Humans are the risk in drilling: Pensacola News Journal Editorial

http://www.pnj.com/article/20100404/OPINION/4040312/Editorial-Humans-are-the-risk-in-drilling

PNJ.com
Pensacola News Journal
Editorial: Humans are the risk in drilling

APRIL 4, 2010
The Orlando Sentinel recently took a close look at the Australian drilling rig that blew out last August in the Timor Sea, leaked oil for more than two months and dumped millions of gallons of crude.

It’s a cautionary tale for Florida.

Supporters claim drilling is much safer today because of new technology, redundant safety procedures and government oversight. All true. But the rig in the Timor Sea was one of the most modern in the world, and the Sentinel found that the main problem behind the accident likely was: human error and bad judgment.

They trumped all the technology and safety procedures.

Supporters also say the rules in the Gulf of Mexico are even tighter than those in Australia, and that appears to be true. But human error has never been eliminated from any human endeavor, and bad judgment is always one decision away.

The Timor rig spilled millions of gallons of oil. Fortunately, it was 150 miles off the coast and winds and tides kept the oil away from land. Unfortunately, the Sentinel reported, the slick still covered 22,000 square miles and polluted a rich marine area marked by coral and sponge reefs, whales, fish and birds. (Last October, Indonesian fishermen reported finding dead and oil-contaminated fish in their fishing grounds.)

The article indicated that the spill wasn’t caused by poor or failed technology, or a natural event like the hurricanes that regularly damage Gulf rigs. In the end, it looks like simple human error. “I just made mistakes,” the rig’s senior supervisor testified in a government inquiry.

Similar “mistakes” in the Gulf of Mexico could put oil on a lot of Florida beaches.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.collinscenter.org/resource/resmgr/OilDrilling/oilHome.html

Report punches holes in offshore drilling claims

Thursday, April 01, 2010  
BRADENTON HERALD EDITORIAL | Little impact at gas pump, low reserves refute goals

Despite a report prepared for the Florida Senate that should cripple efforts to allow oil and gas drilling in state waters, the push will continue.

The report, prepared by the Collins Center for Public Policy in conjunction with the Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida, estimates offshore reserves at a level so paltry there would be no noticeable impact on pump prices or on American reliance on foreign oil.

The amount would only quench America’s thirst for oil for less than one week, the report states.

Grand forecasts of billions in state revenue would thus not materialize, rendering the primary arguments in favor of drilling obsolete.

The “drill, baby, drill” proponents will have a tough time discrediting the report. The Collins Center, a reputable think tank that researches state issues, and the 15-member nonpartisan Century Commission, appointed by the legislators to investigate economic and environmental issues, conducted the study at the behest of Senate President Jeff Atwater.

The resulting 40-page report, chock full of information gleaned from private and government sources, should withstand attack.

While the report also states the odds of accidental oil spills are low because of drilling technology advances, the threat remains. With such negligible reserves believed to be beneath state waters, the risk is not worth the return.

Story continues…

Tampa Bay: Oil drilling plan hits a nerve nationwide, locally

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/apr/01/na-drilling-plan-hits-a-nerve/news-breaking/

Oil drilling plan hits a nerve nationwide, locally
Staff photo by JIM FARQUHAR

Pamula Hewett from Tampa put chocolate syrup on herself at a drilling protest at the Vinoy Renaissance Hotel in St. Petersburg on Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENTBy WILLIAM MARCH
wmarch@tampatrib.com
Published: April 1, 2010
In a reversal of a long-standing ban on most offshore drilling, President Barack Obama is opening up areas of the East Coast – and possibly areas off the Gulf Coast of Florida – to oil and gas exploration and drilling.

Obama’s plan allows oil drilling on tracts 50 miles off the coast of Virginia and consideration of drilling for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard. At the same time, he is rejecting some drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

The plan drew objections Wednesday from environmentalists nationwide, and about 100 people protested outside a Newt Gingrich speech in St. Petersburg.

Its effect on Florida drew an immediate objection from Rep. Kathy Castor of Tampa, a Democrat and a strong Obama ally on most issues.

It drew guarded approval, however, from Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, a longtime opponent of oil or gas drilling near the Gulf Coast.

The plan’s proposals for Florida’s Gulf Coast apparently would require congressional action to alter the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.

Nelson said the Obama proposal comes with assurance that no activity will be allowed within 125 miles of the coast, closer than that law now allows.

Nelson said he has told the administration “if they drilled too close to Florida’s beaches they’d be risking the state’s economy and the environment. I believe this plan shows they heeded that concern.”

He said he still wants assurances from the Defense Department that the plan won’t interfere with military training in the eastern Gulf.

Castor remains “very concerned because the oil companies are never satisfied.”

“Right now we have a guarantee written into law that a 200-plus-mile line is written into place until 2022. If you agree that 125 is enough, it would be the camel’s nose under the tent. They’re not going to be satisfied.”

Rep. Vern Buchanan, a Sarasota Republican, considers Obama’s plan flawed. “It fails to open the Alaskan and Pacific coasts to drilling but allows oil rigs off the eastern Gulf of Mexico, threatening our natural resources and tourism-based economy,” he said.

The full effect of Obama’s announcement on waters off the Florida Gulf Coast wasn’t clear Wednesday.

First, a map released by the Department of the Interior appeared to conflict in some ways with assurances Nelson’s office said he had been given about a 125-mile buffer off the west coast. The areas suggested to be opened come much closer than that to the Florida Keys.

“When they met with us they said 125 miles from all points, and that’s what we’re going to hold them to,” said Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin. The discrepancy “could be a distortion in their drawing.”

Obama spokesman Bill Burton didn’t give a direct answer when asked by reporters whether the administration will ask for a lifting of the moratorium that currently prevents oil and gas exploration some 230 miles off Florida.

Burton also denied the proposal is a change in the position Obama took on the issue during his campaign.

“Nothing has changed,” he said. “What you see here today is a fulfillment of what the president said he was going to do.”

In fact, it appears to differ sharply from a campaign speech Obama gave in Jacksonville in June 2008, saying, “Offshore drilling would not lower gas prices today. It would not lower gas prices tomorrow. It would not lower gas prices this year. It would not lower gas prices five years from now.”

He said more drilling “would only worsen our addiction to oil” and put off investments in clean, renewable energy.”

Obama shifted that position, however, endorsing a proposal that could have opened up areas 50 miles from the Florida coast.

Michael Brune, executive director of the national Sierra Club, singled out Gulf drilling in a statement Wednesday reacting to the Obama proposal.

He said drilling off Florida “would substantially increase the chance of oil spills damaging the Everglades, the Florida Keys, fragile coral reefs and Florida’s beaches” and jeopardize the coastal tourism industry.

Obama, speaking at Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington on Wednesday, said, “This is not a decision that I’ve made lightly.” He addressed the expected outcry from disappointed environmentalists by saying he had studied the issue for more than a year and concluded it was the right call given the nation’s voracious thirst for energy and the need to produce jobs and keep American businesses competitive.
Obama made no secret of the fact that one factor in his decision is attracting GOP support for a climate change bill that has languished in Congress.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. Reporters Jackie Barron and Peter Bernard contributed to this report. Reporter William March can be reached at (813) 259-7761.

Opposing view: No need to drill offshore”: USA Today OpEd

USAToday, Op-Ed, “Opposing view: No need to drill offshore”

April 2, 2010

By Frances Beinecke
 

It’s risky, adds little supply, and the nation has several better options.

Everyone can agree we need a stronger, safer energy future for our country. The question is, how do we get there? I believe the answer is a comprehensive clean energy and climate strategy that takes advantage of solutions that hold the greatest potential to put us on a clean and domestic energy path.

And simply put, more offshore drilling moves us off this path.

There’s no need to jeopardize the 2 million jobs and the $128 billion annual economy that depend on ocean resources when drilling will do little to relieve America’s oil addiction. According to the Department of Energy, new drilling won’t significantly impact domestic crude oil and natural gas production before 2030. And the price of gasoline is set by the global marketplace, so it won’t impact prices at the pump either.

There are better ways to fuel our cars and trucks – available now – that will protect the ocean economy, create jobs and help America compete in the global clean energy market.

The new clean car standards President Obama announced this week are a real solution, saving Americans billions of dollars and 1.8 billion barrels of oil.

If we want to boost our domestic supply, we should focus on the untapped resource of enhanced oil recovery. Abandoned oil in existing wells can supply more than 10 times the oil as offshore drilling over the same period. Yet that’s left on the table.

And drilling off our coasts still poses grave risks. Despite technological advances, a blowout last year from a state-of-the art Australian facility took 10 weeks to bring under control and spread oil over 20,000 square miles. Recent hurricanes have destroyed oil platforms, tanks and pipelines throughout the Gulf of Mexico and released more than 1 million gallons of crude oil and other petroleum products. Hurricanes are an annual threat to our East Coast, making hurricane-related accidents inevitable.

I have worked more than 30 years to put sound oceans policies in place, and I know offshore drilling will not move America forward. We need to pay attention to real solutions: cleaner cars, better use of existing oil fields, and utilizing our coasts for clean renewable energy, such as offshore wind. That means comprehensive clean energy legislation with smart solutions for our energy and climate needs.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-helvarg1-2010apr01,0,734731.story
Los Angeles Times
OPINION
Oil drilling — a nasty national habit
It’s like advocating a healthy diet based on fast food, speed and low-tar cigarettes.

By David Helvarg
April 1, 2010
President Obama’s decision to have Interior Secretary Ken Salazar open vast new areas of federal ocean waters to offshore oil drilling is no surprise. In his State of the Union address, the president explained that his vision for a clean energy future included offshore drilling, nuclear power and clean coal. Unfortunately, that’s like advocating a healthy diet based on fast-food snacking, amphetamines and low-tar cigarettes.

If the arguments you hear in the coming days for expanded drilling sound familiar, it’s because they’ve been repeated for generations. We’ve been hearing promises about safer drilling technologies since before Union Oil began drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel. And if you don’t remember what happened that time, you should. Soon after the wells were bored, one of them blew out in January 1969, causing a massive oil slick that slimed beaches and killed birds, fish and marine mammals. The resulting catastrophe helped spark the modern environmental movement.

The president has promised no new drilling off the West Coast, and it’s no wonder. Opposition was unified and vociferous during Salazar’s public hearing on offshore energy development in San Francisco in April 2009. More than 500 people — including Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Gov. Ted Kulongoski of Oregon, California’s lieutenant governor and four House members — testified and rallied for clean energy and against any new oil drilling.

Boxer noted that the coast was a treasure and a huge economic asset “just as is,” generating $24 billion a year and 390,000 jobs.

Still, in the new Department of Interior announcement, one can hear echoes of President Reagan’s Interior secretary, Don Hodel, who warned us in the 1980s that if we didn’t expand offshore drilling, we’d be “putting ourselves at the tender mercies of OPEC.”

We did expand offshore drilling then, not off the stunning redwood coastline of Mendocino, Calif., as Hodel wanted, but where the oil industry knew most of the oil and gas actually was and is: in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. We even created a royalty moratorium for the oil companies that went after those huge deep-water fields.

But offshore drilling has done little to wean us from Middle Eastern oil. And with less than 5% of our domestic oil located offshore, more ocean drilling won’t help now either.

The only real way to quit relying on foreign oil is to wean ourselves from oil, and that’s something our leaders are unlikely to fully embrace until we’ve tapped that last reserve of sweet crude.

Nor is it likely that oil-friendly politicians in Louisiana, Alaska and Virginia, where new drilling will take place under the Obama plan, are going to embrace administration-backed climate legislation that recognizes drilling as a temporary bridge to a post-fossil-fuel world.

The only real difference in the drilling debate from 30 years ago is that back then the issue was energy versus marine pollution. Today we know it’s even more urgent. Oil, used as directed, overheats the planet.

Plus, any new platform drilled is a structural commitment to at least 30 more years of fossil fuel extraction — assuming it’s not taken out by a big storm like the jack-up rig I saw washed onto the beach at Alabama’s Dauphin Island after Hurricane Katrina.

I’ve visited offshore oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel and the Gulf of Mexico and was impressed by the oil patch workers I met there. The innovative technologies they use for extracting ever more inaccessible reserves of oil and gas are also impressive.

But now we need to direct that can-do spirit of innovation to large-scale carbon-free energy systems, including photovoltaics, wind turbines, biomass, hydrogen fuel cells and marine tidal, wave, current and thermal energy. The difficulties of producing energy with those technologies will make today’s drilling challenges seem simple.
I respect the roughnecks and roustabouts I’ve met who continue to practice a dangerous and challenging craft, and the contribution they’ve made to our nation’s maritime history. But I believe it’s time for them to exit the energy stage. Apparently the president does not. 

David Helvarg is president of the Blue Frontier Campaign ( www.bluefront.org), a marine conservation group. His new book, “Saved by the Sea — A Love Story with Fish,” will be published in May by St. Martin’s Press.

Special thanks to Richard Charter