Yesterday FoxNews.com carried an opinion piece written by your humble correspondent: "We Can't Stop Drilling Off America's Shores".
It's sort of a rewrite of a RedState piece from a couple of weeks back: "Q: Why Was BP Drilling in 5,000 Feet of Water."
Some of the comments are a hoot.
Wow, that's weird... someone who makes all of their money by offshore drilling is trying to convince us that we need to continue offshore drilling! While I appreciate the honesty of this author, he's overlooking the fact that A. Alternatives to these highly polluting procedures exist and B. Our high dependence on these procedures is based on the fact that a more aggressive move toward renewables has yet to take place.
Well, I don't actually make all my money from offshore oil and gas. We also drill on land. I also have a hobby which provides me a nice side income for just a few hours a month: clubbing baby harp seals!
Then there's this:
Nice, impartial article about how safe off-shore drilling is written by an energy executive. LMFAO
Well, sir, if you would pull your H(ead) out of your FA for just a second, we can discuss that point. Can't do it? That's OK, we'll proceed.
Virtually every soul in this country who knows anything about the energy business either draws a check from it or regulates it. Both groups are currently under attack. Where to turn?
The alternative chosen by some of the esteemed members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources was to turn to someone who knows nothing at all about the energy business. This week they listened to testimony from Sam Waterson (Wasserman? Waterston?), that out-of-work actor who does the TD Ameritrade ads on TV. Sam believes that we should just shut down offshore drilling altogether. (Sam and Ted Danson are board members of Oceana, a radical environmentalist outfit that famously predicted back in the'80s that the oceans were going to run out of fish in 10 years.)
But I'm still sensitive about being considered a single-minded energy shill. I've criticized BP in the past, naming them in a tie for #6 on the list of Top 10 Energy Whores. If it turns out that they were a negligent operator on the Deepwater Horizon, or operating outside their permit, I hope they're hung out to dry. (I'll be floored if that's the case.)
I've always disclosed my profession, but like to think my opinions are based on what's best for my country, not my bank account. The reader can decide. I have blogged favorably about opening ANWR, opening access to the OCS, the Marcellus Shale, the Haynesville Shale and hydraulic fracturing. None of these issues will benefit me or my company in any way; if anything, by encouraging supply in other areas decreases the price of our product and hurts our income. It's a commodity business, remember?
In fact, I've had a running discussion with my boss (the VP of Exploration) for some time. He observes that if the Sam Waterstons of the world get their way, we're bound to benefit, because it will inevitably drive up product prices while driving out competition. It's true that the biggest oil boom in my career happened during & just after the Carter years, the time of maximum government involvement. (The worst time was after price decontrol, under Reagan, a policy I endorse.)
So, choose your expert. It will probably work out for me either way.
But I've saved my favorite comment for last:
We should be going toward the first fuel Ford [Henry? Gerald? Whitey? -ed.] wanted to implement until oil and chemical companies forced the turn toward crude oil. Hemp could save us. Not medicinal smoking, wth are we even talking about recreational use when we should be talking industrial first and foremost. We perpetuate rogue nations to becoming a military threat by using all their oil and we need off of it now. All of you do your homework on industrial hemp and its history and then comment.
Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.