Even if substantial amounts of oil eventually are found in the offshore areas President Barack Obama has proposed opening to drilling, they would not come close to freeing the country from dependence on imports of foreign oil, according to oil experts.
Net imports of crude oil and petroleum products accounted for 57 percent of total U.S. petroleum consumption in 2008, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The administration has not offered projections of potential production levels from the targeted offshore areas. But experts say that even with levels comparable to production on the North Slope of Alaska, the U.S. would remain heavily dependent on Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela and other countries for much of its oil supply.
No matter what is found, "We are going to be importing oil," said Lucian Pugliaresi, president of the Energy Policy Research Foundation, an industry supported group that strongly supports more offshore drilling.
Late last month, the administration proposed opening vast stretches of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the North Coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. The proposal was one element of the president’s long-term plan to increase use of renewable energy resources and reduce dependence on oil imports. Drilling would also generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases.
U.S. crude oil imports grew rapidly from the mid-20th century until the late 1970s, but then tapered off until the mid-1980s, when there was a renewed demand. Even when U.S. oil production peaked in 1970, the country still needed to import more than 3 million barrels a day to keep all the vehicles running and homes heated. Since then, production has dropped nearly by half while demand has almost doubled. The result: soaring imports.
Charles K. Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institution, said no one knows what may be found in the areas Obama wants to open to assessment and potentially to drilling on the continental shelves along the Atlantic coast south of Delaware, in portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico off Florida, and in the seas north of Alaska.
At best, it would be five to seven years before any oil could be produced from the areas, Ebinger said, adding, suppose we were "to find the equivalent of another North Slope of Alaska. At its height, that was 2 million barrels a day." But even that "would not change our dependence on imported oil and would have no effect on the cost of gasoline at the pump," Ebinger said.
Why? Oil production from older U.S. fields is declining and the demand for fuel will rise again with the economic recovery.
There are nearly 250 million vehicles in the U.S. powered by gasoline and diesel fuel, and that is not going to change quickly. It will be many years before battery powered and hybrid electric cars can become a significant share of what's on the road — if they ever do. Similarly, the much more stringent fleet mileage standards the administration has announced will take years to have an impact on oil usage.
Meanwhile, ethanol production is increasing, though it hardly provides a gallon-for-gallon offset for oil. Ethanol provides fewer miles per gallon than gasoline, and it requires large amounts of fuel to grow and transport both the corn and the ethanol, which still cannot be sent through pipelines.
So given the U.S. stock of vehicles and the long-term drop in oil production, the nation has no short- or medium-term alternative but to import the lion's share of the petroleum it needs, offshore drilling or no, experts say.
Nevertheless, many proponents of drilling argued during the 2008 political campaigns that energy independence was what was at stake as they chanted "Drill, baby, drill."
Pugliaresi said it is instead a matter of "economic value."
His argument is this: If areas look promising, oil companies will bid to obtain drilling rights, and if oil is found, the government will get billions of dollars in royalties. If no oil is found, the companies have still paid for the rights and provided a boost to the economy from the exploration.
"You have to have a compelling reason to leave all that money on the table," he said.
Rightly or wrongly, many environmentalists argue the danger of oil spills is such a compelling reason.
