Oil, Offshore Drilling, and Greed
Oil, Offshore Drilling, and Greed
BY MIKE WALKER
Recently, there has been a lot of talk at the state level about whether oil drilling off of Florida's coast should be considered as a mechanism to counter rising oil prices. The state's chief financial officer, Alex Sink, held a press conference to take issue with Governor Charlie Crist's turnabout in his position against offshore oil production-Crist stood against such efforts before but now
appears to have had a change of heart-as Sink wished for the state and the nation to understand that not all state officials or citizens advocated the same measures as the governor. Reading the Gainesville Sun, our local newspaper here, the letters to the editor page has been filled with opinions both for and against further offshore exploration and drilling. Clearly, it's a hot topic for many residents and also one which extends beyond our state to the national level.
It is possible that offshore oil fields will yield petroluem which would help offset the high prices of imported oil, however, there are numerous factors that people must be aware of and I do not see being talked over a lot in opinions either for or against such drilling. Firstly, the time and expense it takes to set up offshore oil platforms and get the drilling operations underway need to be considered because just having the legal ability to explore and drill in these fields will not mean that large amounts of oil will be availible tomorrow if we start today. In fact, the amounts of oil we can probably garner from these fields will not have a huge, immediate, impact on our needs for imported oil. Moreover, we have to establish consummate lines of transport for such oil to refineries and then there is the issue that American refineries are far behind their international counterparts in terms of technology: in a 2004 article in Slate, the online news daily, Daniel Gross made the point that a lot of people don't want refineries in their backyards and also that few have been built or even greatly modified since the 1970s. That's right: our refineries are more or less running on technology from the 1960s with exception to some environmental and control systems upgrades thrown in here and there. This is not to suggest these refineries are unsafe, but it does denote that they are probably not the most productive, ecological, or least-costly ones in the world.
America is not exactly leading the world in its merchant marine fleet either, with most ships which bring oil and related products to and from our shores owned by multinational companies and flying flags of nations where shipping regulations are much more lax than here in the USA. Try to track down the exact owners of a supertanker and you are in for a real adventure in admiralty law, trust me: many of these ship owners hide behind blankets of paperwork to insulate themselves from the vast scope of legal damages which can result from an accident or labor issues. What this paperchase means for oil transport and the economy though is that not only do other nations hold greater control over oil production, they also by and large have greater say-so over the shipping of oil. Then, coupled with the sorry state of our refineries, they also have greater agency in converting crude oil into refined products. The Danish shipping megacorporation Mærsk/A.P. Møller has tankers, oil exploration and drilling resources, support and construction ships, and even its own shipyards: none of the American oil companies at this point have maintained that strong an in-company ownership of material resources germane to petroleum production. And guess what? Oil isn't even Mærsk's main area of business: intermodal container shipping is, and they control the lion's share of this field world-wide now that they own the SeaLand line also.
A recent Mærsk press release states:
"Den nye pool vil drive 14 moderne VLGC skibe i 2011. Maersk Tankers, der er en del af A.P. Møller - Mærsk A/S, opererer i dag 8 skibe og vil i 2011 have kontrol af i alt 9 skibe. Transpetrol tager levering af 2 nybygninger i 2009, mens Zodiac tager levering af 3 nybygninger i 2010/2011."
translated:
"The new pool will manage 14 modern VLGCs by 2011. Maersk Tankers, the tanker division of the A.P.Moller - Maersk Group, is currently operating eight vessels and will by 2011 control 9 vessels. Transpetrol will add two new ship construction projects to the pool during 2009. Finally, Zodiac manages three other new ship buildings which will enter the pool during 2010/2011."
In other words, Mærsk has spearheaded an effort to manage eight of the largest tankers in the world while, with their associated companies, entering efforts to build even more such ships to meet the world demand for oil. It's funny what you learn when you read another language: I had not seen this reported in English news media but it made the Danish papers and Mærsk is understandably proud of its accomplishments. The question is, where will the oil carried by these tankers go? Probably, although Denmark is a close friend to the United States, to whomever will pay Mærsk the most for its services. After all, building supertankers isn't exactly an inexpensive venture. Where are the American companies putting forth the same effort to create required infrastructure for petroleum transport and refinement?
You see, it really does not matter if we drill off the coast of Florida or in Alaska if we cannot create effective mechanisms to place that oil into our refineries and then have refineries which are effective in producing gasoline and other petroleum products. However, opening up the Gulf and Alaska to further drilling will create untold environmental problems. For every letter to the editor, every comment on how our need for cheaper gasoline outweighs environmental concerns, I have yet to see these same writers articulate how they are sure that the natural ecology of these environments will not be disturbed by petroleum extraction. Scientific research is pretty clear in stating that offshore drilling can be done in an environmentally responsible manner however such is not often the case and disasters can have deep and very serious effects on local wildlife populations. This is the reason why there are extant laws governing the limitations we have on oil exploration and drilling: because we realize that such efforts can be very dangerous for fragile environments.
Something I do not see very much talk of coming from those who advocate further development of American oil fields, including these fields which could cost us in the ecological peril they create, is simply reducing our need for oil in the first place. Most of that need, at least on the consumer level, is in gasoline and of course it is high gas prices which has brought the common man into his interest in the nuances of the petroleum business in the first place. In regard to myself, I do not own a huge SUV, I ride my bike many places I go in Gainesville and sometimes this means up to 24 miles of biking per day. A lot of people in larger cities and in European nations also rely more on biking and walking for transportation. If you live in a rural area, as many readers of this paper do, I know these alternatives are less of an option than they would be for someone in a major city.
However, there are things we all can do to reduce our need for gasoline and other petroluem products instead of just complaining about how high prices are and wishing that we could by some odd magic have the oil fields and all the associated infrastructure to produce our own cheap gas overnight. Unless you're good pals with Harry Potter or some other wizard, I am can promise you that no magic will come along at the snap of a wand to create a viable means of producing this infrastructure in the present time: even if the right investments were made tomorrow, it would take, as that Mærsk press release also indicated, probably five years or so for the additional shipping resources to come online-to say nothing of refineries. If we even could, while endangering the environment, produce all this oil here in America yet remain short on the shipping and refinery capacity to do much with it, that oil will just be purchased and refined elsewhere. Or it will sit in some salt domes in Louisiana perhaps. Either way, without a consummate infrastructure, it simply will not really matter what we can produce even if our untapped oil fields were assured of being all that productive (which, if you read the petrochemical industry journals, these are not, anyways).
The mess we are in with oil is, at its core, a sticky situation mainly caused by greed: the greed of oil companies to spend profits on salary bonuses and posh offices over the less fun but very essential areas of infrastructure investment. The greed of Americans who demand a large car or truck that gobbles up gas. The greed of people who have large families and each high schooler has his or her own car. The lazy greed of those of us who will not walk to the store because we have chosen to live too far away to do so or we are too fat to do so or simply find it easier to drive everywhere. You cannot have your cake and eat it too-nor can you have your gas even if you could produce your own oil, unless you've been watching this game all along and made sage investments in the right places. Instead of endangering the environment further out of wanton greed, try cutting back a little where you can and take a real interest in bettering our situation of need for fossil fuels.
MIKE WALKER is a journalist who lives in Gainesville, Florida, and writes about ecology, natural history and associated topics. He never thought his command of Danish would come in handy in writing for a regional paper in Florida, but you never know! Mike can be reached at: cloudrace@prontomail.com
