"Offshore drilling raises oil prices*"
*That would be my headline if Climate Progress were the Washington Post or President Bush.
After all, at the end of 2006, the Republican Congress and the president enacted “The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act,” which opened 8.3 million acres of the Outer Continental shelf for drilling. Yet oil prices were only $60 a barrel then. Now prices have more than have doubled. Doesn’t that prove that legislation to permit offshore drilling increases oil prices? That seems to be the logic of the Post and our President.
Bush’s radio address
lies remarks are reprinted verbatim in the Washington Post today:
In his radio address Saturday, Bush said that “technological advances have allowed us to explore oil offshore in ways that protect the environment” and that outer continental shelf areas now off limits “could produce enough oil to match America’s current production for almost 10 years.”
Yes, and monkeys could fly out of my butt. But 99% of doctors say that is not going to happen (a few doctors funded by ExxonMobil say it will if we just do nothing). And Bush’s own energy analysts say we might get 150,000 barrels a day in the 2020s if we lift the remaining federal moratorium on offshore drilling (see “The cruel offshore-drilling hoax“). Note to Post: 150,000 barrels a day isn’t quite America’s current production rate.
In fact, buried deep in the piece, the Post does point out something first reported on Climate Progress almost a month ago:
A report last year by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.” It added, “Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.”
[Note: That link in the Post is not to the the EIA report. God forbid a major newspaper actually has a useful hyperlink, rather than an utterly useless one pointing back to its own website. And they say bloggers are solipsistic! The EIA study is here.]
And yet the Post headline is:
Offshore Drilling Backed as Remedy for Oil Prices
Push for U.S. Exploration Gains Traction, but Big Political Hurdles Remain
So neither the headline or the subhead bothers to mention that there is no factual basis for the headline. Very sad.
The Washington Post must do a better job on its coverage of energy issues, rather than simply reprinting disinformation of “experts.” The op-Ed page is one thing — they pretty much let anybody say anything about global warming there (see Krauthammer’s strange denier talk points, Part 1: Newton’s laws were “overthrown”).
But their front-page story is verging on tabloid stuff, which seems to be part of a long slide for the paper — don’t get me started on the 13-part series the Post has Just started on “Who Killed Chandra Levy?” Yes, 13-part. How about a 13-part series on “Who killed Serious Journalism?”