While I certainly editorialize toward the end of the post, the first part is chock full of facts from the MMS. Do you dispute them?

Don’t turn this into a false dichotomy … drilling for oil domestically WILL NOT be a cure-all for energy issues. If you disagree, then give me the facts you are proclaiming I should get. Since you have the facts, provide me those facts — if there isn’t a link, then provide the full citation for the study/report you are getting your numbers from.

And, those who think we never should drill domestically are also missing the big picture. It will happen eventually, so we ought to think about it now and be smart about it.

I voted for McCain,, but when he came out for OCS drilling I was so mad, I almost sat out the election.

Shell and BP, both foreign, are active in the US portion of the Gulf of Mexico.(FORBES, 11/24/08) BP’s Thunder Horse play opened in June and cost an estimated $8.3 billion. Shell’s deeper-water Perdido field is just getting started, with an estimated $6.7 billion to be spent before a drop of oil is produced.

We are in a crisis, and numbers like those indicate that the cost of deep-water extraction is prohibitive on a large scale.

Jim

I’ll try to answer your questions the best I can.

Jeff says: “Gulf of Mexico OCS (according to the chart) has more than half of the reserves, and last I heard we are already benefiting from this.”

That’s true, there is a lot of production coming out of the GoM. The numbers in the chart are for ‘undiscovered resources’. What’s already in production or currently under development for future production would be put in a different category of either ‘probable reserves’ or ‘proven reserves’. So, I believe those numbers are not in that chart.

Jeff says: “Are we already indeed sucking oil from OCS, or is that whole report about stuff we have not tapped?”

The latter. As mentioned above, that particular report is about undiscovered resources.

Jeff says: “…do we need a [strategic petroleum] reserve, and if so, why are we already planning to use it up?”

I honestly don’t know much about the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve). The DOE has a good web page about it, but I don’t know of any other more in-depth articles about the SPR w/in the context of this current discussion off the top of my head.

Jeff says: “I thought Reagan was running the show when we stopped drilling in 1981.”

Not only that, but George H.W. Bush extended the moratorium during his term. Personally, it’s difficult for me to take the ‘liberal environmentalist cult’ comments from commenters like Payman very seriously.

Hope that helped.

1) The discussion continues around ‘if’ we should drill & extract the oil, which seems to ignore that we have drilled and are actively extracting the oil. Gulf of Mexico OCS (according to the chart) has more than half of the reserves, and last I heard we are already benefiting from this. So, this whole discussion seems to be revolving around the other (potential) half of the oil. Question: Are we already indeed sucking oil from OCS, or is that whole report about stuff we have not tapped?

2) Seems ironic to me that even as we discuss this we continue to buy expensive oil to top off our strategic reserves, right? So, while we have not been sucking more of the oil ‘potentially available’ to us we have been tucking oil because we recognize the wisdom of having a reserve in the first place. Way I see it, we are already drinking from our reserve. I can see the wisdom of planning and executing to enable access to more if needed – for strategic needs. I would not agree that tapping this reserve to feed our addiction and/or keep prices down for this generation is strategic. Question – do we need a reserve, and if so, why are we already planning to use it up?

3) I thought Reagan was running the show when we stopped drilling in 1981. Before Payman’s July 15 post I had never heard of Mr. Reagan referred to as a ‘liberal politician puppet of the environmentalists cult’. Question: Is he really a liberal???

WillyT says: “The current energy crisis is not a product of current supply and demand factors as much as it is a product of concern for future supply shocks.”

I guess I would put it under a broader umbrella of supply-and-demand, but, you make a great point, it’s a lot more complex than just saying supply and demand. Unfortunately, I don’t think collective America is good at talking about and dealing w/ complexity, nuance, and multi-factor problems/solutions.