Obama Plan To Expand Offshore Drilling For Oil Criticized By Sierra Club

Good for them (that's their job).

If there's an oil spill Obama is in big trouble !!!

Indeed! Interestingly, the Coast Guard was just practicing its response to oil spill off the coast of New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts:

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EL5UHO0.htm

THANK U SIR

My pleasure!

On the other hand ...
I used to be a member of the Sierra Club, but it has lost most of its credibility as a rational environmental group because they tend to be Against Everything and for nothing but pretty pictures on calendars. Want to build a solar energy plant in the desert? The Sierra Club objects. Hydroelectric Dam? Sierra Club wants the river "free-flowing." Windmill Farm? Kills birds and ruins the view. Do some Googling. The Sierra Club has lost all touch with rational environmentalism. Civilization requires energy. Modern civilization requires large-scale energy. As much as I'd love small-scale roof-top solar to be practical as a significant energy source, it ain't. Real environmentalism involves real choices.

Modern offshore drilling is clean, and arguably may improve the environment. If you go down to the Gulf of Mexico fishing, or diving, your guide will take you right out to the platforms, which are artificial reefs in a hard-substrate-limited ecosystem. He will have to be careful to avoid the numerous shrimp boats trawling between the platforms. I worked my way through college in the Gulf oil fields to pay for my BS in Biology, and returned to the patch in 1990 to pay off my debts from my MS in Marine Biology, and have worked there as a USCG licensed Mariner since then. (I decided that, like sex, science was more enjoyable for me as a hobby than a profession.)

Go Googling. It has been a very long time since there was a significant spill from an American offshore well. The Coast Guard was running spill drills in an area without drilling because the big spills for the last 40 years or so have been from tankers. You know, tankers ... those big ships that move oil from overseas (and Alaska) to the US. Except in Alaska, almost all offshore wells in the US transfer oil ashore thru pipelines, which are safe, well monitored and automatically shut down if breached.

You don't like oil drilling. Go move into a log cabin in the woods and live like Daniel Boone. I like satellite communications, laser surgery, fresh fruit all year, and being able to eat breakfast in New Orleans and drink happy hour Tikis in Honolulu. The stone age didn't end because of a shortage of stones and (hopefully) the Oil (Fossil Fuel) Age will not end due to a shortage of oil, but rather because we find something better. But until then, the oil has to come from somewhere.

What I hear in this opposition is pure NIMBY-ism. Go do the oil drilling in the third world (where there ARE both large spills, and chronic negligent pollution due to the lack of (effective) regulation and professional standards ... and you don't even want to hear about the worker safety standards) as long as we don't see it.

If you care about "the Environment," care about the whole environment, not just your back yard. If you oppose something. learn about it.

Well done.

How big was the oil spill after Katrina? I don't seem to remember the massive oil slick.

Charles: Hurricanes Rita and Katrina did a lot of damage to offshore oil drilling infrastructure. In May of 2005, the Minerals Management Service estimated that the two hurricanes:

457 pipelines were destroyed

113 platforms were destroyed

Oil spills caused by the hurricane:

"Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater."

Another study found on the Stanford University website notes that two spills of over a million gallons.

Pelagius Hereticus:

I went Googling to find the above information. Looking at these numbers, I have an even harder time believing in the myth that oil is a reliable form of cheap energy. Oil prices are volatile precisely because of these kinds of unpredictable events, be they natural disasters or political upheaval in oil producing nations. As you may recall, oil prices skyrocketed a few years back - just in time to help push the economy into the major recession we are now experiencing.

I do not believe that we can just stop using oil overnight. However, I am also not convinced that off-shore drilling would actually make us any more energy independent or lead to lower oil prices.

The U.S. is already the world's third largest producer of oil, according to the Energy Information Administration. We produce more than 8,000,000 barrels of oil a day. The problem is that we consume more than twice that amount. I don't believe that we can double domestic oil production.

Then there is the fact that some of the oil being produced in the U.S. is currently being shipped abroad. Why are we exporting oil? According to Paul Solman of PBS news, companies export oil to take advantage of better economic conditions abroad. You'll love the other reason: they sell oil that does not meet Clean Air Act standards to country's with fewer environmental regulations!

Yes, there were, and will be spills associated with drilling, especially due to natural disasters, but the majority of the spills in Katrina and Rita resulted from damage to facilities ashore, not offshore platforms. Those facilities would exist even if there was no domestic drilling to process, store and distribute imported oil. For that matter, much of the spilled oil probably WAS imported.

The offshore spills were primarily fuel and chemicals stored on the platforms rather than crude from the wells. It's still oil in the water, but not a failure of safe drilling practices. Also refined products generally evaporate fairly quickly and do less damage than crude. The same sources you referenced, noted that the total of ALL the Katrina/Rita spills were far less than the single Exxon Valdez spill, reinforcing my assertion that there is more risk in shipping oil by tanker than drilling for it domestically. In many ways the relatively small spills caused by such a huge event are a tribute to the safety of modern drilling practices. It doesn't bear thinking about 1960s tech in the same situation.

(BTW, not to be snarky, but you want to be careful about referencing undergraduate class papers that themselves use Wikipedia as primary source material).

I'm all for energy conservation and alternate energy. But until that Bright Day, we need oil. The Katrina/Rita impacts also highlight a need to spread out our oil fields and refining facilities to protect against having one big disaster cripple our infrastructure.

How could developing domestic resources NOT make us more energy independent than not doing so? It probably won't lower prices, and might not even keep up with increased demand, but it pretty much has to increase domestic supply.

While we may disagree, I appreciate debating an informed, rational individual. Nice catch on the reference from the Stanford website - the dangers of the Google search.

I'd need to do some digging, but I'm guessing the Valdez was carrying oil drilled in Alaska to either the mainland U.S. or a foreign nation for consumption. I don't think Alaska does much importation of oil, but correct me if I'm wrong. Obama's plan calls for more drilling in Alaska. It would seem like that oil would then need to be shipped.

For better or for worse, the Obama plan also plans for expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which tends to get hit by hurricanes.

Here is a newspaper article on the topic of spills. I found this bit particularly interesting, though I have not confirmed it from any other source (newspaper articles don't have footnotes):

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5897424.html
"The amount spilled by industry pales in comparison with seepage from natural fissures — an estimated 1,700 barrels per day off the coast of North America, regulators note."

BTW a barrel is 42 gallons.

Screw-ups do indeed occur, there was a rather nasty one recently in Australia, but the investigation found that the drilling company had not followed the proper procedures. Done right, offshore drilling is much safer and cleaner than alarmists would have you believe. A real global environmentalist should prefer that the necessary drilling be done (more) safely in the US rather than in Nigeria where the very few regulations that exist are almost never enforced.

I think the biggest difference I've seen over the last 30 years is in the individual attitudes of the people. Back in '80, and even when I started on boats in '90, a lot of the old-timers thought nothing of spills and discharges and dismissed anyone who expected them to spend/lose money/time on environmentally sound procedures as "Damned Hippies." Those guys have mostly died out, and the New Breed has embraced a new code of professionalism and personal responsibility. It also doesn't hurt that enforcement has also improved drastically, and the penalties are very severe.

And I didn't mean to insult the tanker industry. I've done oil transport, and the companies and crews work hard to make it safe, but I got out of it because I just don't have the nerve for pushing 130,000 barrels of oil thru the middle of Manhattan or the same volume of gasoline into Tampa Bay playing chicken with cruise ships. With laws these days, it doesn't matter if a meteor hits the barge, the man at the wheel is going to be blamed and probably find himself in handcuffs. I heard (but can't document) that even though the Mate was at the wheel, and the Master (Captain) of the tug that caused the Buzzards Bay spill was eventually cleared of any active or negligent responsibility, his license was suspended "pending the outcome of the investigation" for 18 months! No license, no paycheck for a year and a half. The Mate went to federal prison even though it was an accident. No thank you. I stick with non-petroleum cargoes.

A tanker is just an inherently more risky proposition than a pipeline. A properly constructed oil well or pipeline "fails safe." Valves automatically close whenever anything goes wrong, so in a pipeline, the spill is restricted to the oil in the pipe. No more oil is pumped in. When a tanker runs aground or is in a collision, there's no way to stop oil from coming out of the tanks. Double hulls and other measures have helped a lot. There have been some serious groundings that never made the news because the double hulls held and there was no spill.

As I said before, my first career was Biology, and nothing would make me happier than some energy miracle that would take us off the petroleum teat, though there would still be a (smaller) petroleum industry. Oil is too precious to burn up for fuel. It's necessary for plastics, synthetic fabrics, lubricants and many other things. Even if I run out and buy an electric car, the tires, wiring insulation, belts, paint, plastic parts, and lubricants will still be oil-based. The environmental focus should be on conservation and alternatives. Opposing drilling for environmental reasons is like opposing farming because food leads to obesity.

Alaska ... gah ... terrible place to work. One of my shipmates worked up there at a facility in Dead Horse Alaska. He said they told him there was a woman behind every tree. They didn't tell him that the closest tree was 400 miles away. He also told me about this picture of the "Prudhoe Bay National Forest." One Christmas, someone made some plywood cut-out Christmas trees, and afterward some bored wise guy set them up together and made the sign.

