Offshore Oil Drilling and the Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf

[lindab]

I think that the west coast of Florida and south Florida are greatly dependent on their lovely white sand or clean shell sand beaches for tourist revenue.  DEP 2003 figures show that 70% of Florida's population lives in the coastal areas.  Almost 80% of state payroll is earned from those coastal areas. In terms of visitation of beaches by tourists, the northwest and southwest beaches see about 85% of their tourists, northeast and southeast lesser amounts.

http://www.floridadep.org/beaches/publications/pdf/phase2.pdf

Doc. K, on this coast, the distance from shore would be apx 3 miles.

Mississippi has oil and gas wells mostly in the northern part of the state.

[stjr]

Still wondering, if they do permit rigs, which I do not support at present, why do they need to be within a visibile distance of the shore?  Oil companies tout horizontal drilling all the time in their PR as a way to have fewer rigs and more flexibility in their locations.  If this is applied, why are proponents not further offshore?  Can the Feds trump the State and block this?

[Doctor_K]

Maybe because it's cheaper to build rigs in shallower water than deeper water?

[stjr]

That won't fly with me.  Oil is way too profitable for that to make much of a difference.  They have rigs in the deeps of the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere that are much further from shore and in much deeper water and the oil companies hardly blink an eye.  By the way, the savings to oil companies for inshore rigs is a cost to tourism and property values (and to the State in lower sales and property tax revenues).  If the oil companies have any hope of making this work, they need to offer to do it in a QUALITY manner that meets the needs of the many, not just the few.  The cost of a few more miles is pocket change in this business. 

[Sigma]

Mississippi has oil and gas wells mostly in the northern part of the state.

Mississippi has oil and gas wells alongside the MS River as well.

[vicupstate]

The problem is people who actually have the nerve to advocate for oil drilling for American oil reserves get painted unfairly as anti green or alternative energy.  It simply is not true.  I... and everbody I know fully and heartily endorse research, development, and deployment of ALL energy sources and modes of transportation.  I / we understand however that these new systems simply cannot and do not compete YET with traditional energy sources.  The traditional resources MUST continue to be exploited until such time as the alternatives become a reliable AND economical replacement.

Conserve and Go green... I am behind it 100%.

In the meantime... Keep drilling.

Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

I would not visit a beach where I can visibly see an oil rig, or in any way would know (tar in the sand, etc.) that one is nearby.   

[BridgeTroll]

So only Expensive energy is acceptable?  I thought that was where some of this was drifting...

[Doctor_K]

I would not visit a beach where I can visibly see an oil rig, or in any way would know (tar in the sand, etc.) that one is nearby.  

Why not?  Because you can see it?

[Clem1029]

Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

Wow...thank you for summing up one of the problems with the environmental movement so succinctly...not "more" energy, not "cheaper" energy, but (significantly) more expensive energy...and if you can't afford it, well, tough crap.

I'd say "unbelievable," but it's sadly completely believable since it's been happening for years.

[Doctor_K]

And so defeatist, too.  "There will never be a genuine alternative."  Living in the 21st century with any kind of power is going to be a luxury that only the (evil) rich can afford because the energy is so expensive.  Everyone else will be partying like it's 1799. 

All in the name of saving the planet.  So progressive-thinking!

[vicupstate]

I would not visit a beach where I can visibly see an oil rig, or in any way would know (tar in the sand, etc.) that one is nearby.  

Why not?  Because you can see it?

I go to the beach to relax and get a pleasant change of scenery.  That 'scenery' does not include an industrial corridor.   I guess if every beach had an oil rig (i.e. a conservative's wet dream) then I guess I wouldn't have a choice, but until then, I'll go to the beaches that still look natural.         

[BridgeTroll]

(i.e. a conservative's wet dream)

So where does this come from?  I dislike oil rigs as much as you.  But they have to go somewhere...  You sound a bit like Ted Kennedy and the Nantucket windmills... The Kennedy's did not want to see those either...

[vicupstate]

Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

Wow...thank you for summing up one of the problems with the environmental movement so succinctly...not "more" energy, not "cheaper" energy, but (significantly) more expensive energy...and if you can't afford it, well, tough crap.

I'd say "unbelievable," but it's sadly completely believable since it's been happening for years.

Those alternatives will never compete with oil, while oil is cheap.  Oil will remain cheap if we allow even the most pristine lands and waters to be 'drilled'.  Therefore, there will never be a genuine alternative.  Therefore, if global warming is indeed happening, it will continue to happen.

Wow...thank you for summing up one of the problems with the environmental movement so succinctly...not "more" energy, not "cheaper" energy, but (significantly) more expensive energy...and if you can't afford it, well, tough crap.

I'd say "unbelievable," but it's sadly completely believable since it's been happening for years.

What is sad is that you don't see the end result of your 'live for the day', half-baked choice to reject what the environmentalists are saying.     

Alternatives must be found to Oil because: 1) too many of the people that we have to buy it from don't like us, and that compromises our security and safety, and 2) because it's use pollutes the planet. 

