GW's Last Hours: Open the California Coast to Drilling
Okay, the photo's a cheap shot at oil companies. But when the topic of off-shore drilling comes up, it's kind of hard to forget Cosco Busan and the disastrous global spills which followed. The current staff is filtering out of official DC enclaves, but in the last hours of the Bush Administration, Northern Rockies gray wolves have been delisted, and the Interior Department proposed opening 130 million acres off California's coast to oil and gas drilling.
I'm reminded of a Jon Stewart comment -- I'm paraphrasing -- suggesting that President Bush won't be happy until he leaves town with the White House in flames in his rearview mirror. (The Daily Show also had a typically sane analysis of the old off-shore drilling waffle in Washington.)
According to the San Francisco Chronicle article:
After a hands-off policy for a quarter-century, the administration submitted plans to sell oil and gas leases for most of the U.S. coast, from the Gulf of Maine to Chesapeake Bay and the Outer Banks of North Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast.
We don't yet know what the incoming Obama Administration plans to do with this final gift to oil and gas companies. When the moratorium on drilling was lifted this past summer, I received an article from Senator Feinstein's office. The excerpts below are taken from The Distraction of Offshore Drilling by Dianne Feinstein:
Opening the protected areas of the continental shelf . . . wouldn't produce a drop of oil for seven years or longer. It takes a minimum of two years to process the new leases. Industry experts tell us that there's a three to five year waiting list for new drilling ships and other equipment.And with any drilling, oil spills are a very real threat. Californians have learned the hard way how much damage -- environmental and economic -- can be caused by a major spill. A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $43 billion to California each year.
We cannot drill our way out of the energy problem. Our nation doesn't need smooth talk and rosy scenarios. We need a clear-eyed view of our energy situation.
Agreed. We'll see what Ken Salazar has to say about this.
Pictured: Oil on Bay Area shoreline after Cosco Busan spill
Photo © Ingrid Taylar
Comments
Help! Somebody please find someone who can write intelligently about offshore oil drilling.
The Cosco Busan is a cargo ship that spilled fuel (bunker fuel) used to operate the ship. Cosco Busan is not an oil tanker and has nothing to do with offshore drilling.
In reality additional offshore drilling would reduce the oil tanker traffic traveling through the S.F. Bay and actually make California safer from large, environmentally damaging oil spills.
Worse yet is the quote from Senator Diane Feinstein indicating it will take 7 or more years to get additional production to market. Wrong again. There are billions of barrels of oil that can be accessed from existing offshore platforms or from onshore using slant drilling that can be up and running in a matter of weeks if Congress and the State Legislature would just get out of the way.
Look, America needs to produce more of it’s own energy for economic, environmental and political reasons. That should include everything from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear and yes, even more oil. Let’s quit sending our dollars, jobs and our sons and daughters to places around the world that aren’t friendly to America. We can do better.
What we don’t need are editorials like this floating around that are a distortion of reality.
For those who disagree with me, I have a challenge for you… quit using oil and products made from oil. Until then, your arguments just don’t have much impact.
Have a nice day!
First, this blog post never suggests the Cosco Busan was an oil tanker or that it spilled anything but bunker fuel. If you refer to the original link, you’ll see that information was not misrepresented.
I’m referring to the fact that a recent oil spill soiled our shores, with a major Black Sea spill occurring shortly thereafter, making it prudent for any of us who cares about the health of our wildlife and shoreline to question the viability of expanded off-shore drilling. Particularly in light of the controversial benefit vs. cost analysis. To see the damage from an ostensibly “small” spill — on wildlife, on the habitat — is a sobering reality of oil production and transport. And unlike the commenter, I believe it deserves broader consideration of all effects.
The commenter, kernsmart, doesn’t mention how off-shore drilling tends to affect the ongoing health of beaches and environment, when mini-spills and inclement weather can affect the integrity of the operations. Even taking into account different weather patterns and currents, it’s relevant to mention the damage caused during Hurricane Katrina, drilling muds, and even routine operations that consistently add to the pollution burden in areas where off-shore drilling occurs. Even with advanced technology, still fallible, there is the element of human error which exists and contributed to one of the major spills off California in Santa Barbara.
That doesn’t even take into account the potential hazards of high-decibel seismic exploration and its possible effects on marine animals.
The commenter mentions existing platforms which actually refutes the argument for new drilling. Oil companies haven’t fully exploiting their existing permits, so the value of adding new permits at this juncture deserves scrutiny. The commenter also doesn’t mention the increase in infrastructure, transport and refining that accompanies drilling ventures.
Beyond that, more drilling doesn’t necessarily mean more resources and cheaper prices for the United States. When you consider some estimates that at best, the U.S. would produced an additional two to four million barrels of offshore oil a day, subject also to the global market in terms of trade, the value is questionable, considering the potentially dramatic risks.
I am really trying to understand how your logic works, but I’m having a hard time. I’m in a nicer mood today, so I will try to be gentle….
If I understand you correctly, you are trying to say that the number and severity of spills of any kind around the world is evidence that we should not drill for more oil off California. My response was that you are comparing apples and oranges. I continue to hold that assertion.
Barrels of oil will be produced whether California allows additional drilling or not. History, supply and demand and every reputable study on future energy demand tell us that. If not produced in California, barrels of oil will be produced in areas of the world with technology 50 or more years behind the technology used to produce oil right here at home. If you really care about the planet, wouldn’t you want those barrels produced in an area with the toughest environmental and safety standards in the world, or is this about “not in my backyard”? Do you sleep better at night knowing that you’ve kept California shores safe, but are doing more damage around the world?
You may notice that I do not discount that oil and gas production has environmental consequences. It does. Companies and consumers should be held responsible. Here is the key. All energy sources have environmental consequences. Just in the last year, corn based ethanol, once the darling of the environmental groups, has lost favor due to land use, environmental issues and rise of food prices when produced in large enough quantities. Wind and solar have different environmental footprints and issues, but still have issues. Hydroelectric is great on air, not so good on fish. Nuclear has waste storage issues. On and on.
Offshore leases. This is a bit more complicated but I will try to consolidate and summarize. Oil leases are set up on a grid that has no relation to where the oil is located off California’s shore. The lines were probably drawn long before anyone knew where the oil was located. If you ever see a map, it looks like an assessor’s map of a city block, just a lot bigger. When the moratorium was put in place years ago, there was little consideration to where oil reservoirs began and ended. Leases that were currently in production stayed in production. Leases that weren’t being tapped were then put off limits. After 40 years of drilling in the same spots, production naturally declines. California production overall is down roughly 50% since the high in 1985.
Why is this important? The infrastructure was built to handle the high volumes of oil produced in the 80’s. There are billions of barrels of capacity not currently being utilized because oil companies cannot access additional oil, not because they want to restrict price or some other conspiracy theory. Very little infrastructure will be needed to supply any extra barrels produced.
Too much or too little of anything is not healthy. Right now the world is too reliant on oil. That’s why we need multiple sources of energy to call from. Yes, this will take billions in new infrastructure and have environmental costs, but long term it’s what’s best for our country and best for stability around the world. Until other methods of producing energy are available in large quantities and are reliable and economical, we need to keep drilling.
The difference between you and me is very simple. You want to destroy something in hope that something better will come along.
I don’t.