Friday, June 25, 2010

Let's drill where it's safer

If the administration were truly concerned with limiting drilling to where it is safer, then they would drop their ideologically-motivated opposition to drilling closer to shore. It would be a lot safer and recovery from accidents would be a lot easier. Terry Anderson, the executive director of the Property and Environment Research Center in Bozeman, Montana explains how the environmentalists have pushed oil companies to drilling in the riskier deep sea.
Whether more exploration on federal lands would make the U.S. energy independent is debatable, but more onshore development would certainly be safer. In early June there was a blowout in western Pennsylvania. Did you see it on the nightly news? No, because it was capped in 16 hours. The Texas Railroad Commission, the state agency that regulates oil and gas production there, recorded 102 blowouts of oil and gas wells since the start of 2006, resulting in 10 fires, 12 injuries, and two deaths. None of those made the nightly news either. The largest oil spill on Alaska's North Slope in 2006 was from a pipeline leak. It dumped only 6,357 barrels and had no disastrous impacts.

Drilling can be done with greater environmental sensitivity onshore. For many years the Audubon Society actually allowed oil companies to pump oil for its privately owned sanctuaries in Louisiana and Michigan, but did so with strict requirements on the oil companies so that they would not disturb the bird habitat.
But the greens are shut down any hope of expanding our drilling where it is safer and so the oil companies are left with the deep-water drilling which is a much riskier proposition.

Once again a liberal position is full of good intentions, but ends up with the opposite impact than they intended.


Rick Caird said...

I doubt many on the left have grasped the fact that they are the cause of this massive spill. As Anderson points out, the left in general, and environmentalists in particular, have increased the risk in drilling by their insistence on what they perceive as less risk.

It is ironic that Florida has prevented drilling in the near in gulf because they were afraid of damages to their beaches. What they got, though, is heavier and more widespread damage and a federal response that would have to go some to rise to a grade of "F".

We really need to have a discussion of engineering and 100% safety with the left. We can never have 100% safety in any engineering project. For example, we could engineer a car that would survive a 70 mph head on crash with an 18 wheeler, but the cost would be prohibitive and no one would buy one. There is always a trade off on cost and capability.

2421Rich said...

Liberals and Enviormentalists claim to be so much more smarter and compassionate than conservatives but have a huge problem seeing past their own noses. The disasters resulting from their "unintended consequences" and "good intentions" are emblemic of their flawed world view.
For instance,they put vast areas of tropical rain forests off limits to harvesting in order to save them from the greedy corporations. Denied the possibility of earning a living by harvesting trees the locals then burn down the trees to gain farm land so they can earn money that way. The result is, as usual, that everybody ends up a loser. Could it be it's not really about their results but only that they can feel good about themselves because they tried to do the "right" thing.

Locomotive Breath said...

You don't understand. The lefties and environmentalists have a "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" attitude towards the oil industry. They would be quite happy if it were shut down completely. Everywhere.

equitus said...

Once again a liberal position is full of good intentions, but ends up with the opposite impact than they intended.

Yes, yes, yes, yes... and again... yes.

But it's too long for a bumper sticker. Maybe I can get that tattoo'd across my back.

kimsch said...

@Locomotive Breath, but then, as @2421Rich said above, they "have a huge problem seeing past the end of their own noses."

They don't realize that if "big oil" went away, they wouldn't have their iPhones and iPads, Mac Book Airs, even their Priuses... Whole Foods couldn't get shipments, their beer wouldn't be cold, they couldn't ice their vodka for their martinis...

Tacitus Voltaire said...

i would really like to see a single example of where palin, mccain, bush, cheney, or any other "drill, baby, drill" republican, who were calling so vociferously and specifically for more "offshore drilling" in the last election, ever


made any distinction between deeper and shallower drill sites

have you got any documentation that they ever said anything about deep water drilling being dangerous before the recent disaster?

Tacitus Voltaire said...

But the greens are shut down any hope of expanding our drilling where it is safer

i'd like to see a list of shallow water drilling sites that "greens" have "shut down", if anybody has it

Locomotive Breath said...

ANWR which is actually onshore. Which makes it a shallowness of zero.

Pat Patterson said...

Both Palin and Bush called for opening up that area in th Arctic Wildlife Reserve where we knew there was oil. So by extension those two as well as Cheney since according to the left he did everything that benefitted big oil.

But maybe TV should answer the question of what environmental group or leading Democratic politician was willing to make any compromise on not only where drilling was to take place but whether it should be allowed at all? or how about specifically where there are areas where drilling can take place but the pipelines to transport that oil have been blocked by the Democratic legislature in the state for almost fourty years?

Rick Caird said...

Sure Black Knight (aka TV), ANWAR is not deep. Drilling off Alaska is not deep. Drilling off the Florida Coast is not deep (you have to go miles off the Gulf coast to get any water depth).

But, anyway, all three were referred to. In addition, they talked about drilling on Federal lands and about oil shale.

Is that enough for you?

Pat Patterson said...

Wasn't one part of the advice Paul gave the Corinthians was to not let the women hang out the windows and try to evangelize the people below. Problem was the prostitutes did the same thing and people were confusing the two. The WH has just decided to puts its workers of the night out on the street.

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson,

Did you intend to post that in response to the Caribou Coffee - White House Lobbyist deal or is that a shot at the DOJ's run at BP?

Pat Patterson said...

I can only hope that a gaggle of DOJ and WH lawyers are just now setting foot on the road to Damascus. But I will not hold my breath as they seem more interested in acting like Saul than Paul.