Therefore, it is IMPERITIVE that alternatives be found, and the sooner the better.  However, if we allow oil to continue to be drilled anywhere that it exists, the low cost of oil will eliminate the potential profit in developing alternatives. Therefore, no alternatives will be developed.  Therefore, we will CONTINUE to be at the mercy of the Middle East and CONTINUE to pollute.  This cycle will not end as long as we continue to open new areas to oil drilling, even the beautiful beaches of FL or the wilderness of Alaska.      

If we as a society determine that FL and Alaska SHOULD be protected (which they should be just because they DESERVE to be), then the economics of supply and demand will drive the development of the alternatives energy sources. The alternatives WILL become cheaper once the profit motive creates suppliers that fill the demand.  It is no different than Plasma TVs or Granite countertops.  As more people bought them, new suppliers arose and brought down the cost.  But that comes later, not at the outset. 

Either we continue down the same path we have since the '70's and continue our Oil dependence or we say some areas are off limits, and if that means the cost of oil is higher, then that will hasten the development of alternatives, which in time will settle at their true equilibrium price. 

Under my scenario, in 20 years, we still have pristine Alaska wilderness and FL beaches, we aren't polluting the planet any longer, we aren't dependent on foreign oil, and we have multiple energy choices which we keep prices in check.

Under your scenario, in 20 years , there will be more pollution, more ruined wildernesses, more ruined beaches, we will still be dependent on foreign oil with no alternatives.

Take your pick.   

[vicupstate]

W

(i.e. a conservative's wet dream)

So where does this come from?  I dislike oil rigs as much as you.  But they have to go somewhere...  You sound a bit like Ted Kennedy and the Nantucket windmills... The Kennedy's did not want to see those either...

We have gotten by without oil rigs within sight of FL beaches so far, we can continue to do so. FL doesn't have to whore itself out for 1.6 billion a year.   

[Clem1029]

What is sad is that you don't see the end result of your 'live for the day', half-baked choice to reject what the environmentalists are saying.     

Alternatives must be found to Oil because: 1) too many of the people that we have to buy it from don't like us, and that compromises our security and safety, and 2) because it's use pollutes the planet.

Therefore, it is IMPERITIVE that alternatives be found, and the sooner the better.  However, if we allow oil to continue to be drilled anywhere that it exists, the low cost of oil will eliminate the potential profit in developing alternatives. Therefore, no alternatives will be developed.  Therefore, we will CONTINUE to be at the mercy of the Middle East and CONTINUE to pollute.  This cycle will not end as long as we continue to open new areas to oil drilling, even the beautiful beaches of FL or the wilderness of Alaska.     

If we as a society determine that FL and Alaska SHOULD be protected (which they should be just because they DESERVE to be), then the economics of supply and demand will drive the development of the alternatives energy sources. The alternatives WILL become cheaper once the profit motive creates suppliers that fill the demand.  It is no different than Plasma TVs or Granite countertops.  As more people bought them, new suppliers arose and brought down the cost.  But that comes later, not at the outset.

Either we continue down the same path we have since the '70's and continue our Oil dependence or we say some areas are off limits, and if that means the cost of oil is higher, then that will hasten the development of alternatives, which in time will settle at their true equilibrium price.

No, what is really sad is that you actually, you know, believe all of this. Your economic model here is so far off to be laughable. Your contention can be boiled down to "if we can make efficient energy production so incredibly expensive, it'll force us to turn to inefficient energy production to "save" money." Listen, alternatives are nice and all, but unless we're ready to do something on a scale like, say, cover the entire desert southwest in PVs, or put windmills on every square inch of every coast line, alternative energy sources CAN NOT provide the demand. So your answer makes it more expensive to pay for the energy demand, in one of the more serious economic crises we've seen, meaning MORE of our money goes to pay for energy outside of our country, and less is able to stay here and actually develop efficient alternatives.

There's a reason why we're not powered by non-carbon energy sources as it is...there's no economically viable alternative. I don't think you get that people like BT (not to speak for you, of course) and I are part of the pent up demand that says, the MINUTE we have a non-oil based energy source that is economically viable to provide our energy demands, then we switch to that faster than you can sneeze. Heck...I'd even go so far as to say put a 10% premium on that...if it would only cost me on average a 10% increase in my energy bills for clean, non-carbon based energy, then it's a no brainer. But IT. DOESN'T. EXIST. The closest you get is nuclear, and the environmental movement has been so anti-nuclear it's not even funny (not to mention the NIMBYism associated with nuclear). Even if tomorrow such a discovery is made, the infrastructure doesn't exist to distribute the energy. So the "10 years" theory is just as applicable in reverse...it would take at least 10 years for an alternative discovery TODAY to become viable.

Heck, I'll even make things easy for you - how about a 5 to 10 cent per gallon tax on all oil drilled off the shore in in ANWR to go directly to alternative energy research? Gas will be way cheaper than it is now, so the 10 cents won't matter all that much. Win win - we get cheaper energy, and instead of wasting the money to foreign countries, we put it to research that has the potential to help.

You don't want to see rigs off the coasts. People don't want to see windmills nearby. Others are terrified of their safety near nuclear plants. So while all you NIMBYs are pissing in the wind at each other, hardworking folks like myself get screwed in our energy payments.

When strident environmentalists make it "either or" you lose the debate because there's this pesky thing called reality not on your side. "Both/And" is the only way to answer the problem.