Obama Authorizes Offshore Drilling in the Arctic
George H. W. Bush tried it, but the courts defeated him.
George W. Bush tried it, but the courts defeated him, too.
And now Obama and his underlings at the US Department of the Interior have given Shell Oil permission to drill offshore in the Beaufort Sea, and if anything goes wrong, nobody can fix it.
"Beaufort Sea" sounds like an obscure little body of water, but it actually encompasses about 170,000 square miles, and that's a lot of water, all of it sitting right at the top of the world, all around the North Pole, where sea ice would make it virtually impossible to clean up an oil spill.
But not to worry!
Shell Oil promises that nothing will ever go wrong, and denizens of the Arctic like bowhead whales and the Inupiat people won't even know that huge wells have been drilled in the seabed.
Never mind that sometimes something goes wrong with oil in the Arctic, like a 267,000 gallon spill at Prudhoe Bay in February 2006, which nobody even noticed for almost a week, although that was on onshore spill and significantly easier to notice than a spill hundreds of feet underwater.
It's a peculiar little factoid about the spill at Prudhoe Bay that all that oil leaked out of a hole that was only 1/4th inch in diameter. 267,000 gallons of oil ran out a tiny little hole, not much bigger than a soda straw!
But enough oil to fill up a couple of million cans of soda ran through that tiny hole, no bigger than a soda straw, before anybody even noticed.
And that was a hole in a pipeline, where all you have to do is turn a valve and the flow of oil will stop, so you can patch that tiny hole.
So what could go wrong a few hundred feet under what's left of polar ice? What could go wrong where enormous well-head pressure makes a pipeline look like a soda straw? What could go wrong where nobody can clean up oil under ice that plays a crucial role in the climate of Planet Earth?
What could go wrong?
Nothing, says Shell Oil, and we might as well believe them, while we can.
Reaction in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune...
October 20, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No worries, dude.
The Caribou tell me it's all good.
Oh yeah. Remember our chant this Summer?
DRILL, BABY, DRILL! DRILL, BABY, DRILL!
Yeah. I used to love that one. Good times.
October 20, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't it a hard, sad truth that most Alaskans are in favor of drilling, baby, drilling?
I can't look; Q's link must tell about the caribou who snuggle up to the drilling platforms...
Oh, christ.
October 20, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Alaskans want to "drill, baby, drill". Those anti-socialist, commie hating Americans just LOVE THEIR SOCIALIST OIL GOVERNMENT CHECKS.
October 20, 2009 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thass right! One state with Guaranteed Annual Incomes!
October 21, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just to be sure the facts are straight here. It's a conditional approval. And certain conditions must be met before Shell can move ahead with actual drilling.
http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/979077.html
However, why even give them a conditional approval?
October 20, 2009 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Almost makes me long for the good ole days when James Watt was running around the Dept. of Interior. Could someone remind me again why we voted for Obama?
October 20, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uhhh, not actually.
October 20, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a lot of people I think it was because he wasn't Hillary. For lots of others they thought it would be historic to vote for him and they thought he was something he isn't. It was an historic vote no doubt. Few could have anticipated how the opportunity that presented itself last November would be squandered.
October 20, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why did they even think it was an opportunity? Didn't they look at the IOUs?
October 21, 2009 7:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Obama is continuing the sex-for-oil tradition at the Dept. of the Interior:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html
October 20, 2009 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well now, that was purty funee!
BTW, gail norton may get indicted on pay-to-grab some leases. I am salivating. I abhor that evil cow. She's a Colo-RA-dan, doncha know!
October 20, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Salazar is reviewing the legality of the last-minute oil shale leases the Bush administration fast-tracked before he left office via Gale Norton and Shell. He has cut to one-eighth the acreage that is allowed to be even tested.
It's a huge worry for Utah and Colorado, not only for the environmental degradation, but the enormous amount of water it is projected to consume in production. The Colorado River is already over-allocated; the Water Compact was based on erroneously high water amounts in very wet years, and major trouble is already brewing in the West over the issue.
Oil shale development would create disastrous havoc. It's claimed that 800,000 barrels are locked in the shale, but fancy mining, and heating the rock enough to squeeze out some oil! It's worse than squeezing it out of the tar sands.
Estimates are it would take one to four barrels of water to produce one barrel of oil. One good thing I can say about Salazar is that he knows water issues.
To John above:
Drilling-everywhere advocates try to pretend that domestic production would ease the deals we make with 'Bad Guys' and 'Bad Countries'. Jimmy Carter told us in the 70's that we needed to curb our reliance on oil. We didn't, and here we are. I submit that oil production for many US-based countries isn't just about our needs, it's global needs. The Resource Wars will go on until we have the will to stop them.
