Guest post by David Middleton
The plan is to open almost everything in the 2019-2024 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, with Eastern Gulf leasing beginning when the Congressional moratorium expires after 2022.
Secretary Zinke Announces Plan For Unleashing America’s Offshore Oil and Gas Potential
Draft Proposed Program considers nearly the entire U.S. Outer Continental Shelf for potential oil and gas lease sales
1/4/2018
WASHINGTON – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke today announced the next step for responsibly developing the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program (National OCS Program) for 2019-2024, which proposes to make over 90 percent of the total OCS acreage and more than 98 percent of undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in federal offshore areas available to consider for future exploration and development. By comparison, the current program puts 94 percent of the OCS off limits. In addition, the program proposes the largest number of lease sales in U.S. history.
“Responsibly developing our energy resources on the Outer Continental Shelf in a safe and well-regulated way is important to our economy and energy security, and it provides billions of dollars to fund the conservation of our coastlines, public lands and parks,” said Secretary Zinke. “Today’s announcement lays out the options that are on the table and starts a lengthy and robust public comment period. Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks. The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American Energy Dominance”
Earlier this year, 155 Members of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate sent letters to Secretary Zinke in support of a new 5-year plan that recognizes America’s potential for energy dominance.
The Draft Proposed Program (DPP) includes 47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas – 19 sales off the coast of Alaska, 7 in the Pacific Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico, and 9 in the Atlantic Region. This is the largest number of lease sales ever proposed for the National OCS Program’s 5-year lease schedule.
“By proposing to open up nearly the entire OCS for potential oil and gas exploration, the United States can advance the goal of moving from aspiring for energy independence to attaining energy dominance,” said Vincent DeVito, Counselor for Energy Policy at Interior. “This decision could bring unprecedented access to America’s extensive offshore oil and gas resources and allows us to better compete with other oil-rich nations.”
Release of the DPP is an early step in a multi-year process to develop a final National OCS Program for 2019-2024. Today’s draft proposal was informed by approximately 816,000 comments from a wide variety of stakeholders, including state governments, federal agencies, public interest groups, industry, and the public. Before the program is finalized, the public will have additional opportunities to provide input. The 2017-2022 Five Year Program will continue to be implemented until the new National OCS Program is approved.
“This plan is an early signal to the global marketplace that the United States intends to remain a global leader in responsible offshore energy development and produce affordable American energy for many decades to come,” said Katharine MacGregor, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management. “This proposed plan shows our commitment to a vibrant offshore energy economy that supports the thousands of men and women working in the offshore energy industry, from supply vessels to rig crews.”
Inclusion of an area in the DPP is not a final indication that it will be included in the approved Program or offered in a lease sale, because many decision points still remain. By proposing to open these areas for consideration, the Secretary ensures that he will receive public input and analysis on all of the available OCS to better inform future decisions on the National OCS Program. Prior to any individual lease sale in the future, BOEM will continue to incorporate new scientific information and stakeholder feedback in its reviews to further refine the geographic scope of the lease areas.
“American energy production can be competitive while remaining safe and environmentally sound,” said Acting BOEM Director Walter Cruickshank. “Public input is a crucial part of this process, and we hope to hear from industry groups, elected officials, other government agencies, concerned citizens and others as we move forward with developing the 2019-2024 National OCS Program.”
The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior, through BOEM, to prepare and maintain a schedule of proposed oil and gas lease sales in federal waters, indicating the size, timing, and location of leasing activity that would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following Program approval. In developing the National OCS Program, the Secretary is required to achieve an appropriate balance among the potential for environmental impacts, for discovery of oil and gas, and for adverse effects on the coastal zone.
BOEM currently manages about 2,900 active OCS leases, covering almost 15.3 million acres – the vast majority in the Gulf of Mexico. In fiscal year 2016, oil and gas leases on the OCS accounted for approximately 18 percent of domestic oil production and 4 percent of domestic natural gas production. This production generates billions of dollars in revenue for state and local governments and the U.S. taxpayer, while supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs.
Gulf of Mexico:
The DPP includes 12 sales in the Gulf of Mexico, one of the most productive basins in the world and where oil and gas infrastructure is well established. The draft proposal continues the current approach to lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico by proposing 10 biannual lease sales in those areas of the Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico that are not subject to Congressional moratorium or otherwise unavailable, and two sales in the portions of the Eastern and Central Gulf of Mexico after the expiration of the Congressional moratorium in 2022. This is the first time the majority of the Eastern GOM Planning Area would be available for leasing since 1988.
Alaska:
The DPP proposes 19 lease sales in the Alaska Region (3 in the Chukchi Sea, 3 in the Beaufort Sea, 2 in Cook Inlet, and 1 sale each in 11 other program areas in Alaska). These 11 program areas consist of the Gulf of Alaska, Kodiak, Shumagin, Aleutian Arc, St. George Basin, Bowers Basin, Aleutian Basin, Navarin Basin, St. Matthew-Hall, Norton Basin, and Hope Basin. No sales are proposed in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area that has been under Presidential withdrawal since December 2014.
Pacific:
The DPP proposes 7 lease sales in the Pacific Region (2 each for Northern California, Central California, and Southern California, and 1 for Washington/Oregon). There have been no sales in the Pacific Region since 1984. Currently there are 43 leases in producing status in the Southern California Planning Area.
Atlantic:
The DPP proposes 9 lease sales in the Atlantic Region (3 sales each for the Mid- and South Atlantic, 2 for the North Atlantic, and 1 for the Straits of Florida). There have been no sales in the Atlantic since 1983 and there are no existing leases.
Trump aims to open nearly all federal waters to offshore drilling in biggest lease sale ever
- The Trump administration announced Thursday a draft proposal to offer offshore blocks to oil and gas drillers in almost all of the U.S. outer continental shelf.
- The plan opens the door to drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, marking a break with previous administrations.
- The proposal faces challenges from coastal governors and an uncertain oil price environment that could keep many drillers from bidding for blocks in uncharted territory.
Tom DiChristopher
The Trump Interior Department announced Thursday plans to offer blocks in the Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans for oil and gas exploration in an ambitious new five-year offshore lease plan.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said the draft proposal for offshore leasing between 2019 and 2024 would offer about 90 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf, the largest lease sale ever. The only area that will not be included is the North Aleutian Basin in Alaska.
The plan would open the door for drilling in areas far beyond the U.S. epicenter of offshore drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico, giving oil and gas companies the opportunity to explore areas left out of leases for decades.
But the move also sets up a battle with environmental groups and coastal governors opposed to drilling off the shores of states from California to North Carolina. Additionally, it comes at a time when oil prices are on the rise, but stuck in a range that makes multibillion-dollar projects in new offshore areas unattractive for many drillers.
It would also overturn indefinite bans on drilling in much of the Arctic Ocean and parts of the Atlantic announced during the final days of the Obama administration, potentially sparking a court battle over executive authority.
The administration’s expansive lease schedule was widely anticipated.
In April, Trump signed the America First Offshore Energy Executive Order instructing Zinke to revise the current five-year schedule for leasing blocks of the U.S. outer continental shelf, the waters off the U.S. shore that the federal government governs. At the time, he explicitly said it reversed the Obama administration’s ban on Arctic leases.
[…]
The drilling regulation rollbacks and modifications are not nearly as significant as portrayed by the lamestream media; but they are certainly a step in the right direction.
BSEE Proposes Revisions to Production Safety Systems Regulations
12/28/2017
WASHINGTON – In response to a Presidential Order to reduce undue burden on industry, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) completed a comprehensive review of the Production Safety Systems regulations. The proposed regulations will be published Friday in the Federal Register. The announcement describes the proposed revisions and invites public comment on the proposal.
“I am confident that this revision of the Production Safety Systems Rule moves us forward toward meeting the Administration’s goal of achieving energy dominance without sacrificing safety,” said Director Scott A. Angelle. “By reducing the regulatory burden on industry, we are encouraging increased domestic oil and gas production while maintaining a high bar for safety and environmental sustainability.”
The Production Safety Systems Rule addresses safety and pollution prevention equipment, subsea safety devices and safety device testing for the production of oil and gas resources on the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS). The proposed amendments address provisions of the regulations that create an unnecessary burden on operators, while providing the same level of safety and protection of the environment. BSEE’s initial regulatory impact analysis estimates that the proposed amendments would reduce industry compliance burdens by at least $228 million over 10 years.
“It’s time for a paradigm shift in the way we regulate the OCS,” Angelle said. “There was an assumption made previously that only more rules would increase safety, but ultimately it is not an either/or proposition. We can actually increase domestic energy production and increase safety and environmental protection.”
One out of every six barrels of oil produced in the United States is produced on the OCS. Annual production on the OCS totals over 550 million barrels of oil and 1.3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. BSEE permits operations and conducts inspections on approximately 2,400 production platforms located in the three OCS regions: Arctic, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific.
Stakeholders can view and provide comment on the proposed amendments to the Production Safety Systems Rule via regulations.gov, the federal government’s official rulemaking portal. The proposed regulations are also available here. The public comment period for will remain open for 30 days.
MAGA!
Related articles:
Trump Administration to Open Oil & Gas Leasing on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
“Offshore drilling is not a fit for Florida”… It doesn’t have to fit in Florida.
A Senate Tax Bill Energy Trifecta: Opening ANWR, Killing EV’s and Energy Dominance!
Irony can be so… Ironic – Trump’s solution to AGW: “Drill, Baby, Drill!”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Windmill powered drilling rigs?
Absolutely
This is great news for all those offshore regions where there is no Congressional moratorium. If the Congressional moratorium doesn’t expire until 2022, who knows which party will control Congress by then?
For all the hoopla about the greenies in California who want to impose a statewide cap on CO2 emissions and who send valuable snowmelt into the sea to save fish instead of irrigating the fertile but dry Central Valley, a person who takes a taxi or Uber from LAX airport to Hollyweird passes by at least 12 operating oil rigs on land, adjacent to the freeway. Is that oil refined and burned in California, or exported to Nevada or Arizona?
So much, so quick, happening to upset the Green/Socialist manifesto in the US that they don’t know where to begin complaining/attacking. This presidency will go down as one of the most disruptive, and successful economically, in history. Guilting and shaming countries into economic suicide will give way to reality as the US prospers while other countries falter. And people said American voters were stupid and uninformed!
I can’t wait to see the first well spudded off Cali.
It looks to me like a fire sale.
Let’s say five years from now an announcement is made, we’ve got born-proton fusion working and it comes with no radioactive waste, no meltdown physically possible, and electricity costs in the sub $0.01 per kWh range with quick build outs and relatively low investment needed to buy a plant.
That reduces the value of all our oil, gas, and coal deposits by quite a bit. I could see Trump signing lots of contracts to sell these resources at the old price before the cat comes out of the bag. With our national debt, we could use the money.
Navigating the end of the fossil fuel age ain’t beanbag.
And pigs can fly.
Lutas, we’re always going to be twenty years away from fusion reactors, and ten years away from thorium reactors. We’re going to be using coal, oil, and gas for a long time.
Dream on,, countries like Germany would love it (present electric rate 0.67 euro cents a Kw/h ) taxes, taxes, and more taxes with an average of 12 hours sun a week for the whole of Germany the money to pay for millions of solar panels has to come from somewhere.
Love It!!!
With this announcement I can see green subversive NGOs funding increase from oil gas competitors such as Russia. Oh wait Trump is buddies with Russia
Sarc.
I have been watching the energy market for 25 years. I did not see any actions by either POTUS Clinton or Obama to improve energy supply.
Bill Clinton was hit and miss. He vetoed opening ANWR. But he did institute royalty relief for deepwater production. Obama was horrific… much worse than Al Gore would have been. Bush-41 allowed some areas to be put off limits. Bush-43 were OK, but he signed off on the Eastern Gulf moratorium. Reagan was very good. He got rid of the nomination process and instituted area-wide leasing in 1983.
Trump has done more in one year to facilitate our business than Clinton and the Bushes did in 16 years and he has begun to undue all of the regulatory malfeasance of the Obama maladministration.
David thanks for the answer. My perspective is how natural gas prices affect the nuclear industry. For 12 years after getting out of the navy and until POTUS Clinton took office, I was on the nuclear gravy train. Built my dream log house house in the Sierras with cash and bought a big sailboat. After my second job in California went away, we moved to Washington State and adopted a lifestyle of living below our means.
Good thing too because that job went away because of cheap Canadian natural gas on the west coast but we did get NAFTA benefits before going to work for Duke Power which became Duke Energy.
What I observed is that were were building a lot of CCGT to replace SSGT. This is a no brainer. More power with the same amount of natural gas. Then we built a lot more CCGT.
