Go see this film at a theatre near you.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Oil Industry Mis-Information
One of the statements you frequently hear from the oil industry is that offshore oil drilling is safe and that even Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused no significant oil spills. These kinds of statements are then picked up and repeated in newspaper articles often enough that they seem to become accepted fact. The only problem is, they're not true!
First, take a look at the above photos from the Skytruth.org website.
Then consider that no less a source than the US Minerals Managment Service (MMS) confirmed that numerous oil spills occurred in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of damage caused to offshore oil and gas infrastructure by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Their news release states:
"Based on additional industry assessments, investigations, and reports, the number of pipelines damaged has risen to 457 from 183. The number of larger diameter pipelines (10 inches or greater) that were damaged has risen to 101 from 64. MMS has also revised the number of platforms destroyed from 115 down to 113 (one well was mistaken for a platform and one platform was damaged not destroyed). Six spills of 1,000 barrels or greater were reported; the largest of these was 3,625 barrels of condensate reported by the Gulf South Pipeline Company in the Eugene Island Block 51 area. A total of 146 spills of 1 barrel or greater have been reported in the Federal OCS waters; 37 of these were 50 barrels or greater." [Note: 1 barrel = 42 gallons]
MMS cautioned that the full extent of damage and spills was still being determined.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Oil Spills - Decades of Environmental Impacts
It seems that scientists hired by Exxon say there was no lasting damage from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. What a surprise! However other scientists, local fishermen and local residents tell a different story.
If you ask Exxon, local animals are all on the road to recovery. The company insists the spill caused no long-term damage to the region. "The exposure to the remaining oil is very small and is decreasing," said Paul Boehm, a chemical oceanographer and petroleum chemist consulting for the oil company in Alaska. Boehm's job includes gauging how much oil remains in the Sound. He says nearly all that's left is weathered patches of nontoxic oil residue and that the oil is in places or depths where critters like otters don't dig and ducks and their food sources aren't exposed.
The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees Council disagrees. The council is charged with using the nearly $1 billion Exxon agreed to pay for restoration efforts in a 1991 settlement, and it pays for the continuing killer whale studies in the Sound. Oil buried in some parts of the Sound is still as toxic today as in 1989, said spokeswoman Rebecca Talbott, and it may be slowing the ability of species such as the harlequin duck to rebound from the spill.
And an already fragile population of killer whales that hunts Prince William Sound never recovered from the Exxon Valdez oil spill and is doomed to die off, according to biologists. Marine mammal biologist Craig Matkin of Homer has tracked the animals since the mid-1980s and said he never thought he'd see an entire population of whales -- even a small one -- disappear.
"To blame it all on the spill would not be fair, but that's the final death blow," Matkin said.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Salazar rejects Bush drilling plan
Yesterday, Ken Salazar, Obama's Secretary of the Interior, rejected Bush's "midnight action" to open our coasts and oceans to offshore drilling.
"The Bush administration was so intent on opening new areas for oil and gas offshore that it torpedoed offshore renewable energy efforts," said Salazar.
Saying he needed to restore order to a broken process, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced his strategy for developing an offshore energy plan that includes both conventional and renewable resources.
His strategy calls for extending the public comment period on a proposed 5-year plan for oil and gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf by 180 days, assembling a detailed report from Interior agencies on conventional and renewable offshore energy resources, holding four regional conferences to review these findings, and expediting renewable energy rulemaking for the Outer Continental Shelf.
Read the Dept. of Interior release
More news on Salazar's announcement
Activists push for offshore drilling ban
It will be important to make our voice heard to ban all new offshore drilling. Stay tuned for announcements about the upcoming public hearings.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
31 Groups call Obama to renew offshore drilling prohibitions
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A false choice: Ocean conservation vs. energy development
Note: The following article appears in the January/February issue of Trends, a publication of the American Bar Association
A false choice: Ocean conservation vs. energy development
By Angela Howe, Legal Manager, Surfrider Foundation
New offshore drilling will neither meaningfully reduce our gasoline prices or increase our national security—however, it does pose a tremendous risk to the health and safety of our oceans and coastal environment. Most members of Congress understand this truth but succumbed to election year politics and allowed the 27-year moratorium on new drilling to expire. The debate about new offshore drilling has only one sure impact: it distracts the nation from developing an energy policy featuring efficiency and renewable energy, including renewable ocean energy. Fortunately, the new Congress convening in early 2009 will be well positioned to recover from the last Congress’ horrible misstep.
Abolition of the long-standing ban on offshore drilling will not solve our dependency on foreign oil. According to Congress’s own report on the issue, increased offshore production will not reduce reliance on foreign oil. Significant reduction of overall oil imports would require a drastic decline in the demand for domestic oil, particularly in the transportation sector. Congress raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards modestly in 2007, but has largely failed to shift the focus of federal energy policy toward those programs that would make major changes in fuel consumption.
Moreover, contrary to public perception, new drilling will not provide Americans with lower gasoline prices. In 2007, the Department of Energy reported that new offshore drilling would not exhibit any effect on gasoline prices for at least ten years, if ever. Since President Bush took office in 2000, the number of wells in federally-leased areas has increased exponentially, yet gasoline prices doubled during his time in office. Only recently have prices fallen sharply. Oil prices reflect global commodity market pressures, not the small, incremental supply from new wells on or off our shores.
The environmental threats associated with offshore oil and gas production form a nearly endless, tragic list. The most dramatic are the immediate and long-term ecological impacts from a large oil spill. But perhaps the most worrisome are the cumulative impacts on the marine, coastal, and human environments from drilling-related activities. Even if large spills can be avoided, the mere process of drilling harms the environment through damage to fragile coastal wetlands from production-related infrastructure and pipelines; physical damage to benthic marine communities; pollutant emissions, including lead, mercury, and cadmium; release of produced water containing dangerous levels of radioactive materials and carcinogens; and seismic exploration-related noise impacts on marine life.
Even assuming that the purported benefits of new drilling could be realized, a cost-benefit analysis supports the moratorium. Beaches, coastal communities, ports, and fragile bays are economic engines that drive large sectors of the national economy. Domestically, beach-going contributes up to $30 billion annually in economic well-being to Americans. Coastal recreation and fishing add another $10 and $26 billion, respectively. (See Linwood Pendleton at http://www.estuaries.org/assets/documents/ExecutiveSummaryPart1forweb.pdf).
New offshore oil drilling perpetuates a system that produces more polluting carbon dioxide, fewer jobs in new industries, and the degradation of our oceans. Investment in clean energy will allow the nation to reap benefits in the form of the growth of a new economy, the creation of new jobs, the potential for the United States to become an energy exporter, reduced dependence on oil, and protection of the environment. Who would we rather enrich, the oil companies or our communities?
To drill or not to drill is not the question we should be asking about using the oceans as an energy resource. Rather, we must view our oceans as a finite natural resource and ask how to responsibly protect and continue to use wisely the oceans’ wealth. Opening up offshore drilling not only threatens fisheries, public health, ecological diversity, and recreational opportunities, but it may also supplant opportunities for non-carbon based alternative energy, including the new and potentially beneficial technologies of wave and tidal energy. Because offshore ocean areas are immense resources with the ability to add greatly to the nation’s wealth through emerging clean energy technologies, we must take the long view. We should do the hard, serious work of engaging all stakeholders in coordinated planning and “zoning” of marine areas to find the right mix of protection and use of the oceans. We certainly should not sacrifice the potential for development of clean energy by committing our shores to the last century’s energy interests.
We all lose when political rhetoric and reactionary stop-gap measures get ahead of sound analysis and planning. Now is the time for the country to rededicate itself to a future of alternative energy development and protection of our oceans and coastal environment. It is time for Congress to restore the protection that our coasts have enjoyed for decades. Congress, as soon as you can, take our beaches back from the oil companies.
A false choice: Ocean conservation vs. energy development
By Angela Howe, Legal Manager, Surfrider Foundation
New offshore drilling will neither meaningfully reduce our gasoline prices or increase our national security—however, it does pose a tremendous risk to the health and safety of our oceans and coastal environment. Most members of Congress understand this truth but succumbed to election year politics and allowed the 27-year moratorium on new drilling to expire. The debate about new offshore drilling has only one sure impact: it distracts the nation from developing an energy policy featuring efficiency and renewable energy, including renewable ocean energy. Fortunately, the new Congress convening in early 2009 will be well positioned to recover from the last Congress’ horrible misstep.