October 21, 2009 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot the link, of course:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/us_news/2009/Oct/20/salazar_calls_for_probe_of_bush_oil_shale_changes.html
October 21, 2009 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said
October 21, 2009 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wendy, thanks for the reminder that Carter told us in the 70s that we needed to curb our reliance on oil. Andrew Bacevich says that it was that message, more than the Iranian hostage crisis, that cost him the election in 1980:
BILL MOYERS: You're the only author I have read, since I read Jimmy Carter, who gives so much time to the President's speech on July 15th, 1979. Why does that speech speak to you so strongly?
ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, this is the so-called Malaise Speech, even though he never used the word "malaise" in the text to the address. It's a very powerful speech, I think, because President Carter says in that speech, oil, our dependence on oil, poses a looming threat to the country. If we act now, we may be able to fix this problem. If we don't act now, we're headed down a path in which not only will we become increasingly dependent upon foreign oil, but we will have opted for a false model of freedom. A freedom of materialism, a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness. And what the President was saying at the time was, we need to think about what we mean by freedom. We need to choose a definition of freedom which is anchored in truth, and the way to manifest that choice, is by addressing our energy problem.
He had a profound understanding of the dilemma facing the country in the post Vietnam period. And of course, he was completely hooted, derided, disregarded.
BILL MOYERS: And he lost the election. You in fact say-
ANDREW BACEVICH: Exactly.
BILL MOYERS: -this speech killed any chance he had of winning reelection. Why? Because the American people didn't want to settle for less?
ANDREW BACEVICH: They absolutely did not. And indeed, the election of 1980 was the great expression of that, because in 1980, we have a candidate, perhaps the most skillful politician of our time, Ronald Reagan, who says that, "Doom-sayers, gloom-sayers, don't listen to them. The country's best days are ahead of us."
BILL MOYERS: Morning in America.
ANDREW BACEVICH: It's Morning in America. And you don't have to sacrifice, you can have more, all we need to do is get government out of the way, and drill more holes for oil, because the President led us to believe the supply of oil was infinite.
--------
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/transcript1.html
(This despite the fact that he excoriates Carter earlier in the interview for the Carter Doctrine, which identified the Persian Gulf as being a region in which the US would not tolerate any other nation to challenge our dominance there.)
Bacevich makes for truly inspiring reading. Though being inspiring, and even correct, never counted for much in our political discourse. As Quinn says, we cannot even satirize ourselves, being beyond any kind of satiric self-reflection.
October 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...a freedom of self-indulgence, a freedom of collective recklessness..."
He could have added "a freedom of shooting ourselves in the foot, a freedom of going to war for oil, our CIA partnering with tyrants..."
Thanks for the Bacevich. I was trying to find his current op-ed on Afghanistan, and I had no luck. He is pretty good at think-ology, isn't he? Carter, too.
Oh, and don't forget Reagan's deal with the hostage-holders; that didn't help Carter so very much.
October 21, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it in the American Constitution somewhere that the secret purpose of the political system will be to put all essayists, satirists and comedians out of a job? I can't wait for Obama to go aerial hunting with Palin, and accidentally shoot Dick Cheney in the face.
The thing is, that's no longer a stretch. We're almost there.
Sex for oil? That shoulda been a gimme for authors of bad political thrillers and the cheap shot comedians. "Full service, fill 'er up, drill baby drill," - hell, the jokes would write themselves.
But then... POOF! They dun it already!
American politics - the thrill is gone.
October 20, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I can only hope this is true. I suspect it is not. The facts as I see them: (1) We are still very dependent on oil, and that won't change for a long time, even with large increases in alternative fuels. (2) We currently import vast quantities from unstable regions of the world, and our dependence on those supplies lead us to deal with unstable regimes (iraq, saudia arabia, iran, nigeria, venezuela, russia). (3) Oil is going to be drilled in the world; having Shell do it under US regulations is better for the world environment than having Petrobras do it in Brazil or having Shell (or BP, or fill-in-the-blank) do it in Nigeria or Russia. (4) Having this done in US territory would provide tax revenue for the ballooning deficit
Better for the environment, better for our national security, better for our treasury. Makes too much sense, so I doubt it will happen.
October 20, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see no evidence that drilling in U.S. territory will discourage the oil companies from drilling elsewhere as well. The notion that the worldwide rate of drilling is a constant indepedent of what we allow strikes me as naive.
There are two serious problems with further drilling here. The first is the direct environmental impact, which is potentially devastating in case of a spill. The second is the ability of increased oil supply to exert downward pressure on the cost of fossil fuels, and thereby reduce incentives to develop alternative energy sources and to conserve energy. Given the current rate of CO2 emissions, it's imperative to take steps in the opposite direction - i.e., steps that increase carbon prices - to avert potentially catastrophic consequences of unmitigated climate change. If increases in carbon prices inflict hardships on the poorer segments of our society, we have societal remedies to compensate them via tax breaks, subsidies, or other measures. Making oil and gasoline cheaper is not what they or anyone else needs in the long run.
October 20, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A piece of a real strategy would be to drill here, AND raise the cost of gasoline. See my thoughts on this: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/humphrj/
October 20, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greeting Fred Moolten!
Since you and I are on the same page with this particular issue, I may as well share a peculiar example of scientific compartmentalization with you, with I imagine you may appreciate more than most other commenters.
While I was googling around for this diary, I noticed some happy news in an older ScienceDaily article from 2003...
"Research Shows Little Effect From Arctic Offshore Oil Drilling; Study Reveals Thriving Oceanographic System," say the headline, and isn't that delightful!
As far as it went, this article was based on sound research by John Trefry, an oceanographer at Florida Tech.
Wonderful! So what's the problem with drilling on and offshore in Alaska?
The problem is that the most catastrophic damage so far inflicted on the North Pacific Ocean didn't originate with offshore drilling in the first instance, but rather with transporting oil from a variety of sources, in the infamous Exxon Valdez.
This spill was actually worse than almost anyone remember, because the real extent of the damage only slowly became apparent over a period of years, and even environmental news-junkies who closely monitored the story may be surprised to learn that oil from the Exxon Valdez eventually covered 11,000,000 square miles of ocean.
11,000,000 square mile of ocean, covered with oil.
But because this disaster didn't occur during extraction of oil from the seabed, it can be neatly excluded from consideration in the categories offshore drilling and its potential impact on the ocean, and Professor Trefry's research can generate a feel-good headline and happy descriptions of pristine seas.
October 20, 2009 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's probably true that in the absence of a spill, environmental damage might be minimal, although we can't know that for sure, but sooner or later accidents happen, and there are few places where the effects are harder to correct than the Arctic Ocean. You mentioned that earlier, and more details are described in a 2008 Science Daily piece:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130200934.htm
October 20, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a good link...
“The Arctic offers the highest level of ecological sensitivity and the lowest level of capacity to clean up after an accident.”
October 21, 2009 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, you prpose two serious problems. But you are discounting this issuerelated to water. For me, it is a deal breaker. The process has unacceptable demands, when things go as planned. We have this false belief that our water drinkng water is endless, but we are losing sources for clean water every day.
Water, it's what we are made of.
October 21, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
"John" must be very smart, because he or she has exactly the same idea as Sarah Palin.
October 20, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even a stopped clock is right twice per day. The fact that she thinks it is a good idea isn't enough to convince me it is wrong.
October 20, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not consider the fact that the oil found will account for less than 1% of our consumption, which can easily be handled through, oh, CAFE standards. I can only thank God that forward thinking people like you weren't around at the turn of the century. CARS, WE CAN'T HAVE CARS, THERE ARE NO GAS STATIONS!
October 20, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for CAFE standards and other ways to increase the cost of gasoline. See my blog post on this topic posted above as a response to Mr. Moolten.
Meanwhile, our addiction to oil sends millions of dollars to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah so they can fund their oppression. Better to maintain our moral high ground of no new drilling in the US.
October 20, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell you what, I bet most environmentalists would be perfectly willing to commence drilling there once we have measures in place to increase the cost of gasoline. In short, when pigs fly.
October 21, 2009 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meanwhile, we spent another $25 Billion on imported oil during August...making the worst governments richer and continuing our dependence on their oil.
October 21, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its the lack of will on the part of the American Politic rather than the lack of technology to effect change in our buying habits. The answers are there except that all of our Politicians no matter which party seem more interested in the amount of money they can get from Special Inerests than they are in helping solve problems. To date, Obama has been nothing but George Bush in a more stylish suit.
October 21, 2009 7:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Much wiser to pay more money now to the worst governments than to put more CO2 out now to fry the planet sooner because we have made oil cheaper by drilling here. No drilling here until after CO2 reduction measures are in place. The lives of your great great grandchildren depend on it. And their lives are much more important than their pocket books!
October 21, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect the people who live in those areas would diagree with the prioritization. As long as we stay in an either-or disagreement, we will stay deadlocked...and nothing happns to change anything. I'd rather see BOTH drill in the US and also pursue alternatives and also increase the cost of gasoline and carbon. Otherwise it is just us versus them and a continuation of import and pollute.
October 21, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is sickening confirmation (once again) that all Obama really meant by "change" was changing the face at the top. He didn't really mean to change anything. And pretty much he hasn't.
Thanks Ruta, for the invaluable information.
And why isn't this getting covered in Left Blogistan?
October 20, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
indeed!
where is the coverage on this!!
October 21, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
okay here it is:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101903347.html?wprss=rss_nation
The Interior Department has given Shell approval to drill oil exploration wells in two leaseholds in the Beaufort Sea, which could lead to the first drilling in more than a decade in this area off the north coast of Alaska.
October 21, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
what does held for approval by blog owner mean?
I worked on a post with links for 15 minutes and now its gone? WTF?
October 21, 2009 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trying to reply to Oleeb to say its absolutely silly hyperbole to say all that has changed is the face in the Oval.
Plenty has changed in Federal Environmental Policy. I'm not gonna go through everything that just got absorbed into the atmosphere so I tell you to look it up yourself and stop with the ridiculous Obama = Bush stuff if you want to be taken seriously.
October 21, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No pun intended when I said "absorbed into the atmosphere"!
What I meant was my comment, complete with lovely html links, that twice said "held for approval". I've never seen that message before. Any ideas?
October 21, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We disagree.
Obama is more of an enlightened old time eastern Republican (Republican Enlite if you will) than an actual Democrat. The time has long since passed for the half measures he proposes to address the nation's ills and the outrageous concessions to wealth and power Obama has allowed.
Sure, there have been some favorable incremental changes in emphasis in policies. But on all the big issues Obama's course is virtually indistinguishable from that of a year ago and in some cases it's worse as in the abuse of the state secrets privelege. The two wars: no end in sight and escalation on the way in Afpak. Climate change legislation is a joke and will have no impact. Granted Bush would have done absolutely nothing on healthcare but Obama's health insurance reform is an insurance industry subsidy bill openly and deliberately designed to appeal to Republicans not Democrats and he refuses to fight for inclusiuon of a public option. The administration staunchly defends torturers and helps to cover up their crimes in order to protect them. Obama has yet to close Guantanamo and meanwhile all the abuses that took place there are ongoing at Bagram with not even so much as a hint of bringing those unconstitutional/illegal activities to and end. Domestic spying continues unabated if not in expanded form. The giveaway of our national treasury to the banks is no different and perhaps worse under Obama than Bush and the banks are calling all the shots.
Hard to make a case on the big issues that there's all that much difference on substance between Obama and Bush. Sure he's tweaked here and there in positive ways and you can deny the reality for a while,but sooner or later you have to concede that on the big issues change is not something we're seeing a whole lot of. I would love to be proved wrong, but I don't see how that happens given the facts.
October 21, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your comments are automatically held up permanently if you include more than two links.
October 21, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
ugh, thanks Fred, didn't know that.
October 21, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's a spam filter that comes with this software (numerous cross-links for search engine ranking are the raison d'etre for some spam).
And no one on this site tends to that file, those comments never get approved and remain unpublished.
The way to get around it if you have more than two links is to break your links up into a comment and replies to the comment.
October 21, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Regarding the "drill, baby drill" mantra, it was popular when gasoline was selling for over $4.00 per gallon with some predicting it would go to $5.00 per gallon. Since then, with few, if any any new wells being drilled, the price of gasoline has dropped by almost 50%.
Interesting.
October 21, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Crap!
drilling alone causes pollution. There doesn't need to be an accident.
I am severly disappointed about this development.
October 21, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently, the human brain has not evolved enough to fully understand the implications of "global," which requires rethinking concepts of "place." There is no longer a "here" versus "there."
Maybe elementary school geography should be supplemented with lessons in prevailing wind and tide/current patterns. Or maybe, because children can't vote, use the phone or send faxes to their representatives, maybe we should cut to by setting up those classes as adult education courses.
October 21, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another alternative is giving the vote to children, and taking it away from "adults."
Spears/Timberlake 2012!
Or SpongeBob/Namu!
Whatever!
But what we would probably get is Nader/Kucinich, because the average child isn't nearly as fucking stupid as the average adult.
October 21, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true, Ruta, sad but true.
October 21, 2009 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
How very, very disappointing.
October 21, 2009 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll keep it brief. Son. of. a. Bitch.
I'm not going to jump on the "see, see, toldja so, he's evil and awful and just like Bush" bandwagon over it, but this is one seriously fucked up decision.
October 21, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink