Obama's Oil Expansion Plans: A Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety

[unhappycamper]

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18361-obama-s-oil-expansion-plans-a-clear-and-present-danger-to-public-safety



Obama's Oil Expansion Plans: A Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety
JACQUELINE MARCUS FOR BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT
Wednesday, 11 December 2013 09:50

In case you haven't heard the latest news from the White House, the president chose to unleash the fossil fuel industry all across America. That's right. They're proudly calling the United States "the new Saudi Arabia." President Obama told his oil friends that "America the Beautiful" is all theirs for the profits.

I don't know what Obama got in exchange for this unconscionable plan to drill, pollute and frack in our farming, ranching, wilderness lands and oceans, including the fragile Arctic, I don't know what kind of filthy oil money they waved in front of him like a bunch of sleazy drug gangsters, or how many multimillion dollar homes they offered him in the package of threats, I can only assume that he wouldn't sell the whole country out to the fossil fuel industry unless there was an enormous retirement payback for the Obama family in return.

In case you missed Obama's enthusiastic oil speech, here it is again: "Over the last three years," boasted Obama in public, "I've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We're opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth, and then some..."

Read more about President Obama's expansion of dirty oil plans in Bill McKibben's latest Rolling Stone article (12-19-2013 issue), including handing over Alaska's pristine Beaufort Sea to Shell where predictably an oil disaster is bound to happen from the tumultuous, icy wind conditions. In fact, even after Shell failed at the first attempt, its rig bopping about like a loose buoy, plagued by problems, the president nevertheless gave Shell the go ahead to drill. Now this is absolutely insane. But maybe you can't be president of this country unless you are certifiably insane? Who knows these days.

[Lefty615]

1. Over the top?

I read the entire article and I have to say that while there certainly are legitimate concerns about the potential problems with Arctic drilling and other fossil fuel operations, the "panic" over the President's "outrageous" energy policies seems to be way over the top. It would certainly be wonderful if we never pulled another gallon of oil out of the planet, but right now that's a practical impossibility. Thanks to President Obama, we have reduced our dependence on foreign oil and for the first time in many years a majority of our oil needs are met domestically. Safety regulations in the wake of the BP spill have been strengthened as well. No system is perfect and we can never be 100% sure that an accident will never occur, but the chances of a major accident are lower now than they were five years ago.

The country's economic needs and the country's environmental needs are intertwined, and any President would have to strike a balance between the two. I think President Obama's "balancing act" is better than what most other people in his position might do. Not perfect, but acceptable given the realities of the world.

It's curious to me that the article includes "exploration" among the things the author is afraid of. That makes no sense to me. Whether or not we drill for oil, we're certainly better off knowing whether the oil is there, aren't we?

[djean111]

2. Not "panic" at all. Righteous anger.

"Whether or not we drill for oil, we're certainly better off knowing whether the oil is there, aren't we?"
Why is that, exactly? And seems to me that a lot of oil "exploration" is, indeed, drilling.
And I do not think this country's environmental needs are being considered at all, in any way, shape, or form.

"but the chances of a major accident are lower now than they were five years ago."

Really? Facts, please. And tell that to the folks in Torbert, Louisiana - 2012, or the folks who thought the Yellowstone River would be better off without oil spills - 2011. Opening up for this much "exploration" - will of course lead to production, that is bullshit to think it will not - just means more accidents.

[Lefty615]

4. You're entitled to your opinion.

No disrespect intended, but I don't understand the anger. Are you suggesting that the United States should simply stop all oil production in the country? I truly do respect our environment, but I don't think its arguable that right now we need a lot of oil to keep the country running. A balance has to be struck, in my humble opinion.

Why explore? Because it widens our options, for one thing. If we know of one oil deposit and we need oil, that's where we have to get it regardless of the potential environmental concerns. If on the other hand we know of a dozen different oil deposits and we need oil, we can examine them all and find the one(s) that will carry the least environmental risk, and we can avoid the need to drill in a place where the risks are the highest.

As far as regulations, there is, obviously, a long way to go, but in contrast to the previous administration, which made DEregulation their top priority, we are at least acknowledging the need for stronger safety measures and are moving in that direction. The only thing holding back additional regulations right now is Republican obstructionism, but hopefully after 2014 that will be less of a problem, in my opinion.

Here are some comments on the subject:

We found that the administration moved quickly to reorganize the widely criticized Minerals Management Service, dividing its responsibilities between two new agencies: the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE).

Inspectors have been added to improve oversight, and the administration has asked for additional funding to help the authorities do their job.

Last October, the BSEE implemented new safety rules that draw on lessons learned from the BP disaster to improve well design and integrity.

Earlier this month, the BSEE proposed a useful new rule to require that independent, third-party experts, rather than company employees, conduct periodic audits of offshore drill rigs and producing platforms.

The bureau is behind, though, in putting in place tougher rules on the design and operation of blowout preventers. That work needs to move forward quickly, to help make this critical piece of last-resort equipment safer and more reliable.

The oil industry itself has created equipment to help contain a high-pressure blowout in deep water, a direct response to the industry's inability to plug the BP well in a timely way three years ago.

http://theenergycollective.com/francesbeinecke/214071/three-years-later-act-lessons-bp-disaster

[djean111]

5. Of course I am entitled to my opinion - why do people even say that?

Safety regulations - heard about the TPP? Any time an oil company, for instance, feels that local or national regulations may lessen profits, or have placed an area off-bounds for environmental reasons - they get the right to sue for lost profits or overturn the regulations.

Perfect storm building up here, IMO.

We don't need to compare anything to the last administration, that is over and one with. Moving forward, there have been many spills during THIS administration. I don't think any administration really has any sort of handle on oil spills, they just listen to the oil lobbyists and their promises.

[Lefty615]

8. Figure of speech

I don't know why people say "you're entitled to your opinion". I guess it means "I respect your opinion and i think it's rational but I disagree with it."

I agree with you about the TPP. I have yet to hear much in the way of legitimate arguments in favor of it, and I hear of more potential problems with it every time there's another "leak". The simple fact that they refuse to release the text of any draft agreements is worrisome, to say the least.

[djean111]

3. List of oil spills From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills

Lots of spills with American flags next to them, in the last five years. With more exploration and production, this list will grow, there is NO reason to think it will shrink or disappear. No reason at all. Our government only gives wrist slaps, and I predict regulations will be eased, not strengthened. I don't listen to the pretty speeches, I see what actually happens.

Oh, and welcome to DU!

[Lefty615]

6. Thanks

for the welcome. I'm still learning my way around the site, but it's already a damned sight better than the site I used to post on (its called Sodahead).

I'm curious what your solution is. As I said above I don't think we can simply shut down the entire American oil industry. That would be economic suicide. I strongly support the President's initiatives as far as developing more solar, wind, hydroelectric and other renewable energy sources, and I think we should be working towards converting the entire auto industry over to non-oil fuel sources, but it would take decades even without Washington gridlock before we can eliminate all dependence on oil. So what do we do in the meantime? If we go back to buying all our oil from other countries we'll wind up paying $10 for a gallon of gas, not to mention giving countries another avenue to inflict economic harm on the country for political purposes (don't know if you remember the Arab oil embargoes in 1973 and 1979, but it wasn't pleasant).

I hope you're wrong about easing regulations, though I can't say it can't happen LOL.

[djean111]

7. There are about 40 or 41 oil spills world-wide, back through 2008.

About 31% of the oil spills - world-wide - are/were in the United States. In the last five years.

No one is saying shut down the entire oil industry. Straw man there. So is $10 a gallon gas.

What we are saying is do not open up the entire country to oil, do not open up protected areas to oil.

Right now I think this administration is giving lip service to alternate fuels. I am following the proposed inflicting of punitive charges on people who use solar arrays, by power companies. I am hoping to get involved with a solar co-op possibly starting in my neck of the woods.

Corporations are already suing countries and municipalities when local regulations and environmental concerns prevent them from drilling/fracking/polluting. The TPP enhances that, and those provisions are being inserted into other "treaties". More like corporate giveaways, really.

We won't go back to buying all of our oil from other countries - the only two countries who currently produce more than us are Russia and Saudi Arabia, and we are not very far behind either of them. I feel that is another straw man, honestly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_production