Oil Drilling Gambles

The Author of the LATimes editorial Deepwater Drilling Moratorium: The Legal Fight discusses the federal court’s recent rejection of president Obama’s deep water drilling moratorium. My guess is he is targeting the opinion of the general public along with officials in the federal court seeing as he accuses them of being at fault and given their power in the ultimatum. If anything, they are at least trying to reach out to Obama and his administration to reassure them that some people think they are taking the right course of action in proposing the halt on deep sea oil production.

The author claims that the federal courts are wrong to order the immediate end to Obama’s proposed six month halt on oil drilling of 33 rigs in the gulf that drill below 500 feet, citing that the technology for preventing blowouts at those depths is not reliable. They also note that this week, the Obama administration has since refined their argument, now banning drilling not by depth, but by the sort of blowout preventers the rig uses. This targets the same 33 rigs all of which have the same blowout preventer that malfunctioned in the BP spill. The author then claims that the industries have not figured out how to secure wells at these depths or respond to major emergencies. They proceed to acknowledge the counterargument that 11,000 jobs would be affected by this drilling ban, but says it would be in the nations best interests to find newer, safer technologies before oil operations can resume.

I think the author puts forth strong logic in his support of the drilling ban and certainly displays his hope for the recovery and necessary preservation of the environment. However, I personally think that many of his claims were not justified with the evidence provided solely in the editorial, or lack of. As a result I have come to disagree with his position after careful consideration. His tone when talking about “very high-risk” oil operations implies, without evidence, that another disaster looms in our immediate future if restrictions are not put in place. I don’t believe this is the case. From what I’ve gathered, the BP spill was an isolated freak accident that the country has never seen the likes of in its history. And to think that the only solution in the nations best interests is to completely stop oil drilling on other problem free rigs may be a bit premature.

Fix the problem, don’t through it away. If problems have been found with a particular blowout preventer, then modify it to reduce the risk as soon as possible. But perhaps the more pressing matter is not the preventer, but the effective preparedness and response to such an accident if need be. The level of preparedness after the BP oil spill was absolutely horrendous, but at the same time shows just how rare and unlikely these disasters really are. We all agree that the BP spill is the worst environmental disaster we’ve seen in a long time, if not in all American history, but it is naïve to think that oil drilling can simply cease for such a period of time provided its fundamental role in our economy. Yes, lets not forget about that other national disaster, the Economic recession. Given the current condition of the economy and all the efforts that have been put forth to relieve it, an order that would directly affect the jobs of 11,000 individuals (lord knows how many more indirectly) is the last thing this country needs. Finding safer technologies and improving accident preparedness while continuing profitable and stimulating oil drilling on rigs is indeed a gamble. But given the current economic conditions and the fact that history has shown that the odds are on our side, I think it’s a gamble that our nation must be willing to take.