« Mukasey & Congress: The AG Changes His Tune But The Song Remains The Same
Sunstein’s influence on Obama: the right kind of Nudge »



About those oil spills

July 22nd, 2008
By JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor

Print Print

In a previous column which touched on energy policy in general and domestic oil drilling in particular, a point was brought up in comments.

Since the oil companies have failed to develop the oil and gas leases they already hold, and because many of those are easier than offshore drilling, and because oil companies lost dozens of oil platforms in the last few hurricanes, and because those losses polluted the Gulf coastline causing ugly, toxic and expensive problems, pushing for offshore drilling is actually a pretty stupid policy proposal that could well cost McCain Florida.

These are common complaints regarding domestic oil production and I see them frequently. How do we gage these concerns? The first one seems to be a no brainer, and in fact I agree. If there are unused, potentially productive leases, we deserve some answers as to why they aren’t already being devloped, particularly if they are “easier” than accessing reserves under the ocean.

Did we lose dozens of oil platforms in the last few hurricanes? Actually, that’s putting it mildly. According to the government’s Mineral Management Service, we lost a combined total of 113 platforms to Katrina and Rita which were listed as being “destroyed” with quite a few more “damaged.” This was in addition to 457 pipelines damaged, with 101 of them being “large” pipelines. (Defined as ones which are 10″ in diameter or greater.) But to keep this in perspective, what were we to expect? That’s why they call it a natural disaster. Two major hurricanes crashed through the area in a short period of time, and that tends to break things. I can’t even recall how many homes were destroyed in the hurricanes. Shall we stop building houses?

Yes, I understand that it’s not a perfect comparison, as the environmental impact from losing an oil platform is different, larger and more spectacular than losing a house, right? So let’s take a look at that next point - did this damage result in massive spillage of oil causing “ugly, toxic and expensive problems” along the coast? Again, this from the MMS on the extent of the spills.

A South Florida Sun Sentinel Op-Ed of February 12, 2007, states that it is “less than genuine” to write that the Gulf did not experience substantial oil spills during the recent devastating hurricane season. The Op-Ed was titled “No ‘substantial’ spills after Katrina? Not quite accurate.”

The fact is, by using U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) official standards as a guide the statement is not only true, it is remarkable, especially given the intensity and destruction of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

They go on to list some fairly remarkable numbers. There were a total of 125 reported incidents of oil spillage from rigs, platforms and pipelines. “Those spills did not occur due to loss of control of the producing wells.” The MMS defines a “major spill” as one where 2,381 or more barrels of oil are lost. None of the incidents qualifed as a “major spill” and in fact, a grand total of only 16,302 barrels were lost from those 125 spills. On top of that, the oil that was lost didn’t come from equipment failures in the rigs. As per the report, “Oil losses were mostly limited to the oil stored on platforms that were damaged or oil contained in individual segments of pipelines that were damaged.”

I will concede that among the lessons learned from the hurrices is that we may want to revisit regulations regarding offshore platforms in terms of how much oils can be “stored” on them at any given time and how secure such storage is. Losing any oil into the ocean is certainly undesirable, but how much of a spill was that in reality?

According to a report on “Oil in the Sea” from the National Academy of Sciences (1995), far more oil enters the ocean from natural, underwater seeps than from offshore production platforms. In fact, the seeps introduce about 1700 barrels of oil a day into U.S. marine waters, which is about 150 times the amount from oil and gas activities.

The last portion of the argument speculates that McCain’s position on domestic oil production may hurt him in Florida. As I’ve said in the past, Floridians traditionally maintained a fairly unified front against offshore drilling, based largely on concerns over potential impacts on tourism and environmental dangers. But when gas hit four dollars a gallon, the tune began to change rapidly. If it hits five dollars, they’ll be loading up rowboats with pick axes and heading out to sea themselves. This may explain why the most recent poll of polls shows McCain enjoying an average lead in the sunshine state.

What frustrates me the most over this debate is when my green oriented friends (and I do consider them friends and allies) who are pushing for renewable energy, treat any mention of domestic oil production or nuclear power as the ultimate evil. Believe it or not, we’re all on the same team! We want clean, renewable energy as a permanent, long term solution too! But we’re not there yet, and frankly, we’d like to keep the lights on and the heat available until we do get there. You won’t find me fighting against any source of clean, green energy. The more the better and sooner rather than later. I look forward to the day when we need absolutely zero fossil fuels to power our nation, but until we get that fully developed and implemented, we still need energy. Oil production and nuclear energy are things we have the ability to do now.

And I don’t oppose reducing demand. I’m doing my part! I’ve replaced all my bulbs with CFBs. I’ve hunted down and shut off every vampire drain in the house. My wife and I both work at home and our car now barely leaves the house three times per week.

Everyone who supports domestic drilling and nuclear as medium term solutions to bridge this gap are not a bunch of cigar chomping Daddy Warbucks figures, praying for a China Syndrome meltdown to draw attention away from the fact that we’re clubbing polar bears to death with the corpses of dead baby harp seals while we munch on a bucket of spotted owl fritters. We’re all actually heading in the same direction toward a common goal. We just have a few differences of opinion on how to get there.



