Obama: There's a Reason I Never Said "Drill, Baby, Drill"

By: Brian Montopoli
Topics: White House ,; Domestic Issues

(Credit: AP)

At a press conference today focused largely on the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama explained why he never joined Republican calls to "drill, baby, drill."

"The fact that oil companies now have to go a mile underwater and then drill another three miles below that, in order to hit oil, tells us something about the direction of the oil industry," he said. "Extraction is more expensive and it is going to be inherently more risky."

"And so that's part of the reason you never heard me say drill, baby, drill. Because we can't drill our way out of the problem," he said.

The president said that "the easily accessible oil has already been sucked up out of the ground" - which means that "moving forward, the technology gets more complicated, the oil sources are more remote, and that means that there's probably going to end up being more risk."

"And we as a society are going to have to make some very serious determinations in terms of what risks are we willing to accept," he said.

The president pointed to the Gulf disaster to make the case for the climate and energy bill being considered in Congress.

The bill, he said, comes with this message: "Yes, we're going to still need oil production, but, you know what? We can see what's out there on the horizon and it's -- it's a problem, if we don't start changing how we operate."

"More than anything else, this economic and environmental tragedy -- and it's a tragedy -- underscores the urgent need for this nation to develop clean, renewable sources of energy," said the president. "Doing so will not only reduce threats to our environment, we'll create a new, homegrown American industry that can lead to countless new businesses and new jobs."

Asked if he regrets his call for expanded offshore drilling before the tragedy, the president said, "I continue to believe what I said at that time, which was that domestic oil production is an important part of our overall energy mix. It has to be part of an overall energy strategy."

"I also believe that it is insufficient to meet the needs of our future, which is why I've made huge investments in clean energy, why we continue to promote solar and wind and biodiesel and a whole range of other approaches, why we're putting so much emphasis on energy efficiency," he continued.

"But we're not going to be able to transition to these clean energy strategies right away. I mean, we're still years off and some technological breakthroughs away from being able to operate on purely a clean energy grid," the president told reporters. "During that time we're going to be using oil. And to the extent that we're using oil, it makes sense for us to develop our oil and natural gas resources here in the United States and not simply rely on imports."

More From Obama Press Conference:

Obama Defends Oil Spill Response, Cites Mistakes

Obama: I Don't Endorse - or Not Endorse - Arizona Boycott

Obama: "Nothing Improper" in Alleged Sestak Job Offer

Obama: Malia Asked "Did you Plug The Hole Yet, Daddy?"

Special Section: Disaster in the Gulf

Video:

Obama on Katrina Comparison: "I'll Let You Decide"

Obama's Critics "Don't Know the Facts"

Obama Reacts to MMS and Response

Oil Spill Hits Home for Obama

Sestak Job Offer: "Nothing Improper Took Place"

Brian Montopoli
Brian Montopoli is the senior political reporter at CBSNews.com.
Follow on Twitter »

6 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by RatPackSixGun May 28, 2010 8:33 AM EDT: "Extraction is more expensive and it is going to be inherently more risky."

More expensive, and more risky, than what? Continuing to line the gold coffers of the Arabs, who are backdoor-funding the extremists who want to force North America to 'convert or die'?

Or did he mean more expensive and risky than nuclear power, which is the only other commercially viable alternative that is capable of scaling to a level that would be required to supplied oil dependence for power?

It's a shame that Obama skipped world history in favor of public speaking. Those of us that remember Chernobyl are no fans of nuclear power, on any level, ever.

This POTUS may have been a slick talker in his first year of showmanship, but the lacquer is wearing off of his finish and cracks already showing in the veneer.; Reply to this comment

by 1renegade May 27, 2010 9:32 PM EDT

Read between the lines... "He said now I have a reason to pass a ridiculous Cap and Trade bill that can tax America into bankruptcy"

Reply to this comment


by pasmalltown May 28, 2010 7:12 AM EDT: And yet the ridiculous "right" has all but stopped saying "Drill, baby, drill"? Care to read between that "line"?


by tmittelstaed May 27, 2010 4:43 PM EDT: Unfortunately the elephant in the room here is that there's no fragging way we can transition from oil to 100% renewable energy without heavy use of coal for many, many years.

Natural Gas is not really an answer for vehicle fuel. It is too valuable to use for home heating and cooking because it doesen't release toxic byproducts of it's burning. We would be a lot better of if the power plants that buy and use natural gas were converted to use coal. Coal is not a fuel that is suited for vehicle use, or is easy to distribute. But it is excellent for power generation since it can be delivered via rail from the mine right to the power plant. And the major byproduct of it's burning - CO2 - can be piped into algae beds and used to make biodiesel.; Reply to this comment

by GeorgeKafantaris May 27, 2010 3:59 PM EDT

Here is an excerpt from a letter that might have some relevance to this news brief. It was sent to the President on his visit to Youngstown on May 18, 2010:

* * *
No, we do not make much steel here anymore, but God has blessed us with something almost as good: natural gas, and some 168 trillion to 516 trillion cubic feet of it in Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. It is 1500 feet below our feet in a gas reserve known as the Marcellus Shale.

