He added that "people have more incentive to produce oil and gas from shale formations than offshore drilling. Shale oil and gas is abundant and generally less expensive to produce, and it's quicker to get your payback, while an offshore well may take a decade or longer to produce."
That's why he considered the Trump proposal's impact on America's energy independence to be "more of a medium-term" thing. Trump's opening up coastal waterways might take 10 to 20 years to make an impact on the oil and gas industry.
But at the same time, Hennigan said though the industry can meet demands now via shale production, "if there was a drop in production in the Middle East or South America, there would be sorrow in the future if you don't do it now (launch domestic offshore drilling). You won't know you need it till you need it, and you wouldn't be able to respond quickly enough then."
That's why he saw "increasing our access to domestic resources" via renewed offshore drilling as a "safety net if something goes wrong internationally."
DOMASTICALLY POLITICAL ISSUE?
Dubbed the Draft Five Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, the offshore drilling plan is not final.
Jon Taylor, professor of political science and director for Master of Public Policy and Administration Program at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, America's energy capital, saw the proposal as more a matter of domestic politics than energy independence.
【国际英语资讯:News analysis: U.S. offshore drilling meets with mix of responses】相关文章:
★ 制造业崇拜的愚蠢
★ 惠普吞下收购苦果
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15