Yesterday's Raleigh News & Observer carried an interesting editorial (http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1254079.html) supporting the idea of oil exploration and drilling along the nation's coastline. The writer's argument is that this will have both short and long-term benefits. Here's a quote:
"Despite claims to the contrary, this increased access promises both long- and short-term benefits. More access to domestic energy resources will ultimately bolster our longstanding energy goals: less imports, more economic activity, and more revenue for state and local governments. And the benefits are immediate.
Even before U.S. energy companies begin to actually produce the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil currently locked away in our outer continental shelf (OCS), investors will act. Expanding domestic access will attract more capital to American oil and gas companies, bolstering their position in the global market. More capital means more jobs. Employment opportunity in the energy industry -- ranging from infrastructure development to technological development -- will boom."
While this may be true I think the writer is missing the point. Fossil fuel (with the possible exception of natural gas) is in the mature stage of its life cycle. Why would an oil company decide to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure to produce a product that many people are hoping will be replaced by hydrogen and batteries? Wouldn't that be a little like the long ago horse-drawn carriage manufacturers investing millions to boost production of carriages just as the concept of the automobile was taking hold? I think the oil companies should, instead, invest just enough in their infrastructure to continue producing enough fuel to satisfy demand but put the real money into infrastructure for the future. If I'm an investor I'd much rather choose the company that is betting on hydrogen fuel cells or long-life batteries for hybrids or plug-ins. I realize that I'm oversimplifying but that's my perogative. I'm just here to ask the question.
The morning read for Friday, May 3
14 hours ago
2 comments:
Blue Dog, I agree that the N&O is barking up the wrong tree. (Pun intended) We need investment in alternatives and related technology, not expensive (and likely futile) exploration for oil. The easy oil is gone, which leaves hard-to-get-to oil fields. Retrieving and processing these fields will actually cost more than what oil prices are now. It is time to move on - oil a finite resource unlike sunlight, wind, and water. Even nuclear is a better option, if we can keep terrorists from slamming Boeing 747's into them.
One other thing - if the goverenment and oil companies won't move on, we will have to do it on local levels by converting our own homes to wind/solar. Expensive, yes. But if congress would pass better tax incentives to make the cost/benefit work out, more people would do it. Tax policy is very powerful - just ask Obama. His "tax cuts for everyone" is buying enough votes for him to likely win the election.
oops - i meant "oil IS a finite resource unlike..."
Post a Comment