It has been astounding to me that a serious contender for the presidency is proposing the biggest change since 1913 in the funding of the federal government, and there is so little attention paid in the media.

From what I know, there seem to be some aspects of the "FairTax" that I'd consider good (taxing consumption) and some bad (increased burden on middle-class). Unfortunately I have found very little analysis of this proposal amidst the deluge of coverage about the candidates' religion and poll-standings.

I can think of many unintended(?)consequences of the FairTax. For example, it seems to me that charitable giving would not be tax-advantaged under the FairTax like it is in the Income Tax system. Have Huckabee's religious supporters considered this? How about the link between the home mortage deduction and the construction industry? I'd like to know more.

Is today's media nothing but refugees from Entertainment Tonight who can't handle reporting about complex issues?

Outrage over opening up additional US offshore areas to oil drilling seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Consider the arguments used against it:

-- The estimated 18 billion barrels offshore US will only meet two years of US consumption

First, that estimate of 18 billion barrels is so uncertain as to be nearly useless. Second, there will not be a single solution to the US emergy problem -- just because this proposal won't be a 100% solution should it be discarded? Couldn't the same logic be used to dismiss solar, wind, bio-mass, conservation etc. etc.?

-- This drilling won't have an effect on the short-term situation

Very true, but does this mean that we are not interested in possible energy sources in the longer term? Again this argument could be used against solar, nuclear fusion...

-- Environmental damage

Given that hydrocarbon will be an important part of the US energy mix for the next few decades (a reasonable assumption); why is it more environmentally responsible to increasingly rely upon hydrocarbon from overseas sources that commonly have less concern about clean operation? Plus, imported oil gets to the US in tankers, and tankers have had many more significant spills in the last decades than offshore installations with pipeline connections to shore. Offshore E&P will have less environmental impact than many onshore HC developments, especially unconventional projects like oil-shale and tar sands.

-- Its a "give-away" to big oil companies

This is a good point concerning some of the current tax breaks given for offshore E&P (these might make sense at $20 oil, but not now). In contrast, development of additional offshore resources should be a plus for the treasury through lease sale incomes and royalties.

Currently we are sending obscene amounts of money to Saudi Arabia and others for their oil. Surely it makes good sense to responsibly explore for additional domestic resources to somewhat reduce this flow of cash out our door.

Finally, expanded offshore oil activity will mean lots of high-paying domestic jobs. There is huge outcry against losing jobs overseas in industries like steel refining (not environmentally pristine either). Can we really afford to reject the offshore oil industry without thinking through the pros and cons?

Dave --

You are right that the Bakken Shale in North Dakota has been the focus of attention lately because it has a huge amount of oil-in-place. The thing is -- this oil is within rock (shale) much much less permeable than conventional oil reservoirs. While a good offshore well can make 1000's of barrels a day, a conventional well in the Bakken might make 10's of barrels/day (a frac'd horizontal well would do somewhat better).

So -- for the same production of oil -- which is more environmentally damaging, ~100 wells amidst ranches and wildlife habitat in the Great Plains, or one well offshore? Keep in mind that deepwater offshore activity in the Gulf of Mexico is not even visible from shore and that no major (or minor) oil spills resulted from the direct hits of hurricanes Ivan, Katrina, and Rita.

Missouri Dave

You are right that the total daily production from the Bakken in Oct 2007 was ~75,000 bbls. However in my previous note I was refering to the per well production -- not the total. The average per well daily production was 79 bbls in Oct 2007. This is in line with my point that ~100 Bakken wells are needed to equal the production from one good offshore well.

Sorry to anyone still reading this thread for the sidetrack into details concerning oil production in ND....

So the proposed offshore drilling will only add an insignificant amount of oil -- but it will still accelerate climate change?

And peak oil will cause untold disruption, but "postponing the day of reckoning" is a bad thing? Don't new energy technologies need time to develop?

And responsible offshore US development is possible -- even likely -- but it still should not be attempted, even while we import our oil from horrible developments in places like Nigeria? How is exploitation like this morally justifiable -- supporting the poisoning of foreign countries while refusing to accept any risk at home...

Also it is a pretty safe bet that offshore production can be accomplished without "covering beaches in sludge" especially offshore Florida where the prospects are primarily natural gas.

Yesterday in Salon there was a pragmatic look at the environmental benefits of consuming only food produced locally. What is so different about the concept that we should try to increase local production of energy?

Finally -- why is an article about offshore oil illustrated with a picture of an onshore oil tank?