Marc Mangahas

Johnston

English 1A (1299 word essay, recycled paper)

5 October 2005

It’s a Bird! It’s a Plane! It’s… a Flying Oil Rig?

In the wake of the destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, many oil refineries and various processing plants in the Gulf Coast were either destroyed, severely damaged, or shut down due to wide-spread electrical failure. The U.S. was left with a serious conflict: Should we increase domestic drilling, even if that means going into formerly off-limits territory? Such areas up for consideration are the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and offshore California. Most people are looking only at the immediate short term gain, and do not see that exploiting these areas do not provide a real, long-term solution. Furthermore, due to numerous problems that arise from the development of new oil rigs, the costs greatly outweigh any short term gains... and in the long run would be net loss for all of America.

Many believe that expanding or developing domestic oil/gas reserves would help solve our current energy crisis, as well as reduce energy costs. With reduced oil and gas prices, other areas of our economy would theoretically benefit, such as the travel industry, shipping industry, and the various petrochemical industries. However, according to the Federal Energy Information Administration , domestic oil production would only “reduce energy prices over the short term, perhaps for the next five years, but after that price will increase because remaining domestic deposits will be more remote and expensive to develop.”

Furthermore, since oil prices are set in the international market, many market analysts believe upping domestic oil extraction/production will not effectively lower gas prices. Oil-producing countries could simply reduce their output, or the rate of exporting oil, thereby offsetting any changes that U.S. oil production would have on the international oil market. The National Commission on Energy Policy stated, “U.S. exposure to world oil price shocks is a function of the amount of oil it consumes and is not significantly affected by the ratio of domestic to imported product.”

The development of offshore drilling in particular, poses many threats to other facets of our economy. The fishing industry, for example, would be double-impacted. The erection of an oil-rig itself creates many disturbances. The area around an oil rig becomes an effective “off-limits” territory. In addition, due to the depths that we must resort to in order to hit oil, the pipes, risers, platforms, drills, and all other long vertical components are extremely unstable. In order to compensate for structural/physical weaknesses, other various stabilizing structures must be outfitted to the rigs. This causes destruction to the seafloor, but also endangers fishermen- since prime fishing areas usually coincide with areas of oil deposits; many fishermen are reluctant to simply surrender their former grounds. Those who choose to skirt around the perimeter of these oil rigs frequently get their equipment and/or vessels tangled in the extensive underwater structures. The exposed part of an oil rig, called the “riser,” is akin to the tip of an iceberg.

What little that fishermen actually do capture, usually contains high amounts of oil, and other toxins in their body tissues, rendering them dangerous and unmarketable. Many of these tainted fish leave the immediate proximity of the rig, thereby endangering any other fish, seabirds, or mammals in the open ocean that predate on them.

Another industry that would be greatly impacted would be the tourist industry. Many of these small coastal communities, (where offshore drilling has been proposed), rely heavily on tourists as the main source of their economies. Offshore oil rigs utterly destroy ambience, and the aesthetic appeal that is main draw to these places.

Other significant concerns regarding the tourist industry are that offshore oil facilities industrialize the outlying areas. Elements such as increased roads, infrastructure, etc. related to oil processing and transport, would forever alter the setting of these coastal communities.

Property owners worry that the presence of oil rigs marring the horizon will depreciate land value.

Industry aside, offshore oil drilling has enormous negative impacts on the environment as well. The rigs, (and various facilities required in both the extraction and refining processes), expel a tremendous amount of pollutants. These facilities release a large quantity of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions into the atmosphere, contributing to very poor air quality. These, along with other gasses being belched off, cause a plethora of health problems. Metal tailings, caustic refining chemicals, and the sludge used to lubricate the oil drills enter into the ocean, either as a result from spills, but more often are simply just dumped back in. In addition, offshore oil rigs suffer routine spills, (so not only are they a polluting element, but an economic loss as well!) In 1975, forty three million barrels of oil were spilled in production/refining-related accidents in the U.S., according to a study published National Research Council.

A poll taken by the California Coastal Commission showed that Californians are against offshore drilling, but the bill that President Dubya Douche signed this summer allows for an “inventory-taking,” even on areas with a Congressional moratorium on oil-development. Furthermore, the same bill seeks to gain "limited lifting of offshore drilling moratoria." This includes not only Californian waters, but areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as well. 

Simply prospecting for oil, however, is itself destructive. These “assessment” tests, called seismic acoustic profiling tests, are simply designed to ascertain whether oil is present or not. These underwater tests employ the use of extremely high pressured air, or sometimes explosives, to get a sonic feedback map of the composition of the seafloor layers. These tests devastate whales, dolphins, and other marine life, sometimes proving fatal.

The increasing interest taken in domestic oil expansion comes at a justified time; the hurricanes dealt the Gulf Coast an unimaginable amount of damage. The theory is, if we develop and diversify where our oil comes from, then we could draw from emergency oil reserves in times of natural disasters, and would not be so dependent on foreign oil, (and all the hazards that are associated with foreign oil, including oil embargos during wartime.) However, California has proven to be geologically unstable itself. Coincident with theorized offshore oil pockets are areas of undersea volcanism and seismic (earthquake) activity. Also, many of these oil pockets are underneath or nearby explosive/volatile gaseous deposits. Hitting these highly pressurized, high-temperature zones causes blow-outs, causing money to be wasted, lives to be lost, and suffering to the environment.

This does not change the fact that the U.S. is amidst a critical energy crisis, one exacerbated by the recent hurricanes. However, our government is not properly exploring other options, such as finding ways to maximize the output of what we already have. The U.S. could institute laws and policies to increase energy efficiency in vehicles and homes, (instead of the current laws which actually give monetary incentive in the form of tax breaks to large, gas-guzzling SUV owners), or promoting efficiency during the construction process.

Nor is our current administration adequately funding alternate energy forms. Not only are most of the alternate forms of energy cleaner and less risky, they would also help our economy by providing jobs in research and development.

In conclusion, due to the sheer number negative impacts that new offshore oil rigs would pose on the economy, the environment, and human health, increased domestic drilling would not be a solution at all. In fact, due to the potential increase in prices associated with manufacturing harder-to-get-oil, as well as the fact that other oil producing countries determine world oil prices, is actually cause for more headache. Also, particularly in California, the risks involved with offshore oil drilling prove to be greater cost than benefit. Instead, the U.S. should look into developing cleaner alternate forms of energy and instituting laws that would increase fuel efficiency. These regulations should be coupled with monetary incentive. In the end, everybody would benefit, because if we did need to use oil reserves in a time of crisis, we would be able to do so.