along with the potential from shale, could provide more energy independence, keeping jobs and profits in the United States, and slowing the drain of financial resources to import petroleum. The carbon footprint of shipping oil from distant lands to the U.S. market is substantial, but would be reduced by increased domestic production.
     From a global warming perspective, however, it means perpetuating our dependency on fossil fuels, which according to mainstream scientific opinion, is a major contributing factor to global warming. Under most scenarios, that process, if unchecked, will have serious repercussions around the world and will become our major national security issue.
     Meanwhile, however, our economy and infrastructure are so dependent on petroleum that, even under the rosiest predictions, adequate renewable fuels and alternative energy technology will not produce enough energy for many years to replace oil, natural gas or coal. Nor is it likely that Americans will adapt and change their habits or lifestyles fast enough to seriously curb our high consumption of energy. The current economic downturn also raises questions about whether the resources for research and development in energy technology will be available.
     In the interim, therefore, we will continue to consume fossil fuels and domestic sources, particularly oil shale, could provide the necessary energy to tide us over until new fuels, clean coal technology, renewable energy sources and even nuclear power come on line to replace our addiction to oil. From the perspective of global warming advocates, however, we may be running out of time to reduce carbon emissions in order slow the rise of global temperatures.
Early Shale Research Abandoned      During the 1970s presidents Ford and Carter funded the development of oil shale in the West. Although the federal government and Exxon invested substantial funds and several boomtowns emerged, little oil was recovered. Exxon closed down its shale operation in 1982. The process of retortion used to extract oil from shale, however, left so much toxic residue that it immediately entered the local water table.
     More recently, Shell has developed a process in which the shale is heated in the ground, leaching the oil from the rock. By inserting electric resistance heaters in holes drilled deep into the ground, the centuries-long natural process of compressing shale into oil is accelerated. Over 3-4 years, the heaters bring the subsurface temperatures to 650-700 degrees, slowly converting the shale into oil and gas, which can be brought to the surface by traditional methods.
     While this process is energy intensive, it produces 3.5 units of energy for every unit expended, according to Shell. This compares favorably with traditional methods of injecting carbon dioxide or steam to remove the last oil from old deposits and it produces a much lighter oil that requires less refining.
Water Table at Risk      As in previous methods to extract oil from shale, there is a great risk of polluting ground water. But Shell has adapted construction ice technology, used in mining, in which the ground water is frozen to isolate the area being heated, thereby preventing the seeping of toxic minerals into nearby water aquifers.
     However, there are major concerns that this process may not fully protect precious aquifers,
Continued next column

Americans do not think it wise to attack Iran. In a Gallup poll last November, 73% of Americans said the U.S. should use economic and diplomatic steps to halt Iran's nuclear program, whereas only 18% thought we should use military force.
     Nevertheless, from talk radio hosts to individuals in the government, there have been mounting calls in the U.S. for an attack, with an even louder drumbeat in Israel. Stretched thin fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military has been pushing back, but they don't give the orders.
     With this focus on Iran's nuclear ambitions, perhaps too little consideration is given to a related and equally important issue: oil.
     Seymour Hersh has written a series of articles for The New Yorker magazine on this administration's intentions for Iran, the most recent of which was "Preparing the Battlefield" in July. Hersh, a Pulitzer winner who uncovered the My Lai massacre in the Vietnam War and the Abu Ghraib prisoner mistreatment in Iraq, has numerous contacts in the intelligence community.
The Pentagon vs. the White House       His article deals principally with covert operations against Iran that recently "have been significantly expanded" using a $400 million budget. His wider subject has been the apparent conflict between the White House and the military over attacking Iran.
     One victim of this debate was Adm. William Fallon, who until recently was in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command. In March Fallon resigned after expressing views in the media such as "attacking.strikes me as being not the first choice." Interviewed by Hersh in June, Fallon acknowledged there were those in the Administration who were upset by his going public. "Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians," he said. "Let's get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone's an individual. The idea that they're only one way or another is nonsense."
     Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressed alarm at the outcome of a preemptive strike against Iran. Hersh reports that, in a meeting of the Democratic caucus late last year, Gates said. “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America”.
     On the other hand, George Friedman, of Strategic Forecasting, believes that the public debate about attacking Iran is at least partially programmed to create some war worries amongst Iran's leaders and to accelerate progress towards a new agreement between the US and Iran which covers the nuclear issues and a host of other important matters like Iran's involvement in Iraq's future.
A Sudden Thaw?      In mid-July, the Administration sent State Department's #3, William Burns, to attend talks in Geneva between Iran and five other powers – China, France, Britain, Russia and Germany – the subject being stricter sanctions confronting Iran’s nuclear program. In doing so, The Bush administration temporarily waived its long-standing pre-condition that Iran cease enriching uranium before any talks could take place.
     Iran was apparently incredulous. Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, was “visibly stunned”, said the New York Times, when he saw Condolezza Rice’s signature on the documents along with those of the five counterpart nations.
     The Iranian’s reaction is not surprising. Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria once asked that we consider Iran’s paranoia-inducing position, surrounded as it is by nuclear powers (Israel, India, Pakistan, and Russia), with American troops next door in Iraq to the west, NATO troops in Afghanistan to its east, and an American president consigning them to the “axis of evil”. When the U.S. softened its stance, soon some harmonious overtures came from Iran. Foreign Minister Mottaki mentioned establishing a U.S. diplomatic presence in Iran, bilateral business and social relations, even direct flights between the two countries.
     With the talks proceding in Geneva, NBC Anchor Brian Williams interviewed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Asked on the Daily Show for a word to describe the meeting, Williams said, “It was more like, and I’m going to use a big one here, rapprochement. At one point he said to me, and I’m paraphrasing very loosely, ‘The atomic bomb is so 20th Century’”.
Rapprochement?      Is the threat over? Or is Ms. Rice being given a chance to try diplomacy in the context of a rapidly changing Middle East? Not to be overlooked are a number of provocative acts by the Iranians running up to the moment of this newly perceived softening.
     In early January, five Iranian patrol boats made a run at three Navy vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, transmitting over ship-to-ship radio a threat to “explode” the American warships. There had already been a full scale exercise by the Revolutionary Guard in the Gulf in 2006.
     For two days in early July, just before Geneva, Iran conducted a series of missile launches in the Persian Gulf, one with a range capable of striking Israel, or so Iranian state radio claimed. Among the missile tests was the rocket-propelled “Hoot” (“whale” in Farsi), which the Iranian military has described as a sonar-evading torpedo that can reach speeds of 230 miles an hour, three times that of western torpedoes.
     These challenges, coupled with Iran's unwillingness to accede to diplomatic pressure, could undercut Secretary Rice’s position. But Friedman sees it as a normal process of carrot and stick negotiation between traditional adversaries. His analysis is that the chances for

Continued next column

Artfully seizing on $4-plus gasoline as the ascendant issue for voters,  John McCain stirred up a squall when he proposed lifting the ban on offshore drilling two weeks ago, which he said would "be very helpful in the short term resolving our energy crisis".
     President Bush immediately signed on. He wants to compel Congress to overturn a ban that has been law for 25 years. "If Congressional leaders leave for the Fourth of July recess without taking action, they will need to explain why $4-a-gallon gasoline is not enough incentive for them to act," he said in the White House Rose Garden. "And Americans will rightly ask how high.gas prices have to rise before the Democratic-controlled Congress will do something."     That McCain and Bush sought to create the impression that revocation of the drilling ban will have anything to do with today's gasoline price was seen as an election tactic that had Democrats steamed. What's more, Congress is desperate to appear to be taking action in an election year, legislation to curtail speculation, is the answer to high gasoline prices.
     Time to see if we can sort out the confusion — the conflicting arguments, the twisted facts, the political demagoguery — to see whether or not offshore drilling makes sense.
Why Is the Price of Oil So High?      Speculators of course have an effect on prices, but there seems to be universal agreement that there is no way of knowing just how much. One theory says speculation represents a flight from the declining dollar and resulting inflation (it is not for nothing that oil is called "black gold"). Arguing that speculators are the cause is an attempt to shift blame. Speculators don't create an alternate universe; they place their bets on what they think will be the future reality. Whatever effect they have is small compared to real world supply/demand balance.
      In blaming Democrats in Congress for inaction, the Administration wants to mask the fact that much of the oil price run up owes to the nearly 40% decline in the dollar's value against other major currencies during Bush's years in office. Many factors, including a near doubling of our national debt, contribute to this weakness. This means that one needs a great many more dollars to buy a barrel of oil — or a tank of gas.
     But the essential problem is that worldwide growth in demand is approaching the producing countries' ability to supply it, a disequilibrium likely to worsen. Excess capacity has plunged from 5 million barrels a day to in 2002 to 2 million now. It is uncertain by just how much the Saudis – who are thought to be the only oil exporters capable of increasing production quickly, but who are notoriously secretive about their pumping capacity — could ramp up production to keep pace with demand.
