Buzz
Offshore oil rigs like this one have become a focal point for many debates. Explore more images of oil fields and drilling operations.
David McNew/Getty ImagesBring up offshore drilling at a casual gathering, and watch the conversation fizzle out faster than an oil well running dry. Despite over 40 million acres already designated for development along the outer continental shelf (OCS) of the United States, the idea of opening up protected coastlines for energy exploration has become just as divisive as religion and politics. So, what is it about expanding access to the OCS that ignites such intense reactions?
Much of the debate centers on differing views of what expanded offshore drilling would truly mean -- both for the economy and the environment. Advocates of drilling argue that increasing domestic production along the coasts would help reduce gas prices and lessen the nation’s dependency on foreign oil, all with minimal environmental harm. Critics, however, contend that any oil extracted would have little effect on prices or domestic supply, and that it would wreak havoc on nearby ecosystems.
Beyond the facts, the controversy is also fueled by deeply held personal values. While opponents of drilling may accuse the other side of prioritizing profits over the environment, supporters of drilling might counter that environmentalists are more concerned with saving coral reefs than saving the nation’s economic future.
While priorities certainly influence the sensitivity of this topic, clear-cut facts could help reduce the tension. Unfortunately, although the argument is rich in emotion, substantial factual evidence is scarce.
First, the two sides can't reach a consensus on the potential amount of oil in the OCS. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the off-limits area in the lower 48 states may contain around 18 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil. However, no one can be certain due to the lack of comprehensive assessments in recent years [source: EIA]. The only way to verify the estimates is by drilling a well, but even then, the outcome remains uncertain.
The United States consumes about 7.5 billion barrels of oil annually, so if the estimates are accurate, the untapped oil beneath the sea floor could theoretically meet the nation's energy needs for just over two years. However, critics of drilling believe the recoverable amount may be lower and insufficient. On the other hand, proponents argue that the resources could sustain the country for even longer than two years.
Next, consider what effect the additional oil might have on your next visit to the gas station.
Offshore Drilling: Pumping, Prices and Promises
On July 14, 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling and called on the U.S. Congress to follow suit as part of an effort to reduce oil prices.
Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty ImagesAs gas prices reached new record highs, people began searching far and wide -- even offshore -- for a way to bring the costs down. However, a study by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) suggests they might want to reconsider. Even if drilling in the outer continental shelf (OCS) were permitted, the study found it would take several years before any oil would be produced, and even then, the amount extracted likely wouldn't have a significant effect on global oil prices [source: EIA].
The EIA based its findings on a test scenario designed to examine what would happen if the current ban on offshore drilling expired in 2012. The ban, which has prevented drilling in the Pacific, Atlantic, and most of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, has been reinstated every time it expired. The EIA sought to explore what would occur if the ban was not renewed.
The results from the EIA's analysis stand in stark contrast to the claims made by many politicians and oil executives who argue that increased domestic supply could drive prices lower. In fact, the EIA concluded that any effect from increased drilling would be minimal until after 2030. Due to the complexities of leasing wells, locating oil, and extracting it, production likely wouldn't begin until 2017. Furthermore, the EIA estimated that even once production starts, the additional output would only amount to 0.2 million barrels per day more than if the ban were still in place [source: EIA].
Despite the delayed timeline, advocates for offshore drilling maintain that now is the ideal time to act. They argue that if offshore drilling hadn't been banned in 1982, much of that oil would already be available on the global market. Others believe that simply legalizing offshore drilling could prompt the market to lower prices. Even if the impact isn't immediate, they insist drilling should commence now to prevent gas prices from rising further.
While it might sound like a promising solution, many economists argue that since oil prices are determined on a global scale, a single country's actions would need to be substantial to make any significant impact. To truly influence prices, the United States would need to considerably increase global oil production. Given that the world already produces 82.5 million barrels of oil per day, adding just 0.2 million barrels wouldn't really make a noticeable difference [source: EIA].
Additionally, extracting oil from reserves located thousands of feet underwater and further beneath the seafloor requires substantial time and financial investment. According to the EIA's findings, much of the oil currently off-limits wouldn't even be financially viable to develop at today's prices [source: EIA].
Monetary costs are just one aspect of this ongoing debate, however. Next, consider the potential environmental consequences.
The Center for Economic and Policy Research suggests that the U.S. might be better off focusing on improving fuel efficiency standards rather than drilling more wells. From 1980 to 1985, the government raised efficiency standards by an average of 1.1 mpg annually — bringing cars to 27.5 mpg and light trucks to 19.5 mpg. However, progress stalled until 2007. If the government had continued raising the standards by 0.4 mpg every year, vehicles would now be at least 50 percent more fuel-efficient. This would result in a daily savings of approximately 3.3 million barrels — a far greater improvement than the 0.2 million barrels offshore drilling is expected to add [source: Baker and Szembrot].
Effects of Offshore Drilling: Energy vs. Environment
In 1969, an offshore drilling platform in Santa Barbara, California, experienced a blowout that resulted in 200,000 gallons of crude oil spilling over 800 square miles (2,072 square kilometers) of ocean and coastline.
Vernon Merritt III/Time&Life Pictures/Getty ImagesWhenever oil drilling is brought up, discussions about its environmental consequences are inevitable. With offshore drilling, these concerns intensify, as it involves not just digging beneath the ground but drilling thousands of feet below the ocean's surface.
Extracting oil from the ocean floor often brings up not just oil, but also harmful chemicals and toxins such as mercury, lead, and arsenic, which are frequently released back into the ocean. Additionally, seismic waves used to locate oil deposits can harm marine mammals and disorient whales. For instance, ExxonMobil had to halt its exploration efforts near Madagascar after over 100 whales were found stranded on beaches [source: Nixon].
The infrastructure required for offshore drilling and oil transport can be equally destructive. In Louisiana, a series of canals built to transport oil across the wetlands has led to erosion. The destruction of marshlands caused by drilling, combined with the canals, has removed a critical storm buffer, potentially contributing to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. Nearby petrochemical plants further exacerbate the negative impacts [source: Jervis].
Supporters of offshore drilling counter by pointing to advancements in technology and improved government regulation that have made drilling much safer. Since 1975, offshore drilling has maintained a 99.999 percent safety record [source: EIA]. Spilled oil has decreased from 3.6 million barrels in the 1970s to less than 500,000 barrels in the 1990s. In fact, more oil is spilled into U.S. waters from natural sources and municipal and industrial waste than from offshore drilling. As for toxic chemicals, specialists assert that most are at negligible levels due to state and federal regulations on discharges. The mercury released, for example, is too minimal to affect fish [source: Jervis].
Despite advancements, critics of oil drilling remain skeptical. While offshore drilling itself may no longer be as prone to spills as in the past, the transportation of the oil it produces is responsible for one-third of all oil spills worldwide. The Mineral Management Service predicts at least one spill of 1,000 barrels or more each year in the Gulf of Mexico for the next 40 years, with a major spill of 10,000 barrels or more expected every three to four years [source: Jervis].
While the 99.999 percent safety record is impressive, that 0.001 percent can lead to catastrophic consequences for nearby residents. A 1969 accident at a Santa Barbara, Calif., well released oil across the beaches and into the waters, essentially closing off access to the state's offshore areas for the foreseeable future. Similarly, the environmental toll from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill continues to be felt to this day.
