Off-shore drilling, or oil tankers? Of course, many “environmentalists” would like to ban both. And have us go back to chopping wood, and forty acres and a mule. As long as we aren’t too cruel to the mule.
But it’s pretty clear to me that off-shore drilling with modern technology is much lower risk, in terms of oil spills, than having foreign-flagged tankers operating in our waters. This kind of false sense of safety, and misplaced priority is common. For instance, some people avoid flying, because they fear it, and drive instead, vastly increasing their risk of being killed on the trip. I don’t know whether people who oppose oil drilling are being similarly irrational, or if they simply recognize it as an easier target than ending oil imports, so they grab whatever low-hanging fruit they can to minimize our oil consumption (and drive up the price, which is perhaps part of the goal).
Also, as noted here, banning drilling off US shores doesn’t eliminate the risk of spills from drilling. It just moves it to other (and perhaps even more environmentally sensitive) places.
The goal of the educated and generally aware environmentalist IS to drive up oil prices. The smart ones don’t care if the drilling has no environmental impact. In their view, the higher the price of oil, the faster we switch to alternatives. These are generally the same types of environmental hardliners who secretly favor draconian and possibly mandatory population control methods.
However, these smart ones are happy to stoke the flames of ignorance in their own gullible minions (who comprise the majority of strident environmentalists), the ones who really believe more drilling in US territory automatically equals greater numbers of dead, oil encrusted baby seals.
Sorry.
The idea that domestic offshore production would significantly lower the amount of oil tankers about is ludicrous. Recall that even if you pump it out on the U. S. shelf, you still have to get it to the refinery, and the cheapest way to do that is still by tanker. On the West Coast, it’s likely much of offshore oil would follow demand and head west, rather than east.
No matter what the size of the reserves, offshore USA production rates are also not going to be high enough to put much downward pressure on prices. You would also be subject to increased price fluctuations every hurricane season.
And the number one reason to limit offshore oil development is not the freaking seals – it’s edible fish. At the end of the day, food should trump cheap private transport.
Another problem with drilling off the Florida coast is hurricanes. One category 5 mixed with trashed drilling rigs coming from the east and I bet my house would be covered with oil, and I don’t live in a coastal county!
And it’s not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.
For oil that is going to at most make up 2% of US needs? Your risking a lot for a very small gain.
ANWR? OK. We’re still talking about a minuscule gain of 3%. And those are using this year’s consumption. But it feels like we’re strip mining out planet, but we don’t have anywhere else to go.
By multiple reports, there are tens of thousands of leases that the oil companies are not doing anything with. I’m not sure what those reasons are, but they may be environmental impact studies, or they haven’t surveyed enough to figure out exactly where they need to be drilling. I really don’t have a clue on that.
Another problem with drilling off the Florida coast is hurricanes. One category 5 mixed with trashed drilling rigs coming from the east and I bet my house would be covered with oil, and I don’t live in a coastal county!
Um … Do you really think that there currently aren’t any oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico? Clue #1: There are! And do you really think that they aren’t hit by severe hurricanes? Clue #2: They are!
You do get a gold star for spelling “minuscule” correctly, though.
Oil and natural gas get from offshore to onshore via…..PIPELINES, not tankers. There were no oil spills from Katrina, none, nada, zip. The feigned hysteria based on fallacies is SO left wing.
Bill, I wasn’t taking about getting from the platforms to shore, I was talking about getting from the storage facilities on shore to the regional refineries. The Exxon Valdez was moving domestic oil to Washington when it had its little incident.
And Bill;
Look here. “Katrina oil spills may be among worst on record”
I also refer you to this useful website.
Duncan Young wrote:
“The idea that domestic offshore production would significantly lower the amount of oil tankers about is ludicrous”
As stated it is generally piped in. Even if moved by tanker in certain cases the travel times are much shorter then from foreign sources. The possible result of a mishap should logically follow with the length of travel time. The Exxon Valdez was how long ago? How many half asleep, drunken sea captain have manned the helm of a supertanker since then? The U.K. and Europe may have had a rash of problems with tankers breaking apart at sea, but that is yalls problem. Evidently, the U.S. has figured out how to build a proper friggin’ boat.
Bryan Price wrote:
“……2% of US needs? Your risking a lot for a very small gain” “ANWR? OK. We’re still talking about a minuscule gain of 3%”
2% here, 3% there and pretty soon we’re talkin’ about an awful lot of oil. Nifty attempt at a Jedi mind trick though. *waves hand* these aren’t the economic solutions to gas price concerns that you’re looking for. Supply???? Demand???? blehhh!
The possible result of a mishap should logically follow with the length of travel time.
Not true. Time near the coast, where sharp objects and other ships lie, is the critical factor, and domestic tankers spend much more of their time in that region.
Demand is a lot more sensitive to technical innovation than supply in the energy market. The problem is that demand is also much more sensitive to marketing innovations.
Look here. “Katrina oil spills may be among worst on record”
When you are googling, you might come across this article. You might also find this link. Ironically, you might also find that both the links I provide show that oil spills have occurred in relation to OCS drilling because of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. You can read more facts here. Yes, the Guardian (5000 miles away) used the USCG as an authority, but here is what the USCG says today: “Since 1990, there have been no spills over one million gallons in the United States.”
Lealand,
From the source of your last link:
“This file created 6/19/00 11:18 AM by Claris Home Page version 2.0″
The MMS report was in barrels – converting to gallons yields 153,791 gallons for Kateria and 253.437 gallons for Rita (an that is crude only) both of which meet the USCG specification for a major spill. Shocking that the Minerals Managment Service would spin the numbers.
Duncan, that’s a wee bit shy of the 9.5 million gallons in the article you site. And all of the spills mentioned from both hurricanes were below the threshhold for a “major spill”. The MMS doesn’t get to bundle spills together like you want. Finally, I find it notable that two direct strikes by hurricanes, one closely following the other, on the entire Gulf of Mexico infrastructure barely results in oil leakage comparable to a single large supertanker leak.
Demand is a lot more sensitive to technical innovation than supply in the energy market.
When isn’t that true? There’s no point to me supplying raw material X until someone finds a use for it. That is, demand doesn’t even exist until there’s some technological innovation that uses X. But a lot of raw materials are easy to extract even if demand isn’t there. (Almost) nobody wants varnished moose droppings, but we have the technology to supply them.
I guess I just don’t see the point of the observation.
Yep, there is absolutely no problems with hurricanes and oil rigs and pipelines and storage tanks.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_go_ot/hurricane_environment
Then again, maybe so.
And Mr. G, with that gold star I’ll remind you that a) I’m on the east coast of Florida, b) do you really understand how many hundreds of miles there are from drilling rigs and the Florida shore even in the Gulf coast?