This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 22nd, 2008 at 5:38 am and is filed under Oil, Gas Prices, Alternative Energy Resources, John McCain, Energy, 2008 Elections, Environment, Science, Math, Technology, Politics. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Viewing 20 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Nice post Jazz.

    I am starting see hints by the more moderate Left who see the need to drill because they have an open mind and realize that a trillion more wind farms aint gonna get you to work in the next could years.

    Some of the more moderate Green Dreams types realize that electric cars are a long way from a reliable reality given a $30,000 dollar price tag.

    Some of the more moderate Green types believe that oil is a short term solution but not a long term solution. Most of the right believe that as well.

    Some of the more moderate Greenies understand that our entire nations infrastructure is built around OIL and that until we can make the long and hopefully not so painful transition to alternatives that oil is in our plans and will continue to be so for many more years to come.

    Many of the Green Dreams people believe as do many of the drill now proponents that oil drilling is not an evil. Its a crutch. And it is this crutch that must be taken away. Many of the drill now people agree.

    The problem is that until you fit the patient with a prosthesis, taking that crutch away seriously hobbles the patient and immobilizes him. Until we can strike a balance between the two then forever will the argument be:

    CAN NOT!!
    CAN TOO!!
    • ^
    • v
    Here in Michigan it's the new coal plants that are making the news.

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/16/ap522...
    • ^
    • v
    Perhaps it's worthwhile to ask the following:
    1. Why are the areas currently covered by the federal moratorium covered? Are they environmentally sensitive?
    2. How do they differ from areas that are already available but not explored?
    3. How messy is drilling a new well?

    Also, according to the EIA, opening up all of the OCS and ANWR will take many years to tap. By law, the leasing process will take 5 years. Assuming the equipment is available, exploration and development will take another 5 years or more. And even then it's not likely to have an appreciable effect on price.

    I'm not saying don't drill. As long as it's done responsibly there are positive benefits apart from price -- it will enhance domestic supply, reduce the trade deficit, and provide jobs. But let's try to be realistic about what it will and won't do.
    • ^
    • v
    Ricorun, I can agree with all of that in principle. Where we have truly sensitive environmental areas, of course we'd want to steer clear. And oversight should be in place to make sure that improved exploration technology (which is supposed to be far safer and more environmentally sensitive) really fills the bill in those areas. But in terms of "it will take too long" I still think, if you don't start, you'll never finish. We may need that oil even more in five or ten years. If we don't, we can always stop any new drilling and sell off what excess we have.
    • ^
    • v
    Jazz: But in terms of "it will take too long" I still think, if you don't start, you'll never finish. We may need that oil even more in five or ten years. If we don't, we can always stop any new drilling and sell off what excess we have.

    I don't think there's any way we'll cure our addiction to oil in 10, or even 20 years. Certainly not the entire world. So I agree that the "it will take too long" argument is specious. On the other hand, so is the "drill here, drill now, pay less" argument.

    By the way, sorry about screwing up the second MMS link on the previous thread. I'm not sure what happened there.
    • ^
    • v
    It's ok. It only took about a minute to do a search on the main page to find the article you were referencing. Thanks for pointing us to that resource!
    • ^
    • v
    It's a mistake to separate related issues, like McCain does. It helps him politically, no doubt, but it hurts us as a nation.

    Energy, the environment , conservation and climate change, as well as the economy as a whole, are all related and intertwined, and if we do the smart and most economical (in the long term) thing, we'll consider them all at once. The aim shouldn't be to lower gas prices per se; that's a short term view.
    The airm should be to tackle all these problems for the long term. and to see how solving one problem can help solving another.

    We have a unique opportunity now. High prices at the pump have combined with ME unrest while the effects of climate change are at long last recognized and are beginning to be felt. People are beginning to adapt and adjust. As rhese changes happen, we can see more accurately what else is needed. As ridershio on public transport goes up, we assess what's needed to provide such transport, for example.

    Therein lies my suspicion of stop gap measures, as you call them, because the historical record shows that they have a nasty way of becoming permanent fixtures. It happens first by killing off interest, that sense of urgency. Second, new products have a hard time competing with old, established products, because they need time to bring up enough volume to bring down the price.

    Lastly, resources are limited and we have to make choices about where we're going to invest them. It sounds sensible to say 'everthing,' but the elements of everything are in competition with one another and there is no guarantee that the smart thing will win over the dumb thing. So far, it's worked the other way around.
    If the smart thing won, the electric car invented decades ago wouldn't have been destroyed; it would be fully developed , exponentially improved and on the roads.
    ,
    At some point we have to decide if we're going to face up to the future with determination (like the depression of the '30s) or wimp out and drag along until it's too late. to help much of anything.

    When people want to add drilling to the menu, it has to be understood what alternative investment it will replace in the budget. and in time and how that will affect everything else on the table. Oil just can't be the princess served by Cinderellas anymore like it has been so far, not if we want to have a future.
    • ^
    • v
    "in terms of "it will take too long" I still think, if you don't start, you'll never finish"

    As I said, an uxiiallary question is: if we start drilling, what are we neglecting to start? We are talking tax breaks and subsidies here. None of these efforts are done by charitable organizations or outfits willing to undertake much risk without pretty certain guarantee of profit.
    • ^
    • v