Obama Opts for Offshore Drilling

  • President Obama says we need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we increase production of new sources of renewable energy. (Photo courtesy of the US Mineral Management Service)

President Barack Obama is lifting a moratorium on gas and oil drilling off the nation’s coasts in certain areas. Lester Graham reports some environmentalists don’t like it. And conservatives don’t like it either.

Transcript

President Barack Obama is lifting a moratorium on gas and oil drilling off the nation’s coasts in certain areas. Lester Graham reports some environmentalists don’t like it. And conservatives don’t like it either.

Environmentalists say allowing drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, off the coast Virginia, and areas of the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska is a disaster for wildlife and climate change.

The President says we can’t get from fossil fuels to renewable fuels overnight.

“And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and the long run. To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake.”

Conservatives say all offshore waters should be opened to drilling. The President says that still wouldn’t solve the problem.

“Drilling alone can’t come close to meeting our long-term energy needs. And for the sake of our planet and our energy independence, we need to begin the transition to cleaner fuels now.”

The President stressed we need to use all energy options to become energy independent.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Offshore Oil Estimates Don’t Add Up

  • The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants Congress to lift its ban. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)

President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:

Transcript

President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:

The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.

At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.

“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”

But the President’s numbers don’t add up.

The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Interview: Wind Power on the Water

  • Some people find wind turbines unsightly, and would prefer them off-shore (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:

Transcript

There’s a lot of wind along coastal
areas… perfect for wind turbines. But a lot
of people don’t like the idea of windmills
ruining the view. So, why not put them out
in the water, just out of view from the beach?
Projects have been planned or proposed or just
rumored off the coast of places such as southern
Georgia, Delaware, Cape Cod, and Michigan out
in Lake Michigan. There are already some off-
shore wind turbines operating in Europe. Thijs
Westerbeek is the sustainable
development expert with Radio Netherlands. He
says off the coast turbines are more popular
than wind mills on the land:

Thijs Westerbeek: “Actually, the public reaction is excellent, because the whole
‘nimby effect’ doesn’t occur. The thing where you like wind energy, as a
principle. You like this big mill turning around and producing clean electricity.
But you just don’t want it in your backyard. You don’t want the noise, you don’t
want the flickering effect of the sun shining through, you don’t want birds to fly
into this, and you certainly don’t want to see it. Now, if the wind turbines are off-
shore, and far enough off-shore, that problem just doesn’t exist.”

Lester Graham: “One of the concerns is that the windmills will be an eyesore.
Can you see them from shore, and does it disrupt the seascape for either folks
on the beach or boaters?”

Westerbeek: “Well, that just depends. The two small-ish windparks, they are in
front of the coast of the Netherlands, are pretty far-off. You can just see the tips
of the blades. So that isn’t really much of a disturbance. The two gigantic
windparks, off the coast of Denmark, are actually a tourist attraction. People go
to see them.”

Graham: “What kind of problems are they for marine animals and sea birds
when they’re off-shore?”

Westerbeek: “This has been tested by scientists in Denmark. And they counted
1.2 million birds passing through, and not one was hit. The birds just see the
turbines. That’s just not a problem.”

Graham: “What kind of problem do they pose for ship navigation?”

Westerbeek: “Until now, and I’ve checked this with the Maron Research Institute
– that’s the maritime research institute here in the Netherlands – there haven’t
been any accidents yet. And that’s mainly because windparks are typically built
on sandbanks where there can’t be any traffic. However, if they would be built in
sea-going routes, and a ship would bang into it, you have a possible disaster on
hand, because the turbine will collapse – hopefully not onto the ship – but if it
does fall onto the ship, that could be possibly disastrous. So the suggestion of
this scientist at Maron that I called was ‘don’t build any windmills in, for instance,
the North Sea, which is just too busy’.”

Graham: “How do they get the power from the windmills off-shore to shore? You
have to have some kind of cable, I assume.”

Westerbeek: “And that’s a problem. Because the further windparks are off-
shore, the more expensive it’s going to be to get that power on-shore. And with
rising prices for copper, that really is a problem. The cable could ultimately be
more expensive than the park itself. Off-shore windparks are definitely much,
much more expensive than on-shore windparks. That is a fact. But they are a
political solution. People who don’t want on-shore parks for the reasons I named
– unsightly things, noisy things – that is just solved, that problem, if you have an
off-shore park. So, yes, they are costly, and maybe too costly, but it’s a political
choice to have them built.”

Related Links