Why offshore drilling is ineffective and dangerous
At almost $4 a gallon, filling up a gas tank literally feels like highway robbery, with the robbers being OPEC and the robbing occurring at least once a week. This constant disempowerment at the hands of Big Oil undoubtedly leads to a feeling of immense vulnerability, the kind of vulnerability that makes the chants of “Drill Baby, Drill” at the Republican National Convention almost sound like a quick and effective energy policy that will drop the price of gas and put more money back into the average American’s wallet. However, a quick glance at the facts will demonstrate that offshore drilling is neither quick nor effective and in the end, won’t drop the price of gas by more than a couple of cents. It will, however, reap disastrous environmental consequences that will affect the climate in years to come.
Offshore drilling is not an effective use of resources. Proponents of offshore drilling claim there are 18 billion barrels of drillable oil that are untapped. Currently, the world consumes 86 million barrels of oil per day, a quarter of which is consumed by the United States alone. This means that, hypothetically speaking, if the United States were the sole user of offshore oil and used only this oil, in less than three years’ time, we would be out of it and once again dependent on foreign oil. However, this scenario would not even be possible because we can only produce, at best, two to four million barrels of oil per day, thus making this attempt at “energy independence” even more laughable.
Offshore drilling is also not a quick fix. Assuming, once again, in the best case scenario, we would not get a drop of offshore oil for ten years and would not see full production until at least 2030, by which time we could have made serious progress in securing renewable energy. By the time offshore oil reaches the market, all it will feasibly be able to do is merely offset some of the depletion of current oil fields, making it comparable to putting a band-aid on a gushing wound.
As far as the price of gas goes, according to all estimates it is highly unlikely that more than a few cents will be shaved off the prices. The fact of the matter is that oil prices are set by supply and demand so that by the time offshore oil is available, the fuel demands from India and China will make the modest increase in available oil obsolete. Furthermore, should the United States produce more oil, OPEC can easily limit its exports in order to keep the supply stable and prices high. Thus, after all the money and resources are diverted from more sound and feasible renewable energy solutions, consumers will see a negligible effect in their wallets.
Environmentally speaking, the possible effects of offshore drilling range from dangerous to disastrous. Proponents of drilling cite new technology that has minimized spills from hurricanes. However, 2005’s hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused spills of at least seven million gallons of oil, a huge number even in comparison to the 11 million gallons spilled by the oft-cited 1989 Exxon-Valdez environmental disaster. In November of 2005, an oil tanker spilled an estimated one to three million gallons of oil when it hit a sunken platform in the Gulf that had drifted out of place. The affects on global warming are also numerous as each oil platform produces 214,000 pounds of air pollutants each year. Compare all of these disasters to the positive effects of clean, renewable energy. A single modern turbine can meet the annual electricity needs of five hundred homes, proving that effective energy doesn’t have to destroy our planet.
Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have very different plans for the United States when it comes to energy policy. Senator McCain’s plan touts energy efficiency with plans for clean coal technology and nuclear power, yet stops short of reality by remarking that offshore drilling is an essential aspect of America’s short term energy solution, even though effective drilling is a long term goal. Senator Obama, in comparison, has announced a $150 billion, 10 year, complete overhaul of America’s energy system, only conceding limited offshore drilling in order to win bipartisan approval of his plan, reflecting the old adage that you have to dream big to gain big.
To show unity in light of the recent economic crisis, Democrats in Congress recently dropped their push for the continuation on the moratorium of offshore drilling as part of the stopgap spending bill that will keep the government running after Congress recesses for the presidential election. Thankfully, however, no actual drilling is imminent. As Drew Hamill, spokesperson for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, commented, “The future resolution of offshore drilling will have to be addressed with a new president.”
In light of the high cost, negligible economic effect, and disastrous environmental results of offshore drilling, it is of the utmost importance for any voter to deeply consider the consequences of electing a president who thinks “Drill, Baby, Drill” is part of an effective energy policy.
| Print
Maybe oil's not that bad. Or you can return home.
The one example of a spill you come up with was a tanker. Do you think that imported oil appears magically out of the air? It comes in tankers, which as you point out are FAR more likely to spill than platforms and their pipelines.
Meanwhile both the east and west coasts are hosts to many hundreds of tankers per year. The tankers bring NO jobs, NO royalties, NO lease fees and NO taxes. On the other hand, the American people are 40% partners in all offshore drilling – not including jobs.
As far as how much oil, look up the stats for Brazil’s offshore drilling. They will soon be as rich as the Saudis. The Norwegians are already rich for the same reason. Nobody expected to find much oil in either of those places.
Geophys55
October 1, 2008 at 8:42 am
Alisa,
You also forgot to mention that the spills durring the 2005 hurricane season werre not in one place and not at one time. Their total does not come close to the amount of natural seepage durring the same time period, in that same area. Petroleum is a natural part of the ecosystem and has been for millions of years.
Petroleum seeps are found over most of the California shore and across the land as well (La Brea Tar Pits, e.g.). That’s why they started drilling in the first place. There is one place where the seepage has been documented to diminish – around Santa Barbera where oil produuction goes on to this day.
Fishing flourishes around offshore rigs. One thing that does poison the sea is fertilizer run-off (from crops like corn for ethanol). It makes hypoxic zones that kill off all marine life. You don’t seem to mind that, do you?
Geophys55
October 1, 2008 at 10:55 am
Dear Offshore Drilling Thinkers,
I am unemployed and would gladly take the $90k per year folks are getting to work on oil rigs. Where can I sign up? BTW – I would be happy to exchange my unemployment checks for the priviledge of paying income taxes.
Thanks for thinking of me,
DB
DB 646
October 1, 2008 at 11:33 am
I find this article horribly simplistic and misleading. Most of the spills from Rita and Katrina were from onshore facilities, nothing to do with offshore oil and gas except some of the crude was sourced there. Geophys55 has it nank on re tankers.
Having been in the energy business internationally for 40 years, and having watched this same debate in various countries, let me offer some information. It’s important to get beyond misinformation and hopelessly flawed logic.
This debate should not be about whether offshore oil will affect gasoline prices immediately. The name of the offshore oil game is (or should be) displacing foreign oil from your “friends” in Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, etc., and replacing it with American product produced by Americans with jobs and royalties for Americans instead of all benefits to foreigners. Some of these royalties can be used to fund alternative energies or health care, for example. In addition, offshore oil helps security of supply; the US is in awful shape here, importing half its oil. Offshore oil also helps the US balance of payments. Just look what Norway has done with their offshore industry in both these respects, Newfoundland (Canada), Brazil, and many others. How many Americans realize that over a quarter of your oil already comes from offshore?
Global warming caused by new American offshore oil, some say? NONSENSE! New American offshore oil has no effect on the environment because you are not changing the amount of oil you use, just the source – you are displacing foreign oil! In fact, I argue it might improve the environment because incremental American production will avoid somewhat risky international tanker runs to the USA, and Americans will produce the oil with less environmental impact (for example, in Venezuela in the 1970s, we flared most of the associated gas; this is still done in parts of the world, such as Iraq).
Offshore oil spills? Why do opponents foam about this but not tell the layperson that natural seeps of oil into North American waters exceed one million barrels every year, and that Mother Nature leaks (seeps) 13 times the oil into North American waters as the entire North American offshore industry? The history of offshore oil spills in tightly regulated and tightly operated waters such as the US and Canada has been excellent over the last quarter century plus. Santa Barbara is ancient history. Claims of big spills and dumping of drilling waste and heavy metals and the like are alarmist and false – based on old history. Now zero discharge drilling is possible, like the newest platform in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
And please do not use the “logic” that it might take years to find new oil and bring it on stream, so “forget it”. What if we took that approach to curing cancer, or Wilbur and Orville Wright had accepted such nonsense?
Replace oil with tidal energy and wind farms? Ever tried to make your clothing, computer case, luggage, toilet seat, etc. out of electrons? A world without petro-chemicals is a scary thing. Warm up your caves! Try fuelling an airplane with electrons?
My bottom line is simple – to the extent you ARE going to use oil, why not use American oil and employ Americans and “pay yourselves”, instead of sending billions of dollars a year to unfriendly foreigners? Why not ensure the oil you do use is produced and transported in the safest and most environmentally friendly fashion possible?
Sincerely,
John Hunter P. Eng., J. Hunter & Associates Ltd, North Vancouver, Canada
John Hunter
October 1, 2008 at 2:58 pm
“Offshore drilling is not an effective use of resources.” Really? Based on what? It seems that there are a number of companies willing to invest millions of dollars to make it happen, apparently you think you are smarter than they are. Personally I would vote for making drilling rights available and letting companies decide if it’s worth drilling or not. Don’t forget that the government gets a piece of whatever oil and/or natural gas that is produced which should serve to reduce our overall tax burden. Since I actually pay taxes that means something to me.
If you want cheaper energy the solution is to make as much available as possible in whatever form possible. Offshore drilling for oil, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, etc., leave nothing off the table. If we are going to continue to advance as a society we will need to have reasonably priced energy in order to compete with other countries, otherwise you will see our standard of living decline against those countries. If you want to try out second or third world status just keep throwing up road blocks to those trying to provide cheap energy.
Old Dude
October 2, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Your are helping the mankind by saving people’s time by giving such wonderful tool. Keep on doing good thing , god will definately add credit point in your positive account.
Offshore Drilling Jobs
February 5, 2009 at 11:55 am