My letter to the Sierra Club:

I'm not happy, but maybe if we force people, including environmentalists, to see the grandeur of the Atlantic seashore converted with the ugly site of oil rigs and maybe some spills too, we might all gain a better understanding of the cost of how we live and the direction we are heading. How sad that the pristine areas of Alaska have to suffer this too, but this is the direction we are headed till we really get serious.

I have asked many environmental organizations, including yours, to support a return to the national 55mph speed limit. They all point me to where their websites suggest slowing down. But 55mph? Oh nooooo! Too much sacrifice! How bad are we going to allow this to become before we get it, before getting serious is action, not just lip service?

Yes alternative energies will help, but our dependence on this energy packed resource is not going to go away. Our best hope is a more Earth honoring behavior by all. Sorry, but if you really want to change things it is going to take a lot more work and sacrifice by us all. Come on, you have got to remember what was accomplished with the 55 limit. Right now the auto industry is burdened with making autos that accelerate like rockets and all can achieve speeds faster than legal limits. Can you imagine the improvement laws in conjunction with a 55 limit could achieve and finally change that old outdated mindset? But why bother, just tell your members to go take a hike.

Interesting thoughts, but I would note that a 55 MPH speed limit exists in many places. And like highways where the speed limit is 65 MPH, most people ignore the law and speed. Sad but true. So I think what the Sierra Club and others are trying to accomplish is to inform the public about the benefits of traveling at reduced speeds. Naturally, safety is another good reason to slow down.

I admit that when I drive south on Interstate 24 through Nashville and the limit actually drops to down to 55 after a long stretch of 70mph and I try to at least slow down to 60, I not only feel like my life is in danger from all the maneuvering to go around me causes, but I'm also afraid I could get a ticket for creating a hazard by not going with the flow. If there was an accident because I did this, I'm sure I would be ticketed. What is the right thing to do? Follow the lemmings? (I know, it's a myth).

Even though gas prices have gone up so much in these last few years, it is very rare to go anywhere no matter what the limit and not have people tailgating or passing me when I drive the limit. It is this lack of a willingness to voluntarily make better choices by the greater number of us that makes me think that a lower speed limits could achieve more. Lower limits everywhere, 35 to 30, 45 to 40, but nothing higher than 55.

I know 55mph isn't thee answer to environmental impact or the import and limited resource issues. I think this particular indifference to the problem, or lack of a more sensible behavior stands out, almost emblematic of our society's rush to oblivion. In regard to the choices we make and damage we allow against our environment in order that we can continue in this same fashion, I am beginning to consider it a sort of "banality of evil". Something bad we do without giving it the thought we should.

I just don't get the feeling environmental organizations are as serious as they claim. Maybe they are afraid to support a return to 55 in fear of losing membership. And finally, I do feel like a naive dreamer when I picture anything that suggests the greater public might act responsibly or intelligently.

How about this idea, a small TV at each gas pump you have to stare at for the pump to work. The TV plays pictures of the mess in Niger Delta and Ecuador where the environment is so ravaged by the oil companies that the poor people can no longer even manage a subsistent living. And our soldiers in the Middle East with blown off body parts, blood for oil. Then we hop back in our cars pedal to the medal... ah, the good life. Ain't we lucky?

It feels like the only answer that would satisfy the present mentality is a fantasy. Take all you can get, give nothing in return.

I really wonder what it will take for everyone to understand all the damage to the environment just 300 million people have caused while we stand at the threshold of 2 billion people about to emulate our life style.

Could there be another issue Obama is aware of that I have not seen addressed, namely "net energy"? Net energy is an issue that is hard to swallow without walking away feeling like you've been mugged.

If the Post Carbon Institute were to be taken seriously, the economy and our lives would have to change dramatically. This issue reminds me of what I have read about early Native Americans not being able to see the big ships that arrived from Europe because it was beyond their reality. That and a heavy dose of denial.

Short of panicking people, leaders would need to start addressing these issues and conceivably east coast drilling could be a step toward enacting a "net energy" policy.

Have a look at this and try not to let your idea of reality exclude the possibility of it.

Searching for a Miracle
‘Net Energy’ Limits & the Fate of Industrial Society

http://www.postcarbon.org/report/44377-searching-for-a-miracle

And this report also makes the often-overlooked point that the Green Energy Infrastructure will be built using the Black (fossil-fuel) Energy Infrastructure. If the Green Fairy were to magically inspire everyone in America (or the world) to enter a crash program of Alternative energy development, fossil fuel consumption would increase dramatically in the production of the components and construction of the projects.