4. Addiction to Oil
Another objection to increased offshore drilling is that opening the OCS will only further our nation’s “addiction to oil.” Ultimately, oil is a finite resource, so it is feasible that lifting access restrictions will provide oil today but also push current problems onto future generations. Thus, development of new oil supplies should be considered an interim step that is part of a larger strategy designed to move us toward an economy that is not so dependent on oil and gas.
One option that could hopefully appease some of these objections would be to earmark royalties from all new OCS developments into a fund that is explicitly for research and development (R&D) in alternative energy. The OCS resources then could serve as a bridge to a new energy future. As a nation with a substantial vested interest in matters of energy security, we greatly under invest in energy research. Royalties from new drilling could provide much-needed funding for R&D.
In closing, lifting the moratoria on leasing in the OCS reduces uncertainty about future supplies, and expands our supply portfolio providing some measure of energy security. This can be done, as has been demonstrated by the offshore industry, in an environmentally responsible manner. It can also be done in such a way that we can transition smoothly to a new energy future. Arguing for lifting the OCS leasing moratoria need not be an argument against expanding research and development, and eventual deployment, of alternative energy technologies. Rather, it can be used as a vehicle for such a goal. To reiterate, lifting the moratorium in the OCS is important, and is only one part of a portfolio of options that should be pursued. We must develop a diversified, comprehensive energy strategy that encompasses many options, including drilling, conservation, efficiency and alternative energy.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
I can agree with the funding to R&D but don't you think there is another way to get funds other than royalties from oil ?
No one can deny the fact that the US is addicted to oil. "The first step to fixing your problem is admitting that you have one." That statment not only applies to the 12step process at an AA meeting, it also applies to our nation right now. We are hoplessly addicted to oil and the only way we are going ti fix it is by A. finding an alternative ebergy source and B. by gradually weaning ouselves off of it. By doing those things then it will be possible to bet our addiction.
We are obviously already very addicted to oil. This can be easily spotted when the topic of the day is "Did you see those gas prices?!"
Like Medlock said if we make a smooth transition from oil to a new resource, everything will be fine. We Americans need to slowly ween ourselves off of our addiction, just as smokers do with all those patches and pieces of gum.
What is going to make the difference in offshore drilling is all in how we approach it. We can in no way approach it as the only solution. We need to approach it as something that will get us by while we slowly become less dependent on oil.
No one ever said that it was going to be easy to become independent from oil. Actually, it is bound to be quite difficult, but we are going to have to find the determination to do it. It will have to be done one day, so why not go for it now?
I would also add that offshore drilling is not likely to affect the R&D programs of alternative energy companies. The incentives for them to develop a commercial alternative to fossil fuels is huge. Many people pose this as a zero sum proposition, but I really don't believe it is.
Alternative energy research will therefore in all likelihood continue apace regardless of whether the US opens up its offshore to exploration. According to Data360 ( http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=369 ), almost 10% of US venture capital was going to alternative energy development in 2006. I assume that figure has got quite a bit higher in the past two years.
The only scenario which might negatively impact alternative eenrgy research is if new oil discoveries are far greater than anyone now suspects even in optimistic cases, and a flood of new oil in the market depresses prices. But denial of the possibility of even moderate expected price impact is one of the key arguments of those who oppose offshore drilling.
Given the geologic realities, current large field decline rates, and projected global demand growth, I don't think oil market busting new production is a particularly likely scenario.