What I did not observe was a increase in new domestic supplies of gas. We were actually were increasing imports of LNG by the end of the Clinton era.
My next question is who gets credit for the increases supply for fracking or other sources?
The planet’s oceans are already under enough pressure as it is. Climate sceptic numpties think that CO2 emissions are soaked up solely by trees and so the world is getting greener and the more CO2 – yes, the more vegetation, crops etc.
Although this is completely incorrect. A great proportion of CO2 is absorbed by the planet’s oceans, rivers and lakes. Just some of its negative impact can be seen here:
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/01/05/two-developments-showing-action-must-be-taken-over-the-planets-oceans/
Also, it is incredible how short-term the memories are of many Republicans/fossil fuel advocates of the 2010 BP offshore oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that caused catastrophic damage to the local economy/environment. Here’s a reminder…
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2017/12/30/why-scott-pruitt-and-the-trump-administration-are-lethal-for-the-environment/
ivankinsman
Do you thimk ?
Yes I do. And I suggest you think too…
Although this is completely incorrect. A great proportion of CO2 is absorbed by the planet’s oceans, rivers and lakes. Just some of its negative impact can be seen here:
It is clear that Ivan has never taken a graduate level course in environmental chemistry. Dead zones are caused by low oxygen levels often caused be increased aerobic bacteria feasting on nutrients in the water.
At waste water treatment plants oxygen is mechanically pumped into the water. The rate of gases in to the atmosphere being transferred to depends on many factors such as wind and waves.
However, CO2 is a weak acid system. A small increase in CO2 concentration will only result in a small change in pH levels
Keep in believing your own wonky science. I would like to know at what university you studied. Perhaps it was Trump University? I can see it teaching this rubbish…
Now, I can make a pretty sure guess that you did not study at Yale. So, for your edification I am attaching an article that will teach you something about the science underpinning CO2 absorption into the oceans:
http://e360.yale.edu/features/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat
There was no catastrophic damage from Deep Horizon.
The myth of ocean acidification has been refuted many times.
Are there any other lies you care to pull from your propaganda site?
You do talk a lot if bullshit Mark. Keep on living in your own little bubble – it’s the best thing for you. And your ilk.
+1 ivanski (i think MarkW has more bone than head)…
The only catastrophic damage was the loss of 11 men. From April through July 2010, the blowout spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. By mid-July, the well was capped. By August, most of the oil was gone… Either recovered by clean up procedures, evaporated, burned and/or consumed by microbes.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/20/deepwater-horizon-epillog/
“There is not catastrophic damage from Deepwater Horizon.” I bet you regret writing this sentence and this proves what an utter lie it is.
https://mankindsdegradationofplanetearth.com/2018/01/06/patricia-clarkson-star-of-house-of-cards-speaks-out-on-the-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill/
Patricia Clarkson is an actress. I’m a geologist, who has worked the Gulf of Mexico for 30 years. Why would I give a rat’s ass about what an actress has to say about anything other than acting?
Who gives a rat’s arse what you have to say as a geologist – one whose income is probably connected to fossil fuel companies.
Patricia Clarkson grew up in the area and has no reason to be biased on this FINANCIALLY and ECOLIGICALLY disastrous OFFSHORE oil spill.
David:
Is it so much that this individual truly cares about an actor’s opinion or is it just a parasite hoping to suck link juice off WUWT for his own gain?
I submit the latter.
An interesting development, economically sound. I’m sure that Common Sense and Logic will rule.
Drill, baby, drill.
Leftist have absolutely NO idea how economies actually grow and prosper…
You see, Lefties, if you increase the supply of something, then… the price of that commodity/service goes down.. Let me repeat that, if you increase the supply of something, the price goes down. Got it?
If the price of energy goes down, that means the price of all goods and services that require energy to produce (everything) also decrease, which means consumers will be able to buy more stuff with less money, which they can either save and invest for the future, or spend on other stuff..
Companies also benefit because their cost of goods sold decreases, which they can use to hire new staff, lower wholesale prices, increase salaries, invest in capital goods , to improve production efficiency/competitiveness, buy back stock, spend on R&D, etc.
Coupled with lower energy prices, corporations will also be getting $100’s of billions in tax cuts, which they can also use in the aforementioned manner.
Corporations will also be saving $100’s of billions in regulation compliance cost cuts that Trump is rescinding at a pace of 22 regulations cut for each new one implemented, and these savings can also be used in the aforementioned manner…
It’s such a joy moving from Obama’s “You-didn’t-build-that”, to Trump’s “Make America Great Again”.
SAMURAI (san), it’s alway great talking economics with you… Conservatives are clueless as well. Higher interest rates are also expensive job killers. Conservatives piss and moan every time inflation kicks in, calling for higher interest rates. This has been true for a long, long time. The result being lousy economies that inevitably hand the reigns over to the opposition party. Trumps pick for fed chair (Powell) is about as far left as he could go with a conservative congress. This guy sounds like a maverick to me. Hopefully, he’ll snap us out of the Greenspan malaise that has gripped this country since the 1980s…
Malaise since the 1980’s? Or you delusional?
If you think high inflation is a good thing, you must believe that Carter was the greatest president ever.
Secondly, given your ignorance of economics, I wouldn’t go around insulting others.
Conservatives don’t call for high interest rates, they call for low inflation.
If you can’t understand the difference no wonder you like leftwing economics.
Economists are arguably the only group worse than climate scientists at predicting future events in their field of study. So excuse me if I don’t take you too seriously.
Conservatives don’t call for high interest rates, they call for low inflation.
Mark, who is the ignoramus here? How do you think that we get low inflation? By high interest rates! This time round, at this point, low energy prices are staving off inflation. (it’s been a unique situation) Today’s unemployment rate stands at 4.1%, aside from the late clinton years, the lowest it’s been since nixon. Usually at this point in the cycle, the fed is in need of significantly higher interest rates to ward off inflation. They have already raised interest rates the past two years to slow down the economy. The fed is currently not happy with Trump ramping up the economy. This will likely change when Powell gets in. It must or we’re headed soon for our next recession. i don’t know why i even waste my time responding to you, Mark. (you’re too chicken to ever engage me in a discussion on economics)…
Paul, i’m not an economist! (just a guy in a leather jacket with a wallet in my back pocket) It’s not hard to predict with economics because we see the same thing over and over again. And unlike climate science, we know exactly why these things happen because the people in charge tell us exactly what they are doing. If you have any points of contention with anything i’ve said, feel free to enquire…
Which is better? High inflation with prices that more people can afford OR low inflation with prices that fewer people can afford? (because the latter is exactly the greenspan philosophy; low inflation coming at the expense of wage growth)…
Afonzarelli-san: I’m a big proponent of ending the Fed and allowing free-floating interest rates determined by the market.
Keeping interest rates artificially low leads to massive malinvestemnts of limited land, labor and capital and creates massive boom/bust economic cycles.
The main reason governments like Central Banks to keep interest rates artificially low is to enable them to finance their massive unsustainable and growing national debts. The US national/state debt stands at around $22 Trillion, and if interest rates were at average levels of around 6%, debt financing alone would devour 30% of all tax revenues.
Another reason government hacks like low interest rates is that they create the illusion of economic growth through stock, real estate and asset bubbles. Since investors can’t get highs enough returns to even beat inflation by putting their cash in low-risk savings accounts/bonds/CDs, they’re forced to buy high-risk stocks, high risk corporate bonds, and real estate assets, which cause economic bubbles.
Central Banks also can’t be trusted to keep the M1 money supply at sustainable levels and always end up printing money to cover annual budget deficits rather than cutting spending… Mieny printing is a form of stealth tax that devalues every asset you own and destroys the purchasing power of currencies. During Obama’s disasterous 8 years, the Fed increased the M1 money supply from $800 Billion to $4 Trillion, which is the largest increase in US history… it was totally insane, and the FED will eventually have to unwind that toxic waste off their books with dire consequences..
Trump is doing a lot of excellent things to improve the economy, but I worry he’ll listen to RINO Keynesians and implement a stupid $1 Trillion infrastructure “stimulus” program, which will explode the debt (+666 Billion added this year), while misallocating a lot of land, labor and capital the market could have invested much more wisely.
We’ll see. BTW, Apple just announced they’ll be repatriating $200 Billion this year thanks to Trump’s tax-cut bill, and rumor has it they’ll use this to buy Netflix.
Winning!
Another post promoting fossil fuels when we need to go nuclear that is a million times as energy dense. It gets old.
David we went nuclear many years ago.
All US navy combat subs and aircraft carriers are nuclear powered.
About 20% of US electricity is nuclear. It is 75% in France.
