There's a lot of talk about offshore drilling, but not very much analysis about the benefits and costs. The McCain/Palin campaign says "Drill, baby, drill!" From a political perspective it's a great thing to do, because McCain can pound on the podium and say "Drill here, pay less at the pump" and it gets people all wound up and brings out the vote. But getting out the vote and doing something useful are not always the same thing. Similarly, the Democrats in Congress claimed recently that the oil and gas companies already hold the leases to huge, productive tracts that they simply have not yet developed. This too is a great political claim, but it's hard to find real data to see if the claim is valid. It may be true, but the lack of hard data regarding estimated reserves makes it difficult to assess. Usually reality falls somewhere in between the extremes of broad politically based claims.
We need a real discussion on offshore drilling, not a war of slogans and knee-jerk reactions. The discussion typically takes the form of weighing the environmental costs against the economic benefits of lifting the offshore oil ban.
Conservation: The typical one-liner says that oil exploration and environmental groups can never get along. That makes offshore drilling a show stopper for many. It turns out not to be an absolute truth. In Santa Barbara, CA, an environmentalist group called Goo! negotiated with the Plains Exploration and Production Company to re-open offshore oil fields previously closed down. This does not mean that the entire community is on board with the project, as this Newsweek article points out.
Oil and gas drilling technology is clearly improving. With public and regulatory support, that technology can be used to provide cleaner recovery and transport. A case can be made that in the course of normal operations, oil recovery is quite clean. For example, this 1995 NASA study claims that offshore drilling adds 15 million gallons of oil to the oceans every year, but this is a much smaller source than from natural seepage (62 million), routine ship maintenance (137 million), and poor usage by us landlubbers (363 million). What about abnormal events? Some claim there was no oil rig damage and no oil spillage due to Katrina, but don't believe them! Some 7-9 million gallons from onshore sources and an additional 741,000 gallons from offshore sources were spilled. The numbers for Gustav and Ike are not in yet. Clearly, oil rigs were lost (at least 49 for Ike). Assuming production is shut down prior to the storm, the loss of rigs is an economic issue for the oil/gas companies, but does not have to be a strong environmental issue. I'm not convinced that offshore drilling is environmentally safe in general, but it seems sensible to allow the discussion on a case by case basis.
Effects of Increased Production: It's hard to find numbers estimating how much additional oil and gas could be extracted via offshore drilling. The US Energy Information Administration claimed in 2007 that lifting the offshore drilling ban would increase overall production by about 200,000 barrels per day. That's a trivial amount. It's about 10% of US production, but only about 0.25% of world production. Consider that Saudi Arabia alone promised to increase oil production by 500,000 barrels per day earlier this year, and the global oil market didn't move an inch. Some people put forward a "Every little bit helps!" argument, but it's a non-argument. If I paid you a dollar for a day's hard labor and rationalized it by saying "Hey, every little bit helps!" you still wouldn't take the job. You would use your time and energy in more productive areas. Similarly, this may be a case where utilizing the time and energy that is needed to explore and develop new offshore oil fields may be better used in more productive areas, such as studying alternative energy sources.
I think we can identify a few things we can agree on. One is that environmental effects of drilling are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, rather than blanket statements about certain doom or certain success. Another is that there is no strong case for completely lifting the ban, based on production estimates. New information or new technology could change both of the previous statements and we should be open to that. Lastly, reality-based analysis will have no impact on the political argument. Those that believe they will achieve political advantage by advocating or opposing offshore drilling will advocate or oppose regardless of real world results. And because of this last, it is incumbent on us to be informed so that we can allow reality to shape that political advantage.
We need a real discussion on offshore drilling, not a war of slogans and knee-jerk reactions. The discussion typically takes the form of weighing the environmental costs against the economic benefits of lifting the offshore oil ban.
Conservation: The typical one-liner says that oil exploration and environmental groups can never get along. That makes offshore drilling a show stopper for many. It turns out not to be an absolute truth. In Santa Barbara, CA, an environmentalist group called Goo! negotiated with the Plains Exploration and Production Company to re-open offshore oil fields previously closed down. This does not mean that the entire community is on board with the project, as this Newsweek article points out.
Oil and gas drilling technology is clearly improving. With public and regulatory support, that technology can be used to provide cleaner recovery and transport. A case can be made that in the course of normal operations, oil recovery is quite clean. For example, this 1995 NASA study claims that offshore drilling adds 15 million gallons of oil to the oceans every year, but this is a much smaller source than from natural seepage (62 million), routine ship maintenance (137 million), and poor usage by us landlubbers (363 million). What about abnormal events? Some claim there was no oil rig damage and no oil spillage due to Katrina, but don't believe them! Some 7-9 million gallons from onshore sources and an additional 741,000 gallons from offshore sources were spilled. The numbers for Gustav and Ike are not in yet. Clearly, oil rigs were lost (at least 49 for Ike). Assuming production is shut down prior to the storm, the loss of rigs is an economic issue for the oil/gas companies, but does not have to be a strong environmental issue. I'm not convinced that offshore drilling is environmentally safe in general, but it seems sensible to allow the discussion on a case by case basis.
Effects of Increased Production: It's hard to find numbers estimating how much additional oil and gas could be extracted via offshore drilling. The US Energy Information Administration claimed in 2007 that lifting the offshore drilling ban would increase overall production by about 200,000 barrels per day. That's a trivial amount. It's about 10% of US production, but only about 0.25% of world production. Consider that Saudi Arabia alone promised to increase oil production by 500,000 barrels per day earlier this year, and the global oil market didn't move an inch. Some people put forward a "Every little bit helps!" argument, but it's a non-argument. If I paid you a dollar for a day's hard labor and rationalized it by saying "Hey, every little bit helps!" you still wouldn't take the job. You would use your time and energy in more productive areas. Similarly, this may be a case where utilizing the time and energy that is needed to explore and develop new offshore oil fields may be better used in more productive areas, such as studying alternative energy sources.
I think we can identify a few things we can agree on. One is that environmental effects of drilling are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, rather than blanket statements about certain doom or certain success. Another is that there is no strong case for completely lifting the ban, based on production estimates. New information or new technology could change both of the previous statements and we should be open to that. Lastly, reality-based analysis will have no impact on the political argument. Those that believe they will achieve political advantage by advocating or opposing offshore drilling will advocate or oppose regardless of real world results. And because of this last, it is incumbent on us to be informed so that we can allow reality to shape that political advantage.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment