Why Do We Continue To Remain A Fossil Fuel Dependent Nation

Since at least the mid-1970s we have known that we, the United States, had to find alternative sources of fuel and not only to become less dependent upon foreign countries for oil but get involved in developing alternative and renewable sources of energy. With global warming no longer a contested issue but with oil dependency still an issue we continue to talk about drilling in the continental shelf off the coast of the U. S., in the Atlantic, in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Florida and in the Pacific off the coast of California.

Because this is an election year we are seeing the presumptive candidates from both parties either taking stronger positions for drilling (McCain) or changing their positions and being more open to drilling (Obama). Even the Democrats' stance against offshore drilling has shifted more with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signaling last Saturday her willingness to consider opening up more coastal areas to oil and gas exploration.

I recently read an article written by Scott Cendrowski in Fortune Magazine in which he reminds us a Union Oil well blew out off the coast of Santa Barbara some 40 years ago, spilling more than 3 million gallons of oil into the Pacific Ocean. The slick that formed spread across 800 square miles and led to the ban on offshore drilling.

The 22 oil rigs in the Pacific constructed before the ban are producing 70,000 barrels of oil a day. However we know the drilling ban could be in serious jeopardy due to the increased pressure being brought by George W. Bush and, more importantly, the positions currently being taken by McCain and Obama.

Consider this. Approximately 3 million barrels per day is what proponents of offshore drilling say reversing the ban would contribute to world oil supplies. That is about 3.5% of today’s daily global production of 86 million barrels per day which is not even a drop in a 55 gallon barrel.

Add to that the fact it will take until the year 2013 before any significant amount of new oil would hit the market if the ban were to be lifted tomorrow. Even the lobbyists pushing for drilling offshore don’t dispute this. It can take up to 2 years just to get delivery of a leased rig. Conducting seismic research and developing test wells can take 3 years or more and it could take twice as long searching in the less explored Atlantic coast.

I am reminded of an argument between two movie characters in The American President:

Lewis Rothschild: You have a deeper love of this country than any man I've ever known. And I want to know what it says to you that in the past seven weeks, 59% of Americans have begun to question your patriotism.

President Andrew Shepherd: Look, if the people want to listen to-...

Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

What is the analogy? The American people quickly grew tired of paying high prices for gas at the pump and have been led to believe the quick fix is to drill for more oil. They could not be more wrong.

So the country that just over 40 years ago took about a decade to put a man on the moon after making that a priority has been unable to develop alternative fuel resources in this country during the past 30+ years. Why not? Last thought. The offshore drilling ban went into effect way back in 1982 when Ronald Reagan was President. Do you suppose Nancy told Ronnie to “just say no”?