To Drill or Not to Drill

In a discussion on another blog, we were debating how swimmingly McCain’s Pro drilling campaign might or might not play in Florida. I opined that Florida, with its critically important tourism sector, might not be anxious to see oil rigs offshore. Several attacked my position, saying that even in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, there were no “major” spills, although around 150 or so oil platforms were totally destroyed, with some washed away. And there were some spills. Here are my thoughts on the issue of whether offshore drilling or nuclear energy are the salvation that the Republican Party suggests they are.

Offshore Drilling

I’ll grant that there were no “major spills” from the lost platforms. We were lucky. But you have to admit, that’s a lot of expensive equipment lost, cleanup cost (to salvage and re-establish the platforms, if in fact they do) and lost production. There is nothing comparable with land-based pumping. Even huge storms and floods cannot cause this kind of disruption of land based oil production. Furthermore, when there are major spills, the oil industry has shown callous disregard for their responsibility to clean up their messes. The damage is greater, and spread more widely when it is released into the ocean than on land. Oilfields simply are not subject to the same risks (especially of hurricanes) as offshore rigs are. So I see no compelling reason why specifically off-shore drilling is in our interest.

Proponents claim that offshore drilling can be done in an environmentally responsible fashion. In fact, the oil industry as exemplified by Exxon Mobil has a consistent record of fighting against cleaning up their messes.

“We keep the profits, the public pays the cost of our screw ups” is not acceptable. How about some responsibility for a change?

If the industry believes its development can be environmentally sound, then let them pledge to pay the full cost of cleaning up oil spilled from their pipelines, from their drilling activities, from their tankers.

Next, what assurances do we have that the oil companies actually intend to drill offshore in the near future? Oil companies already have both offshore and onshore leases that are not being developed. Can someone direct me to a statement by the oil companies that they are seeking additional offshore leases for immediate development? Has the industry explained why it is not developing its current leases? Are new offshore leases easier to develop than current land-based leases? If we give out new leases, do they pledge to develop them promptly? And cover the cost of insurance?

Some commenters are asserting that a failure to approve offshore drilling will drive up the cost of gasoline. It was even characterized as “heartless” not to drill immediately. That’s nonsense. It does not appear that increased drilling of existing or new oil leases will significantly affect the cost of gasoline in the near term, or perhaps even long-term. It’s a drop in the global bucket.

Then there’s the suggestion that speculators will flee the market as soon as we announce the new leases, thus reducing prices at the pump. Come on, please. Don’t insult your own intelligence, or ours. No investor abandons an investment because an event 6-12 years out may change the market dynamics. How absurd.

I believe our nation’s conditions for granting any new leases should be at a minimum that (1) the industry agrees to develop all existing leases immediately, or relinquish those leases and (2) the industry agrees to prompt payment of all costs associated with oil spills or leaks. They can start by dropping all of their current court actions to avoid the payment of these costs.

The Nuclear Option

Nuclear energy is extremely problematic at every stage, from the mining of uranium to its shipment and processing to the building of nuclear power plants to the disposal of nuclear waste and to the decommissioning of obsolete plants. Uranium prices are skyrocketing, so even from a purely economic standpoint, nuclear is a weak choice. Consider ALL the costs, economic and environmental and it’s a total loser. There is no reason the public should pay, nor should the environment, for the total true costs of the development and utilization of nuclear energy.

There is also no reason for the taxpayer to insure the nuclear industry, as it currently does (Price Anderson Act). We currently assume the risks of nuclear accidents for one simple reason. The “risk experts” in the insurance industry do not believe that nuclear reactors are safe enough to insure, even the “new generation” of plants. Think it’s safe enough? Then convince an insurer! Any further development of nuclear energy should start with a repeal of Price Anderson. Nuclear proponents need to prove to us that they stand behind their technology and will take responsibility for their own insurance.

If utilities cannot secure private insurance for all costs of an accident, they don’t have a viable business in nuclear energy.  Again, “we get the profit, you take the risk” is not acceptable.

Finally, the threat of nuclear materials falling into criminal hands, even the poorly guarded low grade waste, is too great to be as careless as we already are. Even a single contaminated glove stolen and used in acts of terrorism could be extremely costly (such a glove could close a post office for months, for example). That’s how tough the security has to be. Not one radioactive scrap can get out. Anyone think we need armed guards at the wind energy farm?

No one on any blog has yet presented a rational case for offshore drilling nor for nuclear energy, in my opinion.

By far, our best options are conservation, wind, solar and new technologies like hydrogen from starch.