Offshore Drilling Controversy - Report Example

Brian 15 December 2008 Offshore Drilling Offshore drilling is not the answer for humankind. By having oil extracted from the inner parts of the ocean the precious black diamond has hindered the world concerning environmental issues (water and animals being projected as extinct in the near future). There are other alternatives… Offshore Drilling Argument Against Offshore drilling is not the answer for humankind. By having oil extracted from the inner parts of the ocean the precious black diamond has hindered the world concerning environmental issues (water and animals being projected as extinct in the near future). There are other alternatives that may be considered, such as: to diversify the energy resources and develop solar, wind, and hydroelectric power; invest in research to make fuel from hydrogen; develop clean ways of burning coal (to avoid having to pollute the environment). Therefore, this presentation will focus on the argument against offshore drilling. Offshore drilling may have had a purpose, reason, and use at a given time in history. It may have been seen as a way of drilling the ocean to extract the oil, so that the on land environment would not be affected and the concerns would not be of importance. Offshore drilling was not seen as hindering the world. Deep-sea was thought of as far away and it could not harm the world and its environment. History, however, has proven mankind wrong. Offshore drilling has hindered the environment, and it has altered nature and its way of progressing. Offshore drilling has killed part of the sea world and has invaded the natural habitat of the sea world. Consequently, this pattern of offshore drilling has proven to alter nature and the consequences have come to shore and affected those who eat the natural underwater species. Due to the offshore drillings, chemicals and toxic substances (mercury, lead, arsenic) rise and they return to the ocean. The seismic waves used to seek the oil harms the sea mammals, and disorient the whales, such was the case of Exxon Mobile stopping their exploration near Madagascar when more than one hundred whales suffered the consequences of their actions and came to shore (Nixon 2008). Canals that are built across the Louisiana wetlands to transport the oil have also caused erosion (Horton n.d.). This according to Horton may have led to the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Horton maintains, oil spills is another detrimental factor that hinder natural habitat and cause caution for future offshore drills as was the case of the oil spill of Exxon Valdez in 1989. There are still negative effects of that episode. Horton (n.d.) acknowledged much of the controversy concerning offshore drilling has to do with the economy and the environment. In this case the detractors argue that offshore drilling would have a minimal impact on the economy on domestic supply and it would devastate the surrounding ecosystem. She stated that even if the outer continental shelf (OCS) started drilling, it was found through research (Energy Information Association (2007) (EIA), that it would take several years before being able to extract oil. As of yet, the amount of probability would not suffice the global market to have to incur in such a project of offshore drilling. There is a chain reaction as Sahimi (2008) poses, the oil price has risen, so has the price of gas and therefore the costs of electricity and heating. The airlines also suffer from the cost of fuel and some file for bankruptcy while others charge it to the customers. These are the direct effects of the high price of oil. The indirect effects are devastating as well. Food prices have increased partly due to energy costs and partly due to the corn, soybean, and other agricultural biofuels. The tourism industry is suffering as well since it is too expensive to take a vacation, leaving the hotel, motel, resorts, and restaurants in dismay. Politically, President Bush lifted the offshore drilling ban. McCain stated that the federal government discourages the offshore production due to the price of foreign oil and Sahimi (2008) in a satiric way states that it is not only the price of foreign oil the only increasing element. Sahimi (2008) reiterated that even if they started to drill for oil in Alaska´s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), the length of time of producing new oil wells and being online would be between 7-10 years. Assuming that every drop of oil is returned the actual recovery factors are lower. The peak oil productions will not take place before 2025. This means, according to Sahimi that the world oil production will be lower and the prices of oil will augment. He concurs with the Energy Information Association (2007). Sahimi contends that this oil international commodity is based on the country that has more oil and its influence to set the price. The U.S. only has 3% of the total oil reserves therefore its influence in setting prices are limited. Not to mention, according to him, the U.S. only has 4% of the world´s population and it consumes 25% of the total production. Another political factor was that under the Republican Administration (Sahimi 2008) it was mentioned that prior to the invasion of Iraq, that after Saddam Hussein is overthrown the oil prices would become lower than $35/barrel (2003 price) since Iraq would leave the OPEC. He stated that in fact what happened was the reverse, it increased to $40/barrel as a “fear premium”, the fear of the instability in the Middle East. When there has been instability in the Middle East, the prices have tended to rise. Sahimi (2008) asseverated that to make energy more efficient there is a need to diversify the energy resources and develop solar, wind, and hydroelectric power, invest in research to make fuel from hydrogen, develop clean ways of burning coal (to avoid having to pollute the environment) to supply the energy needed for 200 years. He stated that more nuclear reactors should continue to be built so that electricity is generated but only if the problem of what to do with the spent nuclear fuel is addressed accordingly, which would be to reprocess the fuel, as France and other European countries are doing. This according to him will reduce the nuclear wastes that are buried that also pollutes as offshore drilling. Donatoni (2008) stated that accidents (leaks, spills, blowouts, barge collisions, pipeline corrosion, and explosions) in offshore drillings can happen. He asserted that this is due to human error rather than on technology based errors. He also stated the gray areas. He mentioned that to report the accident to the Oil Spill Risk Analysis, large amounts of spilled barrels are required. In the cases of, under 1,000 barrels which is 97% of all of the spills, it does not have to be reported. He stated that only 5-15% of any spill can be cleaned up. This is devastating for the environmental issues since the accumulation of the spillage will show detrimental elements in the future, such as has been the past problems in offshore drilling at the present moment. There were good reasons for President Carter to have banned the offshore drilling. There have been many reasons exposed herein of why offshore drilling should not be included as an alternative for human existence and its needs. Not only is the ecosystem disturbed and in turn the human`s consumption of foods that are altered are affecting humans with unnecessary ailments and diseases but, the possibility of having a world free of pollution and spillage caused directly or indirectly by offshore drilling is minimal. Countries are affected not only by their geographical locations and/or where they decide to have offshore drillings (either close to home or close to other people´s homes). An example of this is the agreements, held by China and Cuba, where China is having offshore drilling in Cuba´s “patio”. The politics are affected within their countries and in dealings with other countries concerning the supply of goods that offshore drilling could supply instead of using alternative measures that will not hinder humankind and will not continue to raise the price of oil. The economy is also affected since it has been presented that the offshore drilling is not cost effective and it is not cost efficient (length of time) for the present needs. I leave you with a thought, a question to answer for the future generations` existence. What is more important - That humankind continues to exist with a good quality of life within its ecosystem or have the private industry continue to have offshore drillings in the name of humankind and destroy the world as we have known it? I rest my case. Works Cited Donatoni, Matthew. Offshore drilling. 13 December 2008 Horton, Jennifer. Why is offshore drilling so controversial? 13 December 2008 . “Impacts of increased access to oil and natural gas resources in the lower 48 federal outer continental shelf”. Energy Information Administration.2008 14 Dec. 2008 . Nixon, Robin. Oil drilling: Risks and rewards. 2008 14 December 2008 Sahimi, Muhammad. It is not offshore drilling, stupid! The Huffington Post. 2008 13 December 2008 . Read More