Abolition of the long-standing ban on offshore drilling will not solve our dependency on foreign oil. According to Congress’s own report on the issue, increased offshore production will not reduce reliance on foreign oil. Significant reduction of overall oil imports would require a drastic decline in the demand for domestic oil, particularly in the transportation sector. Congress raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards modestly in 2007, but has largely failed to shift the focus of federal energy policy toward those programs that would make major changes in fuel consumption.
Moreover, contrary to public perception, new drilling will not provide Americans with lower gasoline prices. In 2007, the Department of Energy reported that new offshore drilling would not exhibit any effect on gasoline prices for at least ten years, if ever. Since President Bush took office in 2000, the number of wells in federally-leased areas has increased exponentially, yet gasoline prices doubled during his time in office. Only recently have prices fallen sharply. Oil prices reflect global commodity market pressures, not the small, incremental supply from new wells on or off our shores.
The environmental threats associated with offshore oil and gas production form a nearly endless, tragic list. The most dramatic are the immediate and long-term ecological impacts from a large oil spill. But perhaps the most worrisome are the cumulative impacts on the marine, coastal, and human environments from drilling-related activities. Even if large spills can be avoided, the mere process of drilling harms the environment through damage to fragile coastal wetlands from production-related infrastructure and pipelines; physical damage to benthic marine communities; pollutant emissions, including lead, mercury, and cadmium; release of produced water containing dangerous levels of radioactive materials and carcinogens; and seismic exploration-related noise impacts on marine life.
Even assuming that the purported benefits of new drilling could be realized, a cost-benefit analysis supports the moratorium. Beaches, coastal communities, ports, and fragile bays are economic engines that drive large sectors of the national economy. Domestically, beach-going contributes up to $30 billion annually in economic well-being to Americans. Coastal recreation and fishing add another $10 and $26 billion, respectively. (See Linwood Pendleton at http://www.estuaries.org/assets/documents/ExecutiveSummaryPart1forweb.pdf).
New offshore oil drilling perpetuates a system that produces more polluting carbon dioxide, fewer jobs in new industries, and the degradation of our oceans. Investment in clean energy will allow the nation to reap benefits in the form of the growth of a new economy, the creation of new jobs, the potential for the United States to become an energy exporter, reduced dependence on oil, and protection of the environment. Who would we rather enrich, the oil companies or our communities?
To drill or not to drill is not the question we should be asking about using the oceans as an energy resource. Rather, we must view our oceans as a finite natural resource and ask how to responsibly protect and continue to use wisely the oceans’ wealth. Opening up offshore drilling not only threatens fisheries, public health, ecological diversity, and recreational opportunities, but it may also supplant opportunities for non-carbon based alternative energy, including the new and potentially beneficial technologies of wave and tidal energy. Because offshore ocean areas are immense resources with the ability to add greatly to the nation’s wealth through emerging clean energy technologies, we must take the long view. We should do the hard, serious work of engaging all stakeholders in coordinated planning and “zoning” of marine areas to find the right mix of protection and use of the oceans. We certainly should not sacrifice the potential for development of clean energy by committing our shores to the last century’s energy interests.
We all lose when political rhetoric and reactionary stop-gap measures get ahead of sound analysis and planning. Now is the time for the country to rededicate itself to a future of alternative energy development and protection of our oceans and coastal environment. It is time for Congress to restore the protection that our coasts have enjoyed for decades. Congress, as soon as you can, take our beaches back from the oil companies.
Interior: Hold Everything, Let's Think About This
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Tuesday 1/27 that the expansion of offshore oil drilling should be worked out with Congress as part of a broad energy blueprint and not independent action by his department. In an interview with The Associated Press, Salazar indicated the drilling plan the Bush administration left on his desk likely will be scrapped. It would open the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts for drilling. More
Also see here
Also see here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
;
Posts
