Letter to the editor:

We can’t drill ourselves out of this rut

John Farrish, North Las Vegas

Friday, May 30, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.

As the price of gasoline climbs ever higher the calls for more drilling will become more strident, but don’t be fooled by the phony arguments. There are a number of reasons why drilling in Alaska — or anywhere else — will not help lower prices at the pump or help our long-term energy outlook.

First, adding what most experts believe will be no more than 1 million barrels of oil per day (from Alaska) won’t do much of anything to the price/demand curve when 86 million barrels of oil are used worldwide each day.

Second, just because oil is gathered in Alaska doesn’t mean it will be priced less than oil gathered in Saudi Arabia. Alaskan oil will hit the world market at the going rate, like any other commodity.

Third, there is no shortage of supply right now. People have all the gasoline they need; it is demand that is driving the increase in price.

Finally, the cost of oil will never decline, no matter how large the supply, as long as the demand for it keeps increasing exponentially. Simple math tells us that reducing the current growth rate of consumption (5 percent annually) by half will be more effective than doubling the supply of oil. If oil consumption worldwide continues to increase by 5 percent per year, total consumption will double in less than 15 years. If we reduce that rate to 2.5 percent, it will take a little more than 28 years for consumption to double.

Of course, as long as consumption rates continue to grow we will never climb out of this rut. The answer to our oil problem, therefore, is not to find more oil; it is a poor short-term solution and absolutely doomed to failure in the long run. The answer to our oil problem is to stop using so much oil. Our national energy policy should focus on developing alternatives to oil, not on ravaging our wilderness to provide a short-term sop.

Discussion: 5 comments so far…

By rightsman

5/30/08 at 6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Currently, in the lower 48 states there is enough natural gas to supply the world for 200 years, in drilled wells that are capped.
I do agree, however, with developing alternative forms of energy.
The technology for using solar energy is now available, but it is very expensive, or so it would seem.
The information is available at your local library. I've done the research. There are local solar energy companies that will help upgrade a home to solar energy.
Most solar panels are guaranteed for 20 years, and batteries are guaranteed for 7 years. The amortized cost, considering the current rate of inflation, would be about the same as the cost of buying your energy from the current suppliers.
By NVMakz

5/30/08 at 7:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

The same 'ole arguments thrown under the bus and squashed here lately are recycled as renewed and new in the letters section of the Socialist Sun.

To ignore supplies' growth == while letting the demand growth continue to grow unabated - is economic lunacy. Or, more simply put, socialist economics.

Oil prices are tight because the supply / demand matrix is strained and stretched. Mr. Farrish here would like to see demand continue to grow, while supplies' and their needed growth shrink.

Shared misery for all going forward, courtesy of the Sun.
By jblvmoll

5/30/08 at 8:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

I agree with Mr. Parrish, with one addition. We can't drill ourselves out of this rut, WITH DRILLING ALONE. Energy in all forms, again, is a NECESSITY, not a luxury. Energy alternatives in ALL forms MUST be on the development agenda. Our own efforts at conservation will be to no avail, with continuing, burgeoning, developing economies in other countries bidding up the prices for energy, food, and all commodities. The ethanol boondoggle again, is a shining albeit depressing indicator of the results of well-intentioned conservation efforts. The Review Journal of May 30th, provides, also, a depressing prediction of famines, malnutrition, disease and death due to long term predictions of continuing high food prices and shortages. With absolute certainty, the environmentalists' push for biofuels has contributed, probably highly, to this debacle. And, one must assume that Mr. Parrish would have all populations of all countries start using hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles. That is fine for those countries with highly developed and affluent populations. But what about the billions already struggling simply to get food to survive. How do we supply all of them with these new vehicles? Of course, this is simply a rhetorical question. I repeat my key points. 1 - ALL energy alternatives need to be on the table, and developed QUICKLY (again drilling should have been accomplished at least 20 years ago!), 2 - I agree with conservation being one of those alternatives, as long as we can convince the starving hordes in other countries that conservation will also GUARANTEE them adequate food, clothing, shelter and ENERGY! Our short-sighted leaders got us into this mess. Oil, for the foreseeable future, will be a necessity. It is only logical, therefore, to explore, drill, and refine on a continuing basis, to attempt to be as independent as possible in regard to this necessity. To do otherwise, is illogical, nay stupid, and is an admission to serious brainwashing by the affluent, elite environmental lobby.
By JohnF

5/30/08 at 6:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

NVMakz,

"Mr. Farrish here would like to see demand continue to grow, while supplies' and their needed growth shrink."

Quite the contrary. Demand needs to decrease. This letter points out the folly of continuing to rely on oil as a primary source of energy as long as demand for oil continues to increase. Oil is a commodity traded worldwide and worldwide demand, combined with the weakness of the dollar, is what is driving up price. As long as India, China, and other developing nations continue to stoke that demand it makes much more sense for us to develop alternatives than it does for us to compete with them in the worldwide oil market for this finite energy source.

Secondly, the math to which this letter refers demonstrates that whatever growth in supply that more drilling will provide can't possibly keep up with demand as long as demand continues to increase exponentially.

jblvmoll,

"It is only logical, therefore, to explore, drill, and refine on a continuing basis..."

Again, continuing to rely on an increasingly expensive, finite resource for energy is a doomed strategy. The supply is finite and demand for it is increasing exponentially. A simple look at the price/demand curves will tell you that since demand is increasing so quickly price will continue to follow suit. Devoting our resources to finding ways to do without oil, rather than trying to find more of it, is the only course of action that makes sense.
By NVMakz

5/31/08 at 7:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Finite": How much oil is there?? Without defining how much there is, there's no starting point for the calculus.

Allowing world demand to keep growing at (5% +/-) exponentially and choking supply down IS why America is where we are at. Allowing the 5% to keep expanding while not effecting the rise of the supply-side is "folly" which insures poverty grows.

Eco-libs help kill the dollar in this way, create inspiration and comfort for America's oil-enemies, allow for creeping social communism and degrades our way of life. There is no doubt of this.

Supply and demand is something the eco-lib simply denies and parses for socialistic politics - as the world prices rise; affecting the poor and hurting FIRST.

Whatever "demand" we don't use will instantaneously be soaked up by China, India, Asia and the other polluting and polluted places on the planet. America is the among the cleanest places on the planet among large nations.

Hammer the supply side or become third-world, as we won't have the economics and financial horsepower to pay to develop the alternatives = which are nowhere near/close to replacing oil.

The folly is listening to eco-libs as to how we should live our lives.

The rest of your repeat points have already been thrown under the bus. Giving up and giving in, no doubt at all.

Eco-lib social communists are only interested in degrading, choking and constipating our way of life. There WILL be, as it is coming on right now, a major anti-ecomoonie backlash against those who set out to harm America and free nations.