Posted on 06/01/2010 8:18:57 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
AGAINST DRILLING
CLAREMONT, Calif. - Although some progress has been made in recent days, BP is still struggling to stop the oil pouring from the wreck of the Deepwater Horizon. The April 20 explosion that caused the calamity, and tragically killed 11 workers, has spilled at least 6 million gallons of oil - and perhaps five times that amount - into the waters of the Gulf Coast.
Some estimates have put the cost of this disaster to fishing, tourism and the environment at more than $12 billion - but it will be years before the true cost is known. Given the deaths and the damage to the environment, one would think that advocates of offshore oil drilling would take a breath. But, amazingly, some are still preaching "drill, baby drill."
The United States needs oil. But it would be folly to open new areas to offshore drilling because all the oil in offshore U.S. reserves won't make a dent in our long-term use. And given the dangers of deepwater drilling - to the environment and to people - those areas that are currently protected, such as the north coast of Alaska, and the East and West coasts, should remain off limits to new oil projects.
First and foremost is the risk that the BP spill has exposed: no matter how good the technology, accidents will happen, especially with complex, deep-water drilling rigs.
The methane bubble that likely caused the explosion is a fact of life with all oil production, and makes safety especially problematic when drilling far below the ocean surface. The more offshore rigs we employ, the higher the probability that a similar tragedy will happen again - fouling more coastline and wreaking more havoc.
A related problem should also give us pause: It's been over 20 years since the Exxon Valdez nightmare, but oil companies still don't have any effective way to clean up after a spill.
Although BP has been touting the benefits of pumping dispersants underwater, independent researchers are deeply concerned about the effects of these chemicals. In fact, the Corexit dispersants that BP has been using are banned by the United Kingdom for spill control and were found to be harmful to human health after they were used to attempt to clean up the Exxon Valdez spill.
The real flaw in the current approach is that despite a voracious appetite for oil, the United States has only a tiny fraction of the world's crude oil reserves.
Domestic U.S. oil production peaked in 1972, at almost 3.5 billion barrels per year. In the last 10 years, despite advances in extraction technology, annual domestic production has dropped to around 2 billion barrels.
U.S. oil consumption, down in the wake of the recession, was still a whopping 7.1 billion barrels a year, according to the most recent figures from the U.S. Energy Information Agency.
The simple fact is that if we open all offshore waters to drilling, we would supply only one year of oil for the United States. Offshore drilling won't free us from imported oil and, despite the promises of those who stand to benefit, is only a marginal source of new supply.
A better approach is to use our existing supplies more efficiently by investing in clean, green technology.
Instead of subsidizing oil production, the United States should expand support for efficient transportation technologies, such as hybrid cars and electric vehicles, which are increasingly made by American companies.
Transportation policies also need to include "smart growth" elements that reduce gridlock and make our communities more livable. These approaches will reduce our use of imported oil, cut air pollution and help us create a more sustainable future.
• Hal T. Nelson is a research assistant professor at Claremont Graduate University's School of Politics and Economics and the author of the book "Power at the Crossroads." Nicholas L. Cain is a doctorate candidate at Claremont.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRO-DRILLING
WASHINGTON - Those who disparage offshore drilling - and seem eager to ban it - ignore that the Gulf of Mexico accounts for one-third of U.S. oil production. Without domestic production, we would be spending even more on imported oil - which is already running $1.5 billion a day.
Any sensible response to the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig - and the huge oil spill that's fouling gulf waters - needs to recognize two facts. First, the demand for oil is expected to increase. Second, America cannot suddenly stop offshore drilling.
The best place in the United States to find new oil is in the gulf's untapped deepwater areas, in the Atlantic, and off Alaska. These three drilling areas combined hold as much as 22 billion barrels of oil, which is more than our current total estimated reserves. This oil would help meet U.S. energy needs for decades.
But if these areas are closed to oil production, we would need to import more oil from overseas, probably from countries that are nationalistic and, in some cases, hostile. Some of the countries are run by despots like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
The reality is that the cards are stacked against us. U.S. investor-owned oil companies hold only 6 percent of the world's petroleum reserves, while state-owned national oil companies in Venezuela, Iran, China, Nigeria, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other countries control 80 percent of the reserves. Coincidentally, even some of these countries are drilling for oil in Cuban waters just 50 miles from Florida.