I think promoting all energy sources is a wise policy.
At least 80% of our electricity should be from nuclear and of a particular kind of which we have zero. Molten Salt thorium reactors. The kind we developed at Oak Ridge in the 60’s and 70’s and never got.
I don’t see any point in promoting fossil fuels when synthetics can be easily made from these reactors if need be for the transportation sector.
Why disturb a million times as much of the planet for fossil fuels as you would nuclear? There is no rational reason to do that. And then we have all these resource wars — primarily for oil. So this is not a wise policy at all and disingenuous to promote it.
This board is full of fossil fuel promoters. It get’s old.
(I have lots of Exxon stock only because we have no nuclear alternative to fossil fuels because we never developed the reactors that could make fossil fuel synthetics if we needed them). I would like nothing more than to dump my Exxon stock and invest in a company making molten salt thorium reactors.
I hold the fossil fuel industry responsible for much of our failure to go nuclear. They push renewables just because they know renewables can’t compete. They never push nuclear because they know they can’t compete with nuclear.
Posting this video here for the umpteenth time since 2011.
Ivan writes,
“Keep in believing your own wonky science. I would like to know at what university you studied. Perhaps it was Trump University? I can see it teaching this rubbish…”
So Ivan where did you study science? Most people who rant about the environment never bother learning the science. This is why they are acceptable to fear mongering.
Notice Ivan did not dispute my scientific argument but where I learned it and who was president. Science is science. It is not a belief system but something you measure in the lab and in the field.
My first college level chemistry was at a local ‘community’ college when Johnson president. It was Purdue’s hardest freshman chemistry class. Chemistry for chemistry majors. When Clinton was president, I took graduate level environmental chemistry at Washington State U.
“article that will teach you something about the science underpinning CO2 absorption into the oceans:”
Maybe Ivan post the wrong link but the article is not about C02; it is about energy absorption in the ocean. It is not a scientific article, it is a fear mongering.
“the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990.”
I liked this too:
“a scenario potentially akin to the massive ocean carbon release that helped end the last Ice Age.”
I am not sure about what they mean. The earth in the last million of years has experienced a pattern of glaciers growing and receding.
Clearly warmers is better for living things like now. I vote for breaking the cycle.
“I’m a geologist, who has worked the Gulf of Mexico for 30 years.”
So David, how many died?
I am sicked by those who worry more about the environment than workers who will never return home.
However, after reading reports on Deep Water and the mining disaster in West Virginia I have to wonder when will other industries look at how the US Navy and the US nuclear industry responded to serious issue to prevent future problems as recommended in the report.
11 men died. I stated that this was the only truly catastrophic damage in the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
So what has changed in the oil and gas industry to prevent such things from happening again? Or another Piper A?
http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/clean-water/oil-spill-prevention-and-response/industry-government-changes-post-macondo
A lot of people have died as a result of the fossil fuel industry in comparison nuclear to nuclear based deaths. Nuclear is far safer and we don’t even build anywhere near the safest reactors, which are molten salt cooled. All nuclear accidents have been the result of water cooling and pressurization because water only stays liquid for 100 C without pressurization. Molten salt stays liquid for 1000 C without pressurization. Molten salt cooled reactors are potentially several hundred times as safe as water cooled reactors and far less costly to make since pressurization is what drives up the cost. Molten salt reactors can compete with coal on cost.
But there is also tremendous damage to the earth with fossil fuels as opposed to nuclear. Since nuclear is one million times as energy dense there is a million times less disturbance of the earth. Any disturbance is a damage of some kind, even if very negligible at a given place.
Any disturbance is a damage of some kind, even if very negligible at a given place.
By that logic, shouldn’t humans avoid building homes, infrastructure, commercial buildings and other structures that make life easier for us, especially those who are the poorest?
After all, “any disturbance is a damage of some kind”, regardless of how negligible.
So you equate building homes and infrastructure to digging holes and shoveling out large amounts of dirt? False equivalency and you know it.
I notice you did not address my point which is that nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels. Maybe you have a financial interest in fossil fuels? What other reason is there for your response?
Good evening, David. Just a few comments here. First, I suppose that “catastrophic” is a matter of definition amongst those that were affected by DH but you are correct that no Extinction Level Event occurred from that spill, nor is one likely from any other as the environment is resilient (the reason that Species Diversity is important!) and most people recovered financially. The fatalities, of course, remain catastrophic for the families and friends of those lost and the event remains noteworthy at the least.
I left a short comment earlier that drilling in the GOM is economically sound and that Common Sense and Logic would rule because I have a sense about the political nature of such drilling in our state’s psyche and felt certain that political power would come to bear on the subject. As I’m sure everyone knows by now, the federal government and the State of Florida have come to an understanding that no drilling will occur near Florida’s coasts.
I’m not here to argue the merits of drilling or no drilling but do want us to take notice that something that was announced as certain, changed quickly after political realities were injected into what was a technical/economic discussion. That reality: Florida is a growing state with increasing electoral votes! Right or wrong, good or bad, up or down.
And, as a skeptic, we should take notice. We tend to argue against CAGW on the basis of the science, technical considerations, logic and common sense and that is absolutely necessary and good. Necessary and Good because that has laid the foundation for political power to grow and be applied so that, at least, the “Science is settled” argument is beginning to lose its appeal. Our opponents do the same, or try to, but they have been better in the past at using political power to promote their viewpoint, and more importantly, to get something concrete done such as laws and regulations. Until recently, that is.
The new administration has from the outset expressed skepticism about CAGW and is beginning to wield substantial political power as an expression. Much of that power is in the changes to federal agencies but I suggest that the Florida drilling reversal is another expression. Some will say that the federal government caved to Florida’s environmentalists while others will say that any new (an old) drilling is caving to the fossil fuel industry. But, I would say its a chess move (or gamble), electorally speaking, to consolidate or extend future political power to achieve the administration’s goals.
We need more of that kind of thinking. Yes, the science, technical, common sense and logic underpinnings remain vitally important but all of that must get translated into political power local and national.
One final note, my working career as a biologist took me to a number of refineries, gas processing plants, low and high pressure ammonia plants, and a number of defense facilities. The people in those industries that I had the privilege of engaging (and others) were highly intelligent, motivated, hard working, and very safety-minded individuals. None of them took safety for granted because the nature of their work was inherently dangerous and I’m confident that will continue.
Hope all is well with you and your families.
Regarding my use of catastrophic… The Gulf of Mexico recovered from the spill fairly quickly. Transocean, BP, Andarako and other companies on the hook financially for the spill all recovered. The Macondo prospect was successfully developed by LLOG. Gulf of Mexico fishing recovered. Presumably Florida’s tourist industry recovered.
The 11 men who perished on Deepwater Horizon will never recover. Nor will their families fully and truly recover. That’s why I say that the only catastrophic damage was the loss of those 11 men.
Regarding the deal between the Trump Administration and Gov. Scott, I can only hope that it involves the opening of at least the western portion of the EGOM. The plays that currently end at the “state line” could be developed with no more impact on Florida than existing projects in the eastern CGOM.
David, a quick apology for an omission in my earlier post. I had meant to reference regarding the loss of lives that you had mentioned the horrible nature of that fact on multiple occasions. A slip on my part.
People do die in this business. Every company strives to do everything possible to avoid “lost time injuries,” death being the most serious version. However, drilling holes into the Earth’s crust is fundamentally dangerous. There are no space places on a drilling rig.
“So you equate building homes and infrastructure to digging holes and shoveling out large amounts of dirt?”
Well…yes…indeed I would. And so should you shouldn’t you? Or maybe we don’t, e.g., move dirt when we build homes and buildings…or maybe we don’t, e.g., dig piling holes when we build bridges and/or skyscrapers?
“I notice you did not address my point which is that nuclear is a million times as energy dense as fossil fuels.”
Yes, because that argument isn’t nearly as interesting to me as the rest. I like nuclear! But if it’s less expensive to the poor for NatGas or some other fossil fuel then I like that even better.
The poor are better served when their basics aren’t overly expensive for no other reason than irrational arguments from morons.
” Maybe you have a financial interest in fossil fuels? What other reason is there for your response?”
ROFL! ad hominem/Alex Jones much?
Yes I have a financial interest in fossil fuels. I’m interested in saving money putting gasoline/diesel in my tank. I’m interested in buying NatGas as cheaply as possible to heat my home. And I’m interested in buying electricity as cheaply as possible from the power plants that serve my little community.
Other than that my interest is in asking you questions to see whether you’ve made any attempt to think about your arguments versus not.