The Trouble with Offshore Drilling

Last Friday, NRDC released this statement in response to the recent energy report issued by the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP).  One of the issues addressed in NRDC’s statement concerns the offshore drilling recommendations in the report. I’d like to explain more fully our reasons for strongly disagreeing with those recommendations.

Revenue-sharing with States. Revenue-sharing with States is problematic for several reasons.  First, the resources derived from the nation’s outer continental shelf (OCS) are federal resources, and as such should be shared among all Americans.  Directing the revenues from these resources to just a handful of States is not appropriate, nor is it fair.  Furthermore, if revenue-sharing with States and localities is authorized based on their agreement to drilling off their coasts, a perverse incentive is created for those States and localities to allow drilling, whether in sensitive areas or not, in order to get the revenues.  States are in essence being lured into opting to approve  drilling off their coasts.  Finally, revenues currently shared with Gulf Coast states (authorized under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006) are distributed with minimal environmental safeguards, and there is no enforcement in place to ensure these funds are not used for activities that adversely impact our ocean and coastal resources.  This means that revenue-sharing can deliver a double-whammy, by encouraging a potentially harmful activity (drilling) and then using revenues towards projects that do additional environmental harm.     

Expanding offshore drilling lease areas. The NCEP report calls for rolling-back an existing moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, which was achieved through a bi-partisan compromise, and also recommends that “all OCS areas be considered” for drilling activities, and specifically names “areas in the Atlantic, along the Southeast Coast, and in the Gulf of Mexico”.  According to the Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, because oil prices are determined on the international market, any impact on average wellhead prices from drilling in offshore areas previously closed to drilling is "expected to be insignificant.”  In addition, offshore drilling puts other ocean industries at risk, including our $35 billion commercial fishing and $60 billion ocean and coastal tourism and recreation industries.  Finally, as we continue to burn fossil fuels, we are only contributing further to the acidification of our oceans, which threatens marine life in ways we are only beginning to understand. 

Mandated inventories for OCS resources. NCEP recommends that comprehensive inventories be completed every 5 years, and should include areas previously covered by moratorium.  There are two reasons why this recommendation is problematic.  First, current inventory technology relies on seismic airgun techniques, which send extremely intense blasts of noise into the water column.  Seismic airguns are known to have major impacts on marine mammals, and are the most intrusive form of man-made undersea noise short of actual naval warfare.  Secondly, comprehensive inventories for OCS resources should not be subsidized by the Federal government unless and until funding for comprehensive habitat mapping and protected area identification is also provided.   

Offshore drilling exposes our oceans, beaches and marine life to risk. Oil spills can quickly traverse vast distances.  For example, when powered by the Gulf of Mexico’s Loop Current, an oil spill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico could travel around the Florida Keys to wreak havoc on estuaries and beaches from the Everglades to Cape Canaveral. It is estimated that the recent 10-week Australian oil spill (from an offshore oil facility apparently using "state of the art" technology) covered thousands of square miles of ocean waters.  Contamination from the massive 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill reached shorelines nearly 600 miles away; if the spill had occurred on the East Coast, it would have extended from Massachusetts to North Carolina. 

There are other alternatives that can increase our energy security while we transition to a clean energy economy. There are those that say we must drill our oceans for energy in order to increase our national security and wean ourselves from what can be a dangerous dependence on foreign oil.  The truth is we can offset a major portion of our imported oil from investing in enhanced oil production from existing fields.  A recent report by Advanced Resources International finds that carbon capture stimulated by federal clean energy and climate legislation could boost U.S. oil production between 3 to 3.6 million barrels per day, cutting imports of crude oil up to 40 percent compared to today’s levels and up to 52 percent by 2030 (based on 2009 figures), depending on how much of the captured CO2 is used for enhanced oil recovery purposes.  This method of extraction, which occurs on already-impacted areas, could produce much more oil than tapping into our offshore resources, and would avoid the hazards associated with offshore drilling.

Other alternatives to offshore drilling include innovative renewable energy opportunities, including offshore wind energy, which provides clean energy sources and, if sited and managed correctly, impose far fewer risks to the marine environment.

Transitioning to a clean energy economy is the most significant action our country can take to both enhance our nation’s security, create new jobs, and to protect our invaluable oceans. 

Comments