The Gulf of Mexico is among the best areas to which U.S. companies still have access. Drilling for oil in the gulf is an opportunity we cannot afford to squander. Our energy security and economic growth depend on it.
Producing oil safely is essential. The offshore rig explosion that cost the lives of 11 men and now threatens the gulf shores was such a shock that it has restarted a national debate on safety.
To its credit, the Obama administration has mounted a coordinated response to the accident. One is to break up the federal Minerals Management Service, the agency responsible for both regulating safety and raising revenue from offshore drilling. Creating a separate entity to oversee safety and environmental responsibilities is sensible.
Meanwhile, the oil industry has established two task forces to examine its own safety standards and procedures. We can expect oil firms to learn useful lessons from the accident, keeping in mind that any form of energy development poses safety and environmental challenges that must be faced, resolved and overcome. How to maintain stable energy production amid sweeping technological change is a problem our government is only beginning to appreciate.
It's an unfortunate fact that no energy source is perfect.
Imposing a ban on offshore oil development would be a mistake of historic proportions.
The fact is, before the Deepwater Horizon capsized there had not been a large oil spill from an offshore drilling rig in 40 years. The National Research Council reports that offshore drilling accounts for only 1 percent of the oil in U.S. waters, and tankers and pipelines only 4 percent.
By way of comparison, one-third of the oil in U.S. waters comes from other shipping, and 62 percent from natural seepage through the ocean floor.
Nevertheless, some politicians will be tempted to call for a moratorium on offshore drilling. A more measured, less politically galvanizing response would achieve the best results. The question isn't whether to drill offshore, but how to do it more safely.
There is a simple relationship that ties a nation's economic prosperity to its energy availability, and that's why government should not prevent the development of our energy resources. The oil industry accounts for a whopping 7.2 percent of GDP and 9.2 million American jobs - something we should keep in mind as we debate the future of offshore drilling.
• Mark J. Perry is professor of finance and business economics at the University of Michigan's Flint campus and is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.
“Should the US cancel plans for offshore drilling?”
No.
“First and foremost is the risk that the BP spill has exposed: no matter how good the technology, accidents will happen, especially with complex, deep-water drilling rigs.”
By that logic, we should shut down pretty much every industry. All human action, really.
Oh, and BP didn’t expose anything. Common sense already informed everyone of the risk.
Hell no...unless you guys like gas prices to double faster.
NO...Not unless you are a Saudi agent....
Energy exploration creates jobs, tax reveneu and WEALTH. The USA was built energy gold rushes in PA, TX, CA, AK, Gulf and now back onshore with nat gas and horizontal drilling.
The one is a Saudi agent. They won on 9/11. The stupid idiots who pay for cable and sat TV are trading serfdom for mindless entertainment.
I agree with you.
I have said it over and over to people since this incident began.
We have to drill in 5000 feet of water because the
environmental nuts won’t let us drill in 500 feet of water.
Cancel? No. Defer? Yes.
This is like the Challenger accident. We have the whole Gulf about to filled with oil. We need a thorough investigation to find out what happened and then fix whatever lead to this accident. For example if we were to find a BOP deficiency we don’t want new ones installed until this addressed. So I support a delay until we know what happened.
We have been drilling for years without incident. There is nothing wrong with the BOPs as presently configured. I think we will find that there was a human error that delayed remedial action until it was too late. Stopping drilling for six months because of this incident would be like grounding all commercial airlines for six months after a plane crash. It doesn’t make sense at all. The economy will lose almost 100,000 jobs according to an analysis by RigZone. I think it’s a ploy to nationalize the oil industry.
The real question is who is responsible for oil drilling at a depth of one mile+, 5-6 miles out to sea when we have oil on land? Of course there are accidents and the more extreme the conditions the better chance of accidents.
There were alleged gummit plans for taking care of a mess like this. As usual, the money allocated for it actually got spent on something else.
Get rid of the EPA and bring the wells closer to shore and all of this could have been avoided or contained.
All else being normal, yes — however this particular oil deposit is the second biggest known on earth and there isn’t any other way to get to it but way out in the Gulf. It’s worth the hassle, if we don’t all die from having our tails on fire first.
This is all 0bambi’s fault. Not only can his people do anything about the spill (except make it worse); but their (lack of) enrgy policy encouraged this disaster by banning all oil drilling in safer places (ANWR, shale sands, shallower deeping, etc.).
Could be but we won't know that until we have all the facts. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.