Offshore Oil Drilling and the Oil Rig Disaster in the Gulf

[Doctor_K]

<Salutes Clem>

[Sigma]

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=325379250231972

Will California Shuck Corn Ethanol?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, April 23, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Energy Policy: California regulators are ready to conclude that corn ethanol cannot help the state fight global warming. It seems they've discovered putting food in our cars would destroy the earth in order to save it.

California regulators have apparently discovered it ain't easy being green. The California Air Resources Board began two days of hearings in Sacramento on Thursday on a proposed Low Carbon Fuel Standard which considers the carbon intensity of fuels during a given fuel's entire life cycle.

The California Environmental Protection Agency apparently has concluded that corn ethanol would not help the state implement Executive Order S-1-07. The order, signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Jan. 18, 2007, mandated a 10% reduction in the carbon intensity of the state's fuels by 2020. Fuels deemed to have low carbon intensity earn credits toward that goal.

With 20-20 hindsight, the California EPA, by dropping ethanol for now as a cure-all for climate change, is doing the right thing for the wrong reason. "Ethanol is a good fuel, but how it is produced is problematic," Dimitri Stanich, public information officer for the California EPA, said in an interview with World Net Daily. "The corn ethanol industry has to figure out another way to process corn into ethanol that is not so corn-intensive."

California could build more nuclear power plants, but never mind. Ethanol is in fact not a good fuel. According to the Hoover Institution's Henry Miller and Prof. Colin Carter of the University of California at Davis, "ethanol yields about 30% less energy per gallon of gasoline, so miles per gallon in internal combustion engines drop significantly."

It generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it. It takes about 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. Each acre of corn requires about 130 pounds of nitrogen and 55 pounds of phosphorous. Increased acreage means increased agricultural runoff, which is creating aquatic "dead zones" in our rivers, bays and coastal areas.

The California EPA now opposes corn ethanol in part because of the environmental damage it says growing the corn does. "Converting land that is now a 'carbon sink' to farmland producing ethanol," says Stanich, "also defeats the purpose of the regulations, because land now absorbing carbon dioxide would be cleared to produce corn."

Clearing land for biofuels is indeed a worldwide problem. A report by the Paris-based International Council for Science says that the production of biofuels has aggravated, rather than ameliorated, global warming. It releases nitrous oxide as well as CO2, which is said to trap heat at a rate 300 times more than an equivalent amount of CO2.

Increased mandated use of the corn-based fuel additive, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will raise the cost of food programs for the needy by $900 million for the current budget year ending Sept. 30. Ethanol and its subsidies amount to a hidden and nefarious tax on food.

"Producing ethanol for use in motor fuels increases the demand for corn, which ultimately raises the prices that consumers pay for a wide variety of foods at the grocery store, ranging from corn-syrup sweeteners in soft drinks to meat, dairy and poultry products," says the CBO. Higher use of ethanol accounted for up to 15% of the rise in food prices between April 2007 and April 2008.

The California EPA's conclusion does not change the mandated reduction in carbon emissions in the state. It does not slow down the headlong rush into an economic abyss by restraining economic growth in the name of achieving phantom climate gains.

But it should remind us that we have other, better means of reducing emissions, such as increased use of nuclear power, that do not raise food prices or abuse the earth while reducing emissions and providing electricity for economic growth, job creation and those electric clown cars the greenies want to cram us into.

[lindab]

Exon is predicting a 22% decline in the use of petroleum based fuels in the next 30 years. This year the demand for all petroleum-based transportation fuels -- gasoline, diesel and jet fuel -- fell 7.1%.
Many oil companies are shutting down refineries and some are switching to investments in biofuels and battery technology. Federal highway gas taxes fell by 3% last year according to DOT and an 8 billion dollar hole has opened up in the Highway Trust fund as Americans use less gas.

Last year 7% of what went into fuel tanks in America was plant based fuels and it is expected to double in the next decade.

The big demand for petroleum is in China which is growing it's automobile use, expected to triple in the same time Americans will reduce by an almost similar amount.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123957686061311925.html#project%3DPEAKGAS0903%26articleTabs%3Darticle

[vicupstate]

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.

It hasn't been "either or" it has been "ONLY" oil for 30 years, and we have only become MORE dependent on foreign oil in that time.  The 'OR', was ignored as the conservative presidents have encouraged an oil-only policy since 1980, especially since an oil man was president for 8 years.  Gutting tax credits for alternative energy research is just one example.   

Prices don't have to even go up on oil, if we simply reduce consumption in kind. 

I am open to additional drilling in some areas, but within 12 miles of shore is preposterous.  The oil royalities are a drop in the bucket, to the potential losses of sales taxes and other revenues from 1) spills and 2) visual pollution. 

The people that pay millions to live on the ocean/gulf don't do so to look at oil rigs.  It is laughable that anyone would support oil rigs that close, given FL's dependence on tourism and the intrinsic value of beachfront property.  You are playing russian roulette with the golden goose that supports your economy and your government.  That's okay, once the tourists stop coming, you can always start a state income tax.   

Alternative energies can't be implemented overnight, but if we don't start the process, it will still be 10 years out, 20 years from now.   We have already kicked the can forward for 30 years. 

A gas tax to fund alternatives sounds good to me.  Good luck getting Republicans to vote for it.  Fortunately, they are in the minority.                 

[BridgeTroll]

Sorry vic... but you are wrong all over the map and a true believer in bumper stickers.

The 'OR', was ignored as the conservative presidents have encouraged an oil-only policy since 1980

Feel free to include democrat presidents and congresses... I do.

I am open to additional drilling in some areas, but within 12 miles of shore is preposterous.

I would prefer we drill on the moon or the middle of the ocean... but apparently that is not where the oil is...

The people that pay millions to live on the ocean/gulf don't do so to look at oil rigs.

Or windmills if you happen to be a Kennedy...

That's okay, once the tourists stop coming, you can always start a state income tax.   

Seems quite a few are advocating that already...(lets see how attractive Florida is then...)

Alternative energies can't be implemented overnight

Precisely why we need to exploit the energy resources this country already has...

Good luck getting Republicans to vote for it

As many of us have said ad nauseum... we heartily endorse alternatives.  Frankly they should no longer be termed alternatives.  I would prefer "future energy sources".

The key here is "future"... we still live in the "now" and will for quite a long time.

[tufsu1]

Information from 1000 Friends of Florida

HB 1219

On another front, the surprise House amendment to allow offshore oil was attached to HB1219 and is expected to be adopted on the floor shortly and sent to the Senate. Please let your Senator know ASAP that this is a very bad idea (see the conservation community’s talking points below, and the attached map above which shows what we might expect if this bill passes), and ask him or her to vote "NO" on this bill.

What the bill does
Opens up oil and gas exploration 3-10 miles off Florida beaches and below the water’s surface as close as ONE MILE OFFSHORE.

Grants easements for pipelines, storage facilities and other infrastructure which will industrialize our coasts.

Creates an expedited timeline on which the Cabinet must make a determination on the best of the drilling proposals

Slants the decision against the public interest by requiring the Cabinet to make a case against any proposal (rather than the applicant making the case for it)

Exempts the process from the state’s competitive bidding rules.

Creates a compensation structure of low royalty fees, one-time application fees and in-kind payment options that favors the oil companies and sells our public trust resources cheaply.


Government in the Sunshine.
A decision of this magnitudeâ€"ending a decades-long ban on drilling in nearshore watersâ€"deserves ample legislative and public discussion.

Introducing this language through a late-filed amendment nine days before the end of Session is not the kind of Government in the Sunshine Floridians expect or deserve.


Potential for economic disaster
Tourism is responsible for 20% of Florida’s economy.
More than $800 million worth of commercial fish are caught annually in Florida waters and more than $5.6 billion is spent annually on recreational fishing expenditures.

Florida’s coastal economy generated almost $562B in 2006. (www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Florida_Phase_II_Report.pdf)

This coastal economy is dependent upon abundant, healthy natural resources and the pristine beaches tourists expect.

Our sustainable coastal economy is undermined whether we have big oil spills or regular, recurring leaks from the infrastructure necessary to support drilling.


Potential for environmental disaster
As a result of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, the US Coast Guard documented more than 9 million gallons (214,286 barrels) of oil were released (and this does not include the 5,000 so-called minor spills recorded). For comparison, the Exxon-Valdez spill was 240,000 barrels. http://www.uscg.mil/npfc/docs/PDFs/Reports/osltf_report_hurricanes.pdf

Spills don’t just occur during storms. In 2008, the US Coast Guard documented 1300 spills from rigs and 1300 spills from pipelines alone. They documented an additional 2400 spills from storage tanks.


Effects on global warming
We have alternatives to foreign oil: efficiency, mass transit and renewable fuels. A renewable portfolio and vehicle emissions standards would help us wean ourselves off of foreign oil…but they will be undercut by further committing ourselves to petroleum-based energy production.


Greenwashing: Florida Forever, beach restoration and conservation funding source
Suggestions that oil revenues could support Florida Forever and other conservation programs is a nothing more than greenwashing.

These concessions could not begin to offset the environmental impacts of drilling.

Further, this revenue source is neither reliable nor appropriate for bonding or for long-term programs like Florida Forever and beach restoration.


How much revenue will it really generate?
Estimates from the Mineral Management Service and Department of Interior look at deep water oil reserves in the Gulf, not necessarily those in nearshore Florida waters. No one knows how much oil might be near Florida’s coasts.

Accordingly, revenue estimates presented with this bill are speculative, based on a generous prediction of the oil that could be tapped.

[stjr]

Tufsu, you have my full support on this one.  Every time the legislature pulls these stunts, they, and we citizens, regret it.

They did it with the unitary corporate income tax (later repealed), advanced disposal fee (later repealed), and sales taxes on services (later repealed).  When will they ever learn that these "stroke of midnight" bills are prescriptions for disastrous decisions!

Instead of fixing education, they start this sideshow.  Who are they fooling?  What motivates them?  (we know - political contributions!).

Now, more than ever, our state elected officials need to be held accountable before they totally destroy Florida both environmentally and financially.  It's hard to believe they were elected to represent us!  I hope at the next election we start voting some of these characters out of office. 

[heights unknown]

the tourism aspect is pretty large...more so on the Gulf Coast (like Clearwater, Sarasota, and Naples) then here.

Answer this....how many people do you know that go to the beaches in Mississippi, Louisiana, or northern Texas?

More than you think...especially in the late spring, summer, and possibly early autumn months.

Heights Unknown

really...tourists from other states flock to their beaches...how come I've never seen any promotion/advertising other than for the casinos in Mississippi?

Just because there is no advertisements or promotions for people to go to those beaches or areas that have those beaches doesn't mean that people don't go to the beaches.  If the beaches are there, believe me, people will go during the warmer months. People even go to the beaches in New England during the warmer months.

Heights Unknown

[ChriswUfGator]

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.  

+1,000,000,000

[BridgeTroll]

FL doesn't have to whore itself out for 1.6 billion a year.   

If you must use a derogatory term for profiting from your natural resources then prostituting it what you really mean.

[lindab]

What?  Are we still on the subject of oil wells and Florida? 
Sen. King expected to introduce it in FL Senate this week as part of renewable energy portfolio.

[FayeforCure]

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.   

Well said!

[FayeforCure]

The key here is "future"... we still live in the "now" and will for quite a long time.

Problem is living in the past, and being reactive rather than pro-active. Conservatives CAN endorse conservation. No need to look to the "solutions of the past", especially since lindab has quoted from the WSJ article that the need for petroleum is decreasing.

[Sigma]

Conservatives CAN endorse conservation.

uh, yeah, since the one word is derived from the other.

[tufsu1]

the problem with looking at the "now" or short-term future is that we might end up adversely afecting the long-term future.

In the case of oil and gas prices, that's happened before....in the late 1970's we started building smaller cars, alternative fuels, other energy soures like solar, etc.....then when gas prices went back down a few years later we forgot about all those things and went right back to our guzzling ways.

Another example...if we keep widening roads because we don't think land use changes will happen in the short-term, then we push off the potential for transit and land use changes for even longer.