     Moreover, tight supplies are exacerbated by a patchwork of troubles: Militant gangs have reduced Nigeria's production by 1 million barrels a day; Russian output has plateaued; Mexico's political inaction has allowed its state-owned oil industry to decline. Speculators factor in these realities.
     Once current oil prices — $144 a barrel at this writing — move through the pipeline to gas stations, experts say you can expect to pay $5.00 a gallon.
Where Things Stand      Drilling was banned along all of America's coastlines other than a 15% stretch along the Gulf of Mexico by a law signed 27 years ago by President Reagan. Senator McCain and President Bush want the ban lifted for the Outer Continental Shelf, a legal not a topological band of ocean floor that wraps the U.S. between 3 and 200 miles.
     Those opposed to the proposition argue that the oil companies already hold 68 million acres of federal lands that go unexplored, and that only 10.5 million acres of the 44 million leased offshore have been put to use. A bill in the House would require the companies to use them or lose them. Senator Obama suggests levying a surcharge for every leased acre that has not been put to the drill bit. David O'Reilly, chairman and CEO of Chevron, asks in a New York Times interview that legislators learn the facts, that geological exploration must precede drilling, that it takes time, that seismic testing will find nothing on much of that acreage.
     Nevertheless, the oil majors have much that is untapped. Why do they need more? Skeptics believe that, as two oilmen, Bush and Cheney want to see the oil companies warehouse as much acreage as possible. On the other hand, it is clear that both Democrats and Republicans at the State and Federal level have blocked off-shore production of proven reserves to such an extent that U.S. oil giants have had to explore in places like Angola rather than produce proven reserves right here is this country.
Lifting the Ban: A Quick Fix?      Hardly. A 2007 analysis by the Energy Information Administration concluded that opening drilling on the continental shelf "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."
     Confronted with this timeline, McCain nevertheless said that rescinding the ban "would have psychological impact that I think is beneficial". This drew derision from Senator Obama, who called McCain's admission "Washington speak for 'It polls well'". But other commentators, who know how markets work, believe that the prospect of more supply in the future affects expectations of market participants and plays a major role in pricing.
     Beyond the complexity of analyzing millions of square miles of deep sea for where best to drill, and the logistics of preparation, even that lengthy timeline probably does not factor in a worldwide shortage of drilling ships. The New York Times brought that starkly to light when it reported that "over three-quarters of the drill-ships currently under construction have already been contracted to oil companies eager to benefit from triple-digit oil prices". Each larger than a World War II aircraft carrier, eight of the nine deepwater rigs under construction at the world's largest builder are already under contract for periods ranging from four to seven years once they leave the shipyards in 2009 and 2010. Adding to the problem, the article cites shortages of steel, engineering and manufacturing capacity.
So, Should We Drill?      There's nothing like a hole in the wallet to cause the public to abandon lofty environmental ideals. A Gallup poll in May found that 57% of Americans surveyed are in favor of drilling for oil in offshore and in wilderness areas now off limits.
     Although the pretext for bringing up the subject may have played to voter misconceptions — that drilling offshore would quickly affect today's gas prices -- it does raise the question of whether we should do something different with our offshore properties, and to review what good might come from any such action.
Will it be our oil?      If we boost production in the U.S., so goes the argument, we will send fewer dollars to the petro-states. Is this true? Ed Markey (D-MA) claimed a bill he introduced in 2007 would "back out every drop of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf". Newt Gingrich has spoken of "a strategic energy policy which is explicitly aimed at making the Persian Gulf and the dictatorships less wealthy".
     Those claims are hogwash. It's a world market with a global price set daily. The oil companies that drill offshore (or in ANWR) will sell to the highest bidder, a trader in London or Rotterdam, for example, for delivery to China, say. Users purchase oil according to its grade and without regard to country of origin. Many do not know that the U.S., despite high gasoline prices, right now exports 1.4 million barrels a day.
     Moreover, the huge cost of deep sea drilling leads to collaboration. Jack 2, an elephant 270 miles southwest of New Orleans that may yield 15 billion barrels, was drilled by a consortium of Chevron, Devon Energy and Norway's Statoil ASA. The rock formation is under 7,000 feet of water and 20,000 feet of earth mantle — a record — and cost $100 million to bring in. We cannot expect any such consortium, or other oil companies, to give America a sympathy discount. But the impression that we are sitting on our reserves while we drain those of other countries is an argument than many feel has merit.
Would Prices Fall?      However, the more we produce in this country, either for export or for home use, the better for world supply/demand balance and for our balance of payments. And therefore for prices.
     Newsweek economics columnist Robert Samuelson says "no, we can't drill our
Continued next column