Question about land based oil spills

[GoddessOfGuinness]

The annoying comment I'm hearing time and again is that environmentalists are to blame for this oil spill because they forced drilling farther and farther offshore. I've been researching online, and am having a difficult time finding info on reliable websites that will help me refute this claim. If any of you can suggest some, I'd really appreciate having the links.

To my mind, the claim is absurd. Wouldn't a land-based spill be as hazardous to the environment as one offshore? And if they were being "forced" offshore, why didn't these companies invest in a clean energy future to ensure their survival in a post-oil world? And, honestly, can we really believe the big oil companies would not have drilled offshore if they'd been allowed to drill on land as much as they wanted? I kind of doubt it.

Thanks for your links and comments.

[izquierdista]

1. Why they have been "forced"

Because they drained most of the oil on land. Look up some peak oil statistics. You will find that LA and TX peaked long ago on land. On the downside of the curve, they are moving farther and farther out to sea to get it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

5. Thank you for reminding me...

My dad worked for the Bureau of Mines as a statistician. He was a petroleum expert, and helped compile a lot of those statistics. Now that you mention it, I do remember him telling me back in the 70s that, despite dire predictions, there was plenty of oil...it was just under water and ice.

[guardian]

2. I think there are two separate issues.

Saying who is culpable for a specific spill is one issue. I haven't actually heard a clear report of the root cause of the accident/explosion. Maybe it's because they don't know yet? Maybe it is because BP is hiding info to avoid looking bad? If the accident occurred because of negligence then BP should be hammered unmercifully. If the accident just happened I still think BP should bear the brunt of the clean up cost, but not be excoriated. After all accidents do happen. Things do break due to fault of nobody. Especially when you are dealing with extremes of pressure, temperature, remoteness. Like the t-shirt says "entropy happens." So who is blaming the environmentalists? This is news to me. Sounds like something Beck or Savage would say.

The other issue is comparing a land-based spill to the deep sea spill. I have no background in this area, but my guess is the land-based spill would be a better scenario and easier to remedy. First humans can actually get to it to assess the problem and apply a solution. It's not like the late Red Adair could swim down and fix the problem. Second, the land based spill would affect a smaller geographic area. With the ocean diluting the oil and currents carrying it hundreds/thousands of miles you have a epic disaster. Third, with a land based spill the clean up is more two dimensional. With the spill in the ocean it is three dimensional and the you are talking a lot of volume. Forth, with a land-based spill I'd think the oil would tend stay in one place. With the ocean it's moving around all the time so you have to go chase it.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

7. I heard it before today, but there's a thread on DU

about Palin blaming environmentalists.

All I could say was the greater pity is that we're in the 21st century and still dependent on fossil fuels.

[petronius]

3. I don't think they mean land versus ocean, I think they mean near-shore

versus far off-shore. If I understand correctly, many states prohibit drilling in state-controlled coastal waters, although it is allowed in federally-controlled waters farther offshore.

As for hazards, I think a land-based spill would be far easier to control and contain than an ocean spill in any depth. It's much easier to approach a blown-out well on land, and the medium itself isn't helping to spread the oil...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

6. I guess that makes sense,

Still, I would think there would still be evaporation issues and seepage into groundwater...ultimately into streams. The best you could say for it is that it would be less of a disaster.

[jimlup]

4. There is a nice refutation of this line of reasoning on Climate Progress ...

Here is the link:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/02/sarah-palin-facebook-drill-baby-drill-anwr-bp-oil-spill/

Something that I had not thought of was mentioned in one of the comments that could help you with your "debate". If someone actually believes this point then they are tacitly admitting that deep water drilling is NOT safe. That puts them in an interesting corner. You then push them on:

1. Lots and lots of rigs on the shores of the Gulf... it is to say that they've essentially sucked them dry. (this image alone should cinch your argument.)

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/media/platform_600.html


2. As we approach "peak oil" we are pushed to harder and more expensive oil.

3. You should also be able to use the "Not in my back yard" argument though in this case it shouldn't be needed.

I could see myself in a similar "debate" with a bunch of right wing suckers but on the site I frequent they have not been stupid enough to try and make this argument yet.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. Thanks greatly, Jimlup...

Lots of good stuff there.

Olbermann showed clips last night of Palin's "drill baby drill" spiel prior to the spill. MANY times she mentioned the merits of offshore drilling. Such a hypocrite.