A drilling technique developed two years ago has double the production of gas wells. Indeed, it has even resurrected dead wells and brought them back to life at twice their original capacity.

To accomplish this we must pump a million gallons of water in each well. The problem is that when the water is pumped out, it is salty. Since we cannot dump the brine on the ground, we have been hauling it away for treatment. Some of it is treated here in Warren, Ohio, at the city?s water treatment plant.

Just two weeks ago, however, a ray of hope appeared. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, discovered an inexpensive metal catalyst for generating hydrogen from
brine. This catalyst is 70 times cheaper than the finicky platinum one which is used now. For more information, see http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/04/catalyst-brings-cheap-hydrogen-f.html

It appears that this new catalyst can make it possible for us to turn the brine from our gas wells into hydrogen. The hydrogen in turn can be injected into ground-up woodchips, grass, or such other bio-matter to make diesel fuel. The hydrogen can also be mixed with other fuels to enhance their thermo efficiency. In the near future the hydrogen can even power our cars, trucks and trains. And let us not forget that presently the cheapest way to make hydrogen is from natural gas, of which we should soon have plenty.

There are legitimate concerns, however. Farmers near the gas wells fear that the new drilling technique will contaminate their water supply. We respect their worries and want no part of any contamination. We are thus seeking guidance from your Department of Energy to help us minimize the risk of this happening. After all, clean water is our most vital natural resource.

On the other hand we will be foolish not to utilize all available technology to tap into our enormous gas reserves. Doing so will provide jobs and fund our cities. Hopefully, it will also bring back our young people who have left for opportunities elsewhere. Our sons and daughters do not live here anymore. Neither do their friends. Yet, it was our schools and cities that invested in their education and upbringing.

To be sure, tapping our gas resources is important to all of us, young and old. It is also important to your Administration?s goal of energy independence. The Marcellus Shale holds enough natural gas to supply the entire United States for 20 years.

With the same dedication that we had made all kinds of steel the past hundred years, we are now ready to shift gears to make all kinds of energy -- from our very own soil, using our own wits and efforts.

Please join us.

Reply to this comment


by newsterI May 27, 2010 8:48 PM EDT: o, we do not make much steel here anymore, but God has blessed us with something almost as good: natural gas, and some 168 trillion to 516 trillion cubic feet of it in Eastern Ohio and Western Pennsylvania. It is 1500 feet below our feet in a gas reserve known as the Marcellus Shale."

Oh? then how come we are IMPORTING tanker ships by the tanker ships of LPG because we don't have ENOUGH natural gas of our own??

Maybe you better read THIS, cause we don't have enough natural gas here:

The US gets liquefied natural gas from countries including Algeria, Brunei, Malaysia, Nigeria, Trinidad and Tobago, Oman, and Qatar. In the future we can expect the U.S. to get LNG from even more countries. As of 2006 there were 17 terminals worldwide where LNG is liquefied and pumped aboard LNG ships, and approximately 40 terminals where LNG is pumped off LNG ships and stored in large tanks on land and vaporized as needed by consumers.

As the United States' energy needs continue to rise, its domestic natural gas production is nearing its peak. Canada's natural gas pipelines, the proximate and primary source of imported gas, are not expected to be able to meet the growing residential, industrial, and electricitygenerating demands for natural gas. At the same time, the steady march of technology has significantly reduced the cost of natural gas liquefaction and transport, leading to a jump in the number of gas-producing countries that are eager to supply our natural gas demands. These "supply and demand" principles have united to fuel rapid growth in the international LNG market.

Currently, the United States consumes about 25 percent of the world's annual natural gas production, although over 95 percent of the entire world's proven natural gas reserves are outside of North America. Over the next 20 years, U.S. natural gas consumption
is projected to increase by 40 percent, and it is doubtful that our domestic gas production will rise at the same rate. Therefore, the difference between our consumption and production will have to be made up by importing natural gas, and the most viable method of this is the seaborne importation of LNG.

In the United States, natural gas is liquefied and exported from the Gulf of Alaska; LNG is imported and vaporized into natural gas at Boston, Mass.; Cove Point, Md.; Savannah, Ga.; and Lake Charles, La. Recently, a new offshore terminal in the Gulf of Mexico opened and took its first shipload of LNG. To increase the United States' ability to import LNG to meet this rising demand, the energy industry identified several potential sites for additional LNG import terminals along our coasts. Right on the heels of this shoreside facility expansion, the engineering and technology for deepwater LNG ports matured, and a 2002 amendment to the Deepwater Port Act opened the door for LNG deepwater port applications. As of 2006 the Coast Guard and other agencies were reviewing as many as 40 more proposals for onshore and offshore LNG importation terminals; while not all of these proposed terminals will be built, many will no doubt be.

Normally natural gas is shipped by pipeline, but it is impossible to build a pipeline from the Middle East or Africa to the United States, so engineers created ships capable of carrying the liquid form of natural gas. Natural gas needs to be liquefied (cooled to below -256 degrees F), because you'd need the volume capacity of 600 ships of natural gas at ambient temperature/ pressure to equal one shipload of LNG. Since it is not affordable to build and operate that many ships to carry that amount of natural gas, shipping LNG is the only practical way to import the necessary quantities that America needs.