outline

"Offshore Oil Drilling: Is expanding offshore oil drilling a solution to rising U.S. gasoline prices?" Issues & Controversies, Infobase Learning, 5 Dec. 2008, http://icof.infobaselearning.com.eznvcc.vccs.edu:2048/recordurl.aspx?ID=2052. Accessed 28 Nov. 2018.

Opponents Argue: Offshore Drilling Should Not Be Allowed

Critics of offshore drilling say that it does not solve the problem of scarce energy resources. The amount of oil that the federal government estimates is available offshore would meet U.S. energy needs only briefly, they charge. Not only do the United States and the rest of the world consume vast amounts of oil, they say, but oil consumption is expected to increase greatly in coming decades as the middle class grows worldwide and consumes more energy. Another problem, they contend, is that much of the newly discovered oil would only briefly make up for a shortfall in oil from current oil fields, which are gradually being depleted.

Critics add that even if, as oil companies claim, there is more oil available than the government thinks, it is unlikely to have more than a minuscule effect on U.S. oil prices. Domestically produced oil will be no cheaper than foreign oil for U.S. consumers, they note. They also contend that since it is to oil companies' advantage to keep oil supplies scarce and therefore keep prices high, companies might decide to cut output. The same goes for foreign countries whose economies depend on oil, they say; if the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) chooses to cut oil exports to raise prices, it will make little difference how much oil the U.S. produces domestically.

Regardless of how much oil can be found offshore, it will not be available in the near future, opponents say. Oil exploration and surveys to determine the environmental impact of drilling can delay actual drilling by about a decade, they note. In addition, they explain, some of the technology needed to drill in deep water areas is still being developed. Another problem is the shortage of ships used for drilling, they say, adding to the delay in reaching offshore oil.

Critics note that the Energy Department's 2007 report estimated that offshore drilling in the previously banned areas would increase U.S. oil supplies by only around 1 percent of what is consumed daily, which it said would have an "insignificant" effect on oil prices. It also estimated that it would take until 2017 for oil companies to produce even that much oil.

Another criticism of offshore drilling is environmental. Drilling in water causes environmental risks at every stage of the process, opponents maintain. Using sound waves to locate oil can harm whales and other marine animals, they claim. They add that the minerals pumped out of undersea rock to confirm the presence of oil can pollute water and endanger marine life. Transporting oil from drilling rigs back to shore by ship or pipeline, critics say, increases the likelihood of an oil spill, such as the 1969 Santa Barbara spill or the 1989 spill of the Exxon tanker Valdez off the coast of Alaska. Other risks can be less obvious, they assert. For example, they argue that the thousands of miles of canals created near New Orleans, Louisiana, to transport offshore oil and gas have left the city more vulnerable to hurricanes by cutting through the marshland that serves as a natural defense against such storms. "Basically, oil and water don't mix," Melanie Durchin of the environmental group Greenpeace told USA Today. "Oil smothers wildlife."

Critics argue that the environmental risks posed by offshore drilling are particularly worrisome for states such as California and Florida, for whose economic well-being tourism is vital. For those states, oil spills that ruined beaches would be especially devastating, they argue. They insist that the benefit of drilling is not enough to outweigh that risk. "It's what people come here for," Enid Sisskin of the Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, a group that has long opposed drilling off the Florida coast, told the National Public Radio (NPR). "We're not willing to sacrifice our economy for what is potentially a very small amount of oil or gas in comparison to the world supply and will do very little if anything to lower prices."

Critics say that another way offshore drilling harms the environment is by discouraging the development of alternative energy sources. Without the motivation of high gasoline prices, the U.S. will see little reason to curb its oil use, they argue. That will ensure that U.S. vehicles continue to produce harmful emissions at high levels, they charge, contributing to global warming and other environmental hazards. In addition, critics say, offshore drilling leaves the U.S. ill-prepared for the exhaustion of its oil reserves from all sources. "This whole 'Drill, baby, drill' mantra alludes to a future that's not possible," Robert Kaufmann of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University, told the Chicago Tribune. "We are not ever going to be self-sufficient in oil."

Critics also note that most of the estimated undiscovered offshore oil is not in the areas that were covered by the ban. Oil companies should drill every last drop of oil in the areas they have leased before moving on to more controversial drilling areas, they contend. When Bush called on Congress to end the ban, House speaker Nancy Pelosi accused him in a statement of trying to "give away more public resources to the very same oil companies that are sitting on 68 million acres of federal lands they've already leased."