wonder how your readers at the Beach respond to your lack of concern on the effect on the visitor industry? Of course, you and the Governor have your story straight; too bad it is fraught with error and exaggeration. To have read the Governor’s statement, one would have thought the price of gas would recede immediately. Again, the master of the press release, but look behind the veil, nothing is there.
Oh yes, the tourism industry is thriving with gas above $4 a gallon. Come on America, visit lovely VA Beach, just remember to sell one of your kids ahead of time so you can afford to travel! Seen the price of food lately Mikey-boy? And it is going to continue going up, which will certainly be adored by the seafood industry as they pay twice as much for fuel to sell half as much fish. Oh, and yes, the major engine behind rising food prices is the spike in energy prices.
I’m sure the Gulf seafood industry was RUINED by the absolute worst oil spill in US waters… it must be, I heard it on NPR and all major liberal news outlets… But if one actually chooses to think for oneself they may stumble upon inforation put out by our own government, currently run by the gutsy Barack Obama, that seafood is JUST FINE in the Gulf.
May 2, 2011, from the FDA web site, “All of the federal waters and all but a few state harvest waters have reopened and the tests have shown that the seafood from these reopened areas is as safe to eat as it was before the oil spill.”
How can that be, Mike Barrett says we will DESTROY seafood by drilling in water, it is INEVITABLE! So best to keep us in a perpetual state of energy poverty, a beggar nation that won’t touch its own resources, in order to protect an eco-system that, even in the face of the DOOMSDAY scenario, turns out to be just fine less than a year later.
What a goof…
HH: “Clever libs may even proudly pat themselves in noting that this line of reasoning is an entirely consistent benefit/detriment analysis; taking the ‘risk’ of ruining our beaches ought to be done only when there is a significant payoff, or benefit. But they’d be wrong, and once again hypocritical.”
This isn’t liberal. This is rational. This is not believing in magic thinking. I’m not all that green. Show me an analysis that Virginia gets more out of this than it risks, and I’d be for it. Under current law, Virginia would get squat for putting one of our most valuable tourism resources at risk.
The “will of the market” is not the ONLY thing that matters. That’s a lot of Randian claptrap. The good of the people is what matters. The “will of the market” gets you Enron and the Wall Street Disaster. We’ve tried unregulated capitalism in this country and it was a disaster for everyone except the big money boys.
No Stevie Ray – it is not “rational” to pull the plug on a potential energy resource without even the slightest investigation as to the QUANTITY involved. Right now there are base ecological estimates, but companies are chomping to get a DOE permit to see how much oil and gas in them ‘thar wells, well until O installed martial law, er, I mean the moratorium. And Rand wasn’t an economist, go back a little ways, Adam Smith should do nicely.
The good of the people is a big responsibility, and we sure all do appreciate you appointing yourself as head about the good of the people committee comrade. You know, if you hadn’t said something, I would have just kept on believing it is good for people to be free and have the energy they need to live their lives in the 21st century.
Wait, did you say we tried “unregulated capitalism”?? Riiiight, that is our problem as a nation, not enough regulation. “COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE GET IN HERE AND REGULATE THIS ECONOMY!!” You not only completely changed the topic, but you managed to shoot it in the face as well… nice job.
What don’t you understand?
The oil field (if there is one) off the coast of Virginia will likely not produce enough to lower the price of gas. In fact, it won’t produce oil for probably 10 years or more. Demand is rising (globally) and supplies are diminishing (globally). Prices will continue to fluctuate but trend in the upward direction unless a large percentage of drivers switch to electric or hybrid vehicles and demand crahses.
Secondly, the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon rig is not impossible off the coast of Virginia. This is what people are concerned with. As a state, we should be looking out for the economic and environmental harm that a spill of a even much smaller spill could cause.
HH: You might try reading some history. Have we always had an EPA, an FDA, an SEC, a labor dept? Why no, we haven’t. Wonder why we came up with those ideas? Hmm, possibly because unregulated business dump sewage in our drinking water, sold poison as food and medicine, swindled their investors and were willing to work children like slaves? Hmm, might be. If that’s the kind of country you want to live in, I’m sure land is cheap in Somalia and Aghanistan.
HH,
So the whole 2 years that Obama has been in office prevented the Bush Administration from granting leases off the coast of Virginia? You’re right, those oil companies are just chomping at that bit.
Steve,
As a general rule, we probably shouldn’t debate with someone who uses ALL CAPS to emphasize their points, attempts to degrade others with “funny” names, and clearly defies logical arguments.
Steve Vaughn,
You stated: “Under current law, Virginia would get squat for putting one of our most valuable tourism resources at risk.”
While that is true, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 states that beginning in 2017, 37.5 percent of royalties from new oil wells, up to $500 million, will be shared among the four oil-producing Gulf states — Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
If it is fair for them, it shouldn’t be too hard to argue that it should be fair for every other coastal state.
“Drill, Baby, Drill”
Steve,
Better watch out because big government’s track record isn’t too great either. Can’t say Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin and Saddam did much for protecting people from those evil corporations. It appears the people needed protecting from big government.
That experiment your talking about has been tried all over the world in a dismal failure.
#1: Gulf seafood might be back to pre-spill safety levels, but seafood SALES are still in the toilet. The New Orleans Fish house: $40 million annual sales before the spill – now back ‘up’ to $10 million. A recent Louisiana seafood promo/mktg board survey found 70% surveyed are still nervous about eating Gulf seafood ~ even after all the testing. Obviously, you don’t need to destroy the actual seafood … to devastate a seafood (or tourism) market.
#2: 17 million people live in the Bay watershed; 10 million along/near its shores; it’s home for 2 major ports (Baltimore & Hampton Roads), shipyards and naval facilities; more than 500 million pounds of seafood is harvested each year. The Bay is a regional resource that generates billions for a multi-state economy – not just us ;I would expect others in the impact region to join NJ Gov. Christ Christie in opposing the lease sale.
#3: We can project deposit size; even the petroleum industry’s report shows pissant amounts off Virginia’s coast. Read the state level analysis: http://www.api.org/Newsroom/icf_study.cfm
#4: Oil companies are “chomping at the bit” because simply OWNING more leases increases a company’s street market value. And, with no mandate or requirement to actually drill for oil, EVEN if Virginia negotiates a royalty arrangement, we get zip unless they bring up the crude.
# 5: But let’s just say all of us (including T. Boone Pickens) are wrong; we drill and hit the mother load. Do you really think oil companies will sell at anything but market value?
“…I’m ready to drill on the offshore, I have no problem with that. But don’t look for big reserves off the East Coast of the United States.” ~ T. Boone Pickens, Founder and Chairman, BP Capital Management, March 31, 2010, Financial Market Regulatory Wire
JJ: I’m sorry you can’t recognize the difference between a government working to protect the interest of the majority, not just the rich, and a tyranny.
Jay D,
Part of T Boone Pickens’s proposal is to funnel natural gas reserves to transportation needs to lessen the release of CO2 from transportation (like big trucks).
However that is not how environmental extremists see it. They think natural gas is the solution to every energy need that can not be met through renewable energy. They carve the proven supply of natural gas up in so many ways, there will not be enough to go around.
Some of them (the Sierra Club is not amongst them) also want to prevent the practice of fracking, which is the source of most of the additional supply. I heard one of these environmentalists state on NPR (National Public Radio) as natural gas being the solution to stop depending on coal where renewable energy could not keep up with demand. When asked if he then supported fracking he stated that not all natural gas comes from that method. I guess he was not aware that without fracking, supply will not meet existing demand.
I once again wish to point out that the national Sierra Club leadership reluctantly accepts that fracking is necessary. They realize fracking causes environmental damage, but their position is that the benefits outweigh the negatives. But even they seem to want to carve the available supply into too many thin pieces trying to solve too many problems from just one source of energy.
If you are going to point to T. Boone, are you telling us you are supporting his complete plan?
Steve Vaughn,
How about including the needs of the needy in that majority? I’ll give an example. I once delivered a load of in season citrus fruit (perhaps a surplus) coming out of Florida to a New Orleans food bank after the flooding. My charges to the shipper included a fuel surcharge and I did not transport it for free. I will state that transporting that load involved some charity from me because I could have pulled other loads more profitably.
It seems some environmentalists are in favor choking off fossil fuel sources so as to drive the price of them up. These efforts impact the economy, and every American, not just the majority, is affected by the resulting impact on the national economy.
LD- I think you have me confused with someone who’s saying that we should stop using fossil fuels. What I said is, we have to look at both sides of the equation rationally and weigh the risks and benefits before we decide to drill off the coast. “Drill, baby Drill” is a mantra, not a policy.
Steve,
My willingness to adopt the mantra of Drill baby Drill is in response to the efforts of some environmentalists to prevent any drilling anywhere. Are you amongst those types?
No. As I said previously, “I’m not all that green.” Show me an analysis where the benefit to Virginia of off-shore drilling at least offsets the risks and I’ll be for it. Where I have problems with the drilling advocates is that they don’t think we should do that analysis. They think the only thing that matters is “the will of the market.”
The risks of any amount of drilling directly affects the amount of risk. We have been drilling in the Gulf and in Alaska for a long time with minimal impact compared to the environments of the nations we import our crude oil from. Should we encourage greater reliance on getting our crude from areas with zero concern for the environment or increase our sources from areas with concern?
Hint hint. If crude oil is produced domestically, they have the advantage of decreased transportation costs to get it to the refinery.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.