Posts Tagged ‘energy’

Obama Administration channels Bush and opens up the seas to oil

Written by Mike Pisauro on April 5th, 2010 in Federal, Global Warming, Ocean, Politics | No Comments »

Last week the Obama Administration announced that it would open up the outer continental shelf or oil and gas production. It was a proposal that is very reminiscent of the Bush Administrations removal of the decades old ban on offshore drilling which I wrote about in “Another short sighted solution that solves nothing.”  While this proposal sounds like a Bush administration plan, it is supposed to be part of a broader energy strategy.  President Obama in is announcement of the plan said:

I want to emphasize that this announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies on homegrown fuels and clean energy.  And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long term.  To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.

The problem with the plan is that I do not thin it will do what it is supposed to do.  The Obama Administration’s plan to open up the OCS will do little to reduce fuel prices or availability of fossil fuels.  It is also naïve to think that the oil and gas developed off our coasts will remain in the country.  That oil and gas will go to the highest bidder no matter where they are located.  It will also subject to the OCS from additional pollution.  Pollution that is caused by the drilling process.  Pollution that is caused by leaks in the systems of offshore drilling platforms, vessels and from the pipelines.  Pollution that may arise from spills and other accidents.

Our oceans are already severely impacted by our pollution.  To increase the amount of chemicals that are leaked into the oceans through the drilling process is not going to help our oceans.  Also, is there were to be a major spill, that would devastate NJ’s economy.  In 200?, NJ tourism was the second or third biggest industry in the State.  If an oil spill was to occur off our coast, it could foul our beaches.  And oil spills do occur.  In January of this oil an oil tanker spilt 450,000 gallons in Port Arthur, Texas.  In 2007 a tanker spilled 57,000 gallons of fuel into the San Francisco Bay causing $70 million of damage to the fisheries and beaches.  I am not even mentioning The Valdez.  By some estimates Hurricane Katrina caused 6.5 millions gallons of oil to be spilled into the environment.

There is another problem with opening up the OCS for oil and gas exploration.  Even though the President suggests this is a short term plan.  The short term plan seems to be counter to the Administrations clean energy platform and to combating global energy. As President Obama said last years United Nations Conference on Climate Change:

Now, as the world’s largest economy and as the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our responsibility to address climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility.  That’s why we’ve renewed our leadership within international climate change negotiations.  That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies.  That’s why we’ve taken bold action at home — by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

I am also very concern that this new push for more oil and gas signals a retreat from or at least will impact our Country’s move toward renewable energy and to away from a commitment to combat climate change.  How are we going to stop incentivizing oil and gas when we open up more areas for drilling?  Are we going to lease them out for their full value?  How are we going to grow the green energy while telling the world that oil and gas is here to stay?  How do we credibly tell the world that we will lead it in solving climate change, when we cannot let go of the past.

Opening up the OCS for more oil and gas exploration is the wrong policy for many reasons.

Energy Master Plan

Written by Mike Pisauro on October 21st, 2008 in Renewable Energy | 1 Comment »

Tomorrow the final verison of the energy master plan will be presented to the public.  The energy master plan is the State’s blueprint to energy production and usage.  The State is required to produce an energy master plan every three years.  The current plan is several years in the making and twelve years or so (I think) overdue.  We will see what the final plan looks like, but the draft plan was lacking in many respects.  Once I have had a chance to look it at I will try to give a review.

I'm missing something with offshore drilling

Written by Mike Pisauro on August 17th, 2008 in Ocean, Sustainability | No Comments »

The hot topic of offshore drilling seems to be an almost daily topic in the news. Two weeks ago, I came across a poll by the Monmouth University/Gannet New Jersey Poll on offshore drilling that got me thinking about this blog. The poll can be found here. A few days later, I read an article by New York Times columnist, Paul Krugman entitled “Can this planet be saved?” And here is what I do not understand…

The current Bush administration, the Republican party and its Presidential hopeful, John McCain, are calling for the lifting of the moratorium on offshore drilling, hailing it as the way to address the country’s energy needs and to reduce gasoline prices. Based upon the Monmouth University Poll it seems like a lot of people agree with them – sort of. According to the poll, 56% of the respondents support drilling for oil off the coast of New Jersey and, while this is not an overwhelming percentage, it is still the majority response. Now, here is where I get confused, while a majority of the respondents seem to support drilling, less than half of them think that it will have any real impact on the price of gasoline. These statistics are right in line with what Krugman wrote. He noted that merely saying that offshore drilling will relieve gas prices seems to be swaying public opinion. McCain is using the argument to brand his critics as the cause of the high gas prices we all feel when we go to fill up the tank.

The reality is that any resulting decrease in the price of gasoline is at least a decade away and even then, for all real purposes, it will be an insignificant decrease. The Energy Information Agency, which is the government agency in charge of monitoring and projecting our energy needs – including gasoline- has said that opening up our outer continental shelf to drilling will have little impact on the price of gasoline. It clearly will have no immediate impact.

Tourism is one of the top industries in New Jersey and it is vital to our economy. In 2007, the Tourism industry brought in almost 38 billion dollars – and a large part of that revenue came from the visitors to the shore region. Forgetting for a minute any environmental impact of off shore drilling, why should we risk damaging a very real and profitable economic sector when the potential rewards are almost negligible? The recent spill on the Mississippi River caused huge economic damage as over 200 ships were delayed in reaching their destination until the oil could be cleaned from the river. The Mississippi incident spilled 419,000 gallons of oil. The infamous Exxon Valdez spilled 10.8 million gallons of oil into the ocean and affected 11,000 square miles of ocean and adjacent shore. Even though the Valdez spill was 19 years ago the environmental effects are still being felt.

Can you imagine what an oil slick at the mouth of the Delaware or along our coast would do to the ports in N.J. and Philly? What would happen to all of the hotels, restaurants, and other businesses along our coast that rely on tourists’ dollars?

Here is another point of confusion. Oil companies are posting record profits and a large percentage of existing on and offshore leases held by those oil companies are not even being used. The reduction in gas prices resulting from new off shore drilling will not be felt for a decade or more and will, in fact, only amount to a penny or two. A spill, however, could potentially devastate one of the most important economic generators in the state. But we must open up even more areas for drilling and cannot force companies that already have leases but are not using them to put them into production.

Given all of this, why are so many people are falling for the rhetoric? And how do we turn the tide?