An Oil & Gas Inventory Study should be a priority of any comprehensive Energy Policy for the United States. This is not related to whether any particular site should be developed at this time or ever. We should know what is in place, where it is, and how much is likely to be there. Then if it is in the best interest of the Country as a whole, we can discuss whether any particular site should be developed over local objections. This is rational policy and people who say we shouldn't look are just trying to protect their basis for lying and saying, "There's no oil there so why should anyone drill?" Just the knowledge that the United States has a huge oil supply just offshore Florida would make OPEC think twice about oil blackmail since the US would have the choice of foregoing their oil for an extended time if necessary.
nola.com
Study urged for potential oil and gas exploration
Vast areas along coasts have been off-limits since early 1980s
04/27/01
By John M. Biers Energy writer
A federal advisory panel wants the government to study the possibility of exploring potential oil and gas resources within vast coastal areas now barred from testing or drilling.
If conducted, the study would represent a significant departure from U.S. energy policy. While offshore drilling is common in the Gulf of Mexico, the majority of the East and West coasts and much of coastal Alaska have been off-limits since the early 1980s.
"There's no expectation of any immediate development," said Patrick Galvin, an Alaska government official who serves as a panel member. "The idea is to start a discussion of what resources may be in those areas."
A draft report, written by a natural gas subcommittee on the U.S. outer continental shelf, directs the government to assess the environmental impact of limited oil and gas development in five undetermined sites and to consult communities that could be affected. No specific locales are listed in the draft report, but possible areas might include offshore California, Florida and the Georges Bank near Massachusetts.
The recommendations, coming from a panel designated by the U.S. government to advise federal authorities on natural gas exploration, are the latest controversy in the ongoing national debate on balancing energy needs and environmental protection. The final report will be sent to the secretary of the interior following a meeting in late May in Virginia.
Panel officials emphasized the preliminary nature of the report and said any resulting action would involve studying the sites for natural gas reserves, which would be several steps away from actual drilling.
"The more information the communities have, the more comfortable they will be with the modern-day realities of oil and gas development, and the less swayed they will be with some of the political rhetoric that surrounds these decisions," Galvin said.
But Richard Charter, a marine conservation advocate for the nonprofit group Environmental Defense in Oakland, Calif., condemned the inquiry as a "stealth" approach to introduce rigs where they aren't allowed.
"This is clear evidence the industry's been emboldened by the kind of initiatives they've seen the Bush administration take on," Charter said.
President Bush vowed during his presidential campaign to continue the moratorium on new leasing in California and Florida. Bush spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo said Thursday that he will stand by that promise.
Asked about new leasing near other states, she said, "I don't know that he's addressed that."
John Wright, an Interior Department spokesman, said Interior Secretary Gayle Norton had not seen the panel's recommendation. "Our policy has not changed on moratoria," he said.
Beginning in the '80s
While the oil industry has long sought access to more domestic areas, offshore oil and gas development has proven to be political poison in Florida, North Carolina, California and other regions. Industry officials frequently gripe of the "not in my backyard" attitude of these states.
Congress barred activity in many areas beginning in the early 1980s, in response to aggressive proposals by the Reagan administration and its secretary of the interior, James Watt. Then, in a move most associated with his claim to being the "environmental president," former President Bush in 1990 closed off vast swaths along both coasts until 2002. In 1998, President Clinton extended the ban to 2012.
Even seismic tests and exploratory drilling are banned in those areas.
With gasoline prices surging and electricity flow uncertain, lawmakers are re-evaluating these restrictions. Many experts are especially concerned about natural gas because it, unlike oil, cannot be easily transported long distances by ship. In recent years, domestic production in the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico has been dropping off, worrying some experts, despite new reserves in Canada and the deepwater Gulf. Oil and gas drilling and production also continue at a limited number of sites off the shore of Southern California.
The total natural gas in regions barred to development is about 63 trillion cubic feet, according to the natural gas panel. Leading sources of gas in the areas currently off-limits include the eastern Gulf of Mexico, with 9 trillion cubic feet; the Atlantic, with 28 trillion cubic feet; offshore Washington and Oregon and most of offshore California, with 19 trillion cubic feet; and the North Aleutian Basin near Alaska, with 6.8 trillion cubic feet. But these estimates are rough, because the moratoria have barred the collection of data, panelists said.
Future potential
The panel calls on federal officials, industry and affected states to "identify the five top geologic plays in the moratoria areas, and, if possible the most prospective areas for natural gas in the plays that industry would likely explore if allowed." A pilot study would assess the impact and prospects of limited activity in restricted areas, the report said.
The offshore policy committee is made up of representatives from several states, the federal government, oil industry and environmental groups.
Although the committee has discussed the moratoria in recent years, previous talks have been far more superficial, said Donald Oltz Jr., chairman of the committee and a member of the panel since 1996. Oltz said many details remain unresolved, including whether a test site would affect all five spots, or just one. He predicted the report would generate heated debate, but it could be changed.
"There are states in the committee who have very, very strong opposition to any exploration in the moratoria areas," Oltz said.
But Donna Moffit, a panelist and the director of North Carolina Coastal Management, said states realize they have to be "pragmatic" about development.
"We as a state may not be able to control whether a moratorium is permanent," Moffit said. "If we get to the point where we're paying a huge amount for natural gas, people may get to a place where they allow exploration where they haven't."
North Carolina for years fought, and killed, a proposed offshore project 45 miles from Cape Hatteras. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled the government must pay $158 million in compensation to oil companies for breaking their leases.
Moffit said the state was open to future development if oil companies can prove they won't destroy the coast.
"There may be some middle ground with enough mitigation of environmental impacts so that you could do some exploration and not cause much damage," she said.
. . . . . . .
John Biers can be reached at jbiers@timespicayune.com or at (504) 826-3494. |
