Oil company bills to drill more look to be ineffective and risky.....

Today's post: Wednesday, 5-4-2010

We need an 80% reduction in fossil fuel use by 2050 to avoid the worst global warming effects. And, practically speaking, we need to also double our electricity generation and double the useful work done per unit of electricity & other energy sources as well during that same time to have a decent economy.

At some point, the oil that we’ve been using to power much of our economy will begin to run low enough that our world economy will shrink due to lack of supply or excessive costs or both. Kuwaiti scientists recently predicted peak oil in 2014 – just 3 years from now.

And, once the demand for oil picks up again with the apparent economic recovery or supply begins to plateau or drop, the prices will again go back up. That will cause more hard times economically unless we have enough alternative sources of energy to turn to.

Today’s post:

Oil company bills to drill more look to be ineffective and risky.....

I just saw a story online that: “Congress considers West Coast oil drilling.”

May 4, 2011 by Susanne Rust Environment Reporter From: California Watch A Project of the Center for Investigative Reporting

“Nearly a year after a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico and created one of the largest environmental catastrophes of all time, federal lawmakers are considering encouraging drilling off the West Coast, including the rich oil beds off Southern California.

Lawmakers say allowing the drilling would ease the burden of high oil prices and provide an alternative to foreign oil.”

“Critics say the bills (HR 1229, HR 1230 and HR 1231) set the stage for environmental disaster and will have little or no effect on oil prices.

“Not only will the bills expand drilling, they would leave oversight of offshore drilling weaker than it was before last year’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Bob Keefe, a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council.”


The article also notes: “…. a study conducted by the federal government's Energy Information Administration, which showed that new drilling off the country's coasts would only reduce gas prices by a few cents.

The bills passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in April, and two of the three bills are scheduled for a vote on Thursday. The third bill, which some call the most sweeping, will likely go to the floor next week, Charter said.

That third bill, HR 1231, or “Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act,” would require the federal government to lease at least 50 percent of available unleased acreage off the West Coast, Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico and much of the East Coast, every five years.”

“Under existing law, the government decides which areas to lease. This new law would effectively double the current level of offshore drilling.

And states, such as California, would have no say in the matter.

“Earlier versions of bills like this generally allowed a state to veto projects,” said Regan Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“Californians have consistently made it clear that they oppose new offshore drilling off their coast," she said. “This bill is so out of sync of what people want. They’re willing to put oil production over all other considerations.”

Supporters of the bills say the need for more domestic oil is urgent.

"Gas prices in California’s Central Valley have skyrocketed to above $4 a gallon and remained above the national average for weeks," said Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., one of the three local congressmen who voted for the bills.

"We can no longer afford to rely on energy supplies from unstable foreign sources. The time for inaction is over. We must expand domestic energy production to get Americans back to work, bring relief at the pump and create jobs,” he said.”

Here’s my take.:

These bills are likely to be ineffective in lowering gas prices and are likely to cause billions of dollars of damages to the coast of California.

But there are some amendments that could upgrade them enough they might make sense

1. China is very likely to begin importing as much or more oil than we are quite soon. So, it looks like having more oil from offshore drilling will likely only cut back gasoline from $8 a gallon or $9 a gallon that looks to be coming by ten cents a gallon.

If, for every dollar the oil industry spent for offshore drilling had to be matched with three times that much money in switching transport to other fuels than petroleum and in converting existing vehicles into plug-in hybrids AND installing a more efficient gasoline and diesel engine, then that combination might have an effect.

We can deal with double the price of gasoline and diesel if we also begin to only need half as much of these fuels to drive the same number of miles!

2. Since billions of dollars in potential damages are at stake and the oil very irresponsible impression of the safety competence of the oil companies is at stake.

These bills should ONLY be passed if the safety managers on these new offshore drilling rigs are NOT prevented by trying to save money cutting corners on safety.

If the chances are literally one in 10 million of one problematic spill that will be stopped with less than 5% of the oil released by the BP problem in the Gulf, why not allow it?

(This hurry up and drill program looks like a spill about once every ten years and just as big as the Gulf oftentimes will occur if these bills are passed!)

But, if those two provisions are not forceful enough or included, these bills won’t protect our economy from the doubling of gasoline and diesel nor will they make more than the damages they will likely cost.

So, in their present form, it is essential they not be passed!

With these two amendments though, they might make sense.

The one last point is that any state that remains unconvinced of the safety programs for this new drilling should be able to say no to it off the shores of that state.

So, the third amendment is to add that or leave it as is. If the safety procedures are good enough and work in practice other places, states will OK drilling for the new money they get. But they should have the right to say no if the data they see are unconvincing.

These bills in their current form do not make that confidence at all likely!