Nix Bits

Oyster does an excellent job dissecting the now oft-repeated talking point that there were no major oil spills after Katrina and Rita. The Wall Street Journal made this claim in a recent editorial in support of expanding oil drilling to the Eastern Gulf of Mexico as well as to the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts. But then the WSJ in a 9/23/2005(‘Oil, Saltater mar Louisiana Coast, Threaten future‘) article reported the facts:

More than three weeks after Katrina came ashore in Louisiana, the Coast Guard says the storm’s surges and winds unleashed at least 40 oil spills — 10 of which are major — from ruptured pipelines and battered oil-storage facilities. In total, at least 193,000 barrels of oil and other petrochemicals were blown or driven by tides across the fragile marshy ecosystems and populated areas of the Plaquemines and St. Bernard parishes, southeast of New Orleans. The spills, the largest ever loss of oil in the state, approach the scale of the famous 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker spill, which dumped 240,000 barrels of crude oil in the fish-rich waters of Alaska’s Prince William Sound.

So it’s just not true. But it’s being repeatedly stated to support this idea of expanded drilling. And even if we did lift the moratorium tomorrow, how much oil would that produce and what benefit would that realistically have on gas prices.? I suspect that an reasonable cost/benefit analysis that includes and honest risk assessment is going to find that the benefits simply aren’t there.

And as long as we’re on the subject of risk, a commenter to YRHT’s post points us to this map of Natural Gas piplines in the Continental US. Look at that existing concentration of pipelines in the Western Gulf and particularly over Southern LA. Is it not abundantly clear that protecting South LA is critical to national Energy policy and security? Is it not abundantly clear that in exchange for providing Natural Gas and Oil to the rest of the continental US, we’ve sacrificed our own coastline and protection from hurricanes? Do people outside of LA have any idea what Port Fourchon is? Can we really afford to massively expand oil drilling and exploration and increasing the associated risk when we haven’t yet protected the resources we already have? Have we fully exhausted the possibilities in the existing areas where drilling and exploration are permitted?

It’s an entirely man-made problem and risk. And the consequences of not addressing it has potentially catastrophic national consequences. This is not hippy-dippy “environmentalism.” If you think we’re not the proverbial canary in the coal-mine, keep a close eye on our neighbors to the North. And keep enjoying those gas prices climbing ever higher. The first big jump, if you recall, came after 8/2005 and it’s been steadily climbing ever since.