Rising gas prices have stoked debate over whether oil company should be allowed to explore the potential for drilling off the Outer Banks. Advocates say another source of oil could only benefit the U.S. Opponents say the potential is slim and exploration will only hurt the environment and tourism. What do you think?
I think this is a huge opportunity for Eastern NC and would be an economic boon creating thousands of jobs.
Oil technology has advanced so much in the past 25 years since rules were put in place to stop offshore drilling
that the old scare tactics of environmental disaster
don't hold up anymore.
New wells are being developed around the world in deep water every day, and you seldom if ever hear of a spill or a disaster.
It just does not happen as frequently as some would try
to have you believe.
Oil companies are not in the environmental disaster business,they are in the energy production business.
They spend millions of dollars in exploration with no
guarantee that there will be a payoff of their investment.
We have to be part of the solution to our energy needs in this country,others who say we can't drill our way out
of this problem offer no viable solutions
except solar and wind, which I am for.
We have to be realistic about our current energy needs, we will eventually move to others forms of energy but we will
not retool the entire country or develop the infrastructure of alternative energy sources in ten years time.
I don't see this ruining our beautiful coast line.
I see this as an opportunity not a disaster waiting to happen.
Let's at the very least get the facts straight and debate this honestly.
Of course, we should drill! We should explore every potential opportunity possible -- including offshore drilling, wind turbines, solar power -- whatever it takes to remove our dependence on foreign oil. Our refusal to act back in the 70s has created the problems we have today. Our freedom as a society is at stake until we can remove the chains that bind us that are foreign oil dependency.
Louisiana is THE example to study for oil-and-gas exploration. Oil spills after Katrina? Simply put, there remains an agenda in some quarters behind the claims of doom following this storm. The figures put out by one side are almost totally made of whole cloth.
Most oil and gas problems post Katrina occurred INSHORE at La. production and storage facilities that were above ground. The environmentalists added those inshore spills when putting out their figures of "rig" failures. Basically, there were no MAJOR oil spills at rigs, although some oil was spilled when sections of undersea pipe lines, that had been shut off, couldn't be completely pumped out before the storm hit. The Coast Guard classifies as a major oil spill one that loses at 1east 100,000 gallons of crude. No such large spills occurred after Katrina. However, adding inshore spills totaled 731,000 gallons (7.31 major spills, if totaled).
There were no major oil rig disasters after Katrina because we saw no massive environmental damage, no fouled beaches, no seabirds drenched in oil. Simply put, the ocean dispersed the oil and its effect was negligible.
Any salwater angler, inshore or offshore, who has been to Louisiana can tell you oil rigs are wonderful places to fish, inshore and offshore. And they were only weeks after Katrina. Speckled trout and red drum are plentiful, making NC's pristine fisheries look pale in comparison. Oil rigs are FAVORITE PLACES TO FISH for reds, groupers, snappers, tuna and many other species. Of course, another reason for La. being called the Sportsman's Paradise is the state banned inshore gill nets years ago. North Carolina still allows this practice
With current advancements in oil-producing technology, huge spills at future rigs are unlikely. The problem in the ocean will be tankers (see Exxon Valdez incident), but nobody these days allows captains to get loaded on alcohol while they pilot tankers in shallow water. NC also demands harbor pilots take big ships to and out of Beaufort/Morehead City and up the Cape Fear River, not captains.
The state easily can solve potential oil spill costs. Simply demand oil companies sign a contract that if their rig spills a major amount of oil or is unsafe structurally and causes a spill, the company pays the state for all clean-up costs AND a penalty equal to the clean-up cost. I'll bet the companies still will sign up because technology of drilling makes such risks neglible while potential profits are great.
Another idea to chew on -- if the Iraq War and our presence in the Middle East is about oil, every environmentalist/war opponent should support discovery and U.S. production of our own sources of domestic oil. We have enough oil to last 60 years and more than our foreign oil sources combined (including shale, ANWAR and offshore). Simply put, we end the reason for being in the Mideast (if oil is the reason) by producing our own oil.
Depending upon where oil is located, getting it pumped to shore will take 1 to 2 years in many instances, not 10 years, as alarmists contend.
We put men on the moon 40 years ago. Anybody think we can't solve the energy problem if our engineering giants aren't shackled by environmental Lilliputians and Chicken Littles, whose fear-mongering tactics likely are designed to produce more cash donations because oil has become their latest cause celebre and whipping boy?
The fishing is indeed grand in the Gulf of Mexico. I've caught some mighty nice specks and reds in the shadows of oil rigs. I've also been to Baton Rouge and Lafayette. I stayed just long enough to know that wouldn't want to live there. I was told that they were once nice places, many years ago before oil companies took over and brought the refineries and the oil tanks and the pipelines.
I live a few miles from Morehead City, which is still a pretty nice place. I'd hate to see it become like Lafayette just to buy us a few more years as oil addicts. That's too high a price to pay.
I've never been to Galveston, another of America's oil capitals, but I probably wouldn't like it. You can't eat the specks you catch there. Full of toxins apparently: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/health/5886473.html.
But don't let the poisoned fish scare you. Just keep filling up the SUV at $4 bucks a gallon and fantasizing about the vast reserves of untouched oil that lie at our feet if only those Lilliputian environmental wackos would get out of the way. (An historical aside: Jim Martin was the first governor to oppose drilling off the N.C. coast. He was a Republican. Does that make him an Elephant Little?)
Yes, we got to the moon 40 years ago. But we didn't get there employing the technology of the day. Innovation and a visionary zeal got us there. If we applied the same qualities, combined with a similar commitment of capital and investment,we could solve our energy problem and still eat the speckled trout.
We will have to sooner or later, very little question about that. Are you sure that we should be using this valuable non-renewable resource in this way, burning it to fuel vehicles and power plants which produces a host of environmental problems?
Oil is used for a very wide range of materials and products that are critical to our lives - from fertilizers to plastics. Where is the economic study reflecting the trade-offs of using this national resource in the short term for fuel versus other potential uses?
Similarly what happens when a level 5 hurricane strikes off shore oil rigs off the east coast? A previous message described the minimal impact of Katrina, but that is not an expert analysis. What happens when a large earthquake strikes California? Is there a potential for a large uncontrