Shouldn’t we make a distinction between offshore drilling and deepwater drilling? I mean, ideally, we wouldn’t do either. But it’s the deepwater aspect of this disaster that is preventing us from capping the well. In any case, it’s rather remarkable that 40% of the people in this country still support ‘offshore drilling.’ I know we have to do some of it, but I wouldn’t tell a pollster I favor it.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Presumably you mean we “have to do some of it” in a political sense. We could stop all of it, or at least stop new drilling, and still live better than the vast majority of the world population. But that would require wealth redistribution, and this is America.
Almost all new offshore drilling is deepwater because the easy sites are exhausted or because people don’t want drilling in sight of Miami Beach or Cape Cod or Santa Cruz. It’s easier to get approval for sites 50 miles out-of-sight than for where the cute things live. Until the inevitable happens.
Whether you’re doing deep or shallow drilling, you still have the inevitable spills from transporting and storing the oil. Just because the Gulf blowout is worse than the Exxon Valdez doesn’t mean Exxon Valdez is OK, or better.
Doesn’t offshore drilling supply something like 40% of our domestic consumption of oil and gas? I don’t see how we can just stop drilling completely without being prepared to make up the difference somehow, and I’m not just talking about price.
Also, I know that most new offshore drilling is in pretty deep water, but I don’t know how deep. Was the Horizon well above or below average?
If we were literally to run out of all natural resources of oil in the entire world, would the populations of the Earth all perish? Of course not. Within hours or days at most, alternative sources would be utilized.
There are a lot of places that don’t have consistent electricity. And you know what? You can’t run a hospital that way. You can run a factory that way. And people do perish because of a lack of access to adequate health care. A heat wave in Chicago killed hundreds of people a few years back because they didn’t have air conditioning. And poor economies kill people every day. So, yeah, we’d survive as a species, but a lot of people would die if we woke tomorrow and had no energy sources to keep the lights on.
http://www.energyvortex.com/pages/headlinedetails.cfm?id=254&archive=1
and the Blackhawks definitely are using self renewing energy tonight! 2-0 with shots on goal 11-5 š
What do heatwave-related deaths got to do with the availability of petroleum? I lived in Chicago in the ’90’s – an era, you may remember, of cheap, plentiful gasoline. Still had a dozen or so heatwave-related deaths every summer.
Lack of AC has more to do with 1)the price of electrical energy & 2)people living with both infirmity & poverty.
You want to help those people?
Provide 1)Domestic jobs, 2)Build Wind, solar & geo-thermal electrical generation & a national grid to distribute it.
Don’t argue for more offshore drilling or nuclear.
Neither are viable.
clinics in some non-electrified areas in Africa are going solar – much more efficient than waiting for an entire grid.
solar for households
need for electricity in rural areas is one impetus for developing renewable. “impetus” is the word I’m practicing today, must use it 3 times (just kidding)
How do you define tomorrow? We will wake very soon with no energy sources. Petroleum is just a stopgap, as is nuclear. Are you saying that Americans are incapable of surviving unless they pig up the oil at a rate many times higher than even the rest of the “developed” world? That we are such spoiled little lapdogs that we’ve lost the ability to survive without our golden kibble? How pathetic.
It may amaze people, but there are hospitals and factories in places without electrical grids. Heck, there were factories and hospitals before electricity. It’s really that we don’t want to be inconvenience or limited in our consumption.
Humans can deal. And if we can’t we should consider NOT LIVING where we cannot self-sustain. Seems dumb to have to say something so obvious, but our whole system seems to have been set up in complete denial of basic realities like you need water and food to live and if you don’t have enough, you’ll have to steal it (and accept deaths via blowback) or die off a bit of your population. Our preference is for the former with an occasional healthy helping of the latter. Unless you move to sustainable population concentrations, this vicious cycle cannot end. Not cool.
This goes for both energy AND water:
While the Big Puddle is a clear and present crisis, I actually think that Oil-Dependency debate, while a real issue, is a distraction from the really BIG DEAL which is water privatization and theft from the developing world directly and via food export (water leaving stored in foodstuffs).
A must see: http://www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com/
—————
oh, and a real sign photographed at a BP station by a friend:
The Deepwater Horizon was above average … but I don’t know how much deeper the water gets in the Gulf of Mexico
The numbers say that Federal offshore represents about 30% of domestic oil production. Of that, about 80% of the crude (which is different from liquids, condensates, etc.) comes from depths greater than 200m. As a percentage of total oil consumption, deepwater production supplies about 4-5%.
Another thing: even if there is a difference, do we really know how prepared the oil companies are for an uncontrolled blowout in shallow water? They say they are, but should we trust them at this point? Better for them to prove it before drilling is allowed again.
If 24% (80% of 30%) of production is deepwater drilling and that equals 4% to 5% of consumption, that implies (actually it calculates) that 80% to 84% of our consumption is imported. Wow! I knew it was bad, but I didn’t realize it was that bad. Back in the odd-even gas shortage days, which I remember well, it was “only” about 50%. That’s progress, Republican style.
The simple fact that we’re running out of usable oil is one thing you can’t blame the Reps for. It’s just a reality. The Reps certainly tried their best to keep the flow going.
It’s not quite that bad. I think I mixed 2009 and 2007 numbers. From the numbers here, it looks like imports supplied 66% of consumption in 2007 and 2008, and only (!) 63% in 2009. 5.7% of consumption was supplied by deepwater crude in 2007.
If you have some time, I recommend poking around the EIA website. It’s very informative (except their notoriously biased supply forecasts).
More than 40% voted for Bush the second time and for the scary duo of McCain/Palin in 2008 so I’m frankly surprised the number isn’t higher. We aren’t the brightest bunch – materialistic to the point of needing our plastic toys 24/7 yes but bright? Not so much.
I’m very happy to see only 40% support it. We are just plain ignorant if we really believe that offshore drilling at any depth is necessary. It’s obviously insanely dangerous to the environment in deep water and so ugly ruining the natural beauty of shoreline and horizon if offshore. I’m still in shock there are already 3,000 rigs in the Gulf.
I’m aghast that fundamental research and testing of repair techniques was not done before drilling at these extreme depths. Likewise that a mere half million dollar valve was skipped due to cost concerns on this very expensive project and that the federal government granted a waiver.
I’m generally pro-technology and don’t object to deepwater drilling per se, but the technology has to be tested and proven before taking the environmental chance. That BP would take the chance for profit was a given. That the US government which should be acting in the best interests of all the people was asleep at the switch is repugnant. Even if one believes that the private sector is always more efficient than the public, one would have to concede that federal regulators should have put safety before profit and not acted in a “public be damned” “drill baby drill” manner. This is what should be investigated, not BP’s pursuit of profit, which, as I said, is a given.
There’s no arguing that the government should have done better at regulation, but that doesn’t prove that they could have prevented this. Widespread use of technology whose failure can cause enormous harm will eventually cause enormous harm sooner or later. Whether it’s oil drilling and transport, nuclear power, or manned spaceflight, the accident will happen because nothing is ever perfect. We need to grow up and face the inevitable consequences of what we choose.
Was something like 160-200 ft (shallow enough to dive) and they couldn’t stop it for months. Even onshore blow outs are dirty, dangerous business.
As to the polling, seems like the typical American desire to change the channel.
Horrible environmental result? Externalize the costs to somewhere else. Give up my SUV? Fuck you.
A far more stringent regulatory and operational environment is a no brainer.
You might be interested in this:
Canada takes world’s first step in protecting ocean floor
“It goes without saying there will never be any offshore oil drilling in the conservation zones, [Environment Minister Jim] Prentice said.”
http://www.vancouversun.com/Canada+takes+world+first+step+protecting+ocean+floor/3120517/story.html
Should a distinction be made between offshore drilling and deepwater drilling? Yes, of course. And the regulations governing them should be different as well.
But it’s not the semantics that has 40% of the public supporting “offshore drilling”. It’s the notion that if we drill here, we don’t have to drill in the Middle East. And it’s a 40% that probably has a geographical bias to it. For folks in Alaska, Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana, and parts of the original oil patch, it’s a matter of jobs. Against that, opposition of offshore drilling (the 60%) is likely higher the closer the person is to a beach or coastline that might be endangered; this is “not in my backyard” sentiment. The converse of this are those folks in the “heartland” away from coasts whose primary interest is cheaper gasoline — rural areas with large farms, areas that already are majority Republican.
Until we have alternatives to gasoline-powered automobiles and coal- and natural-gas-fired electrical generation plants, there is not going to be movement away from fossil fuels. And fossil fuels are heavily subsidized by state governments and the federal government.
Meanwhile you have power companies that own a lot of timberland wanting to switch to wood-fired generation as a means to get state-sponsored “green energy” funds.
Because of policy inertia in the public and private sectors, the need for oil becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And distributed, networked self-generation is hamstrung because of building codes and unfavorable rates for sell-back to existing utilities.
Not really. I mean there is a distinction but shallow-water drilling is still pretty deep in the abstract and also closer to the shore, which means spills can menace the coastline much more quickly. It’s not like one is safer and I’ve seen arguments that the depth of the water is something of a read herring. The realm problem is that the oil is simply gushing out too strongly to reduce absent the relief well(s) which could not in fact be built much faster even if they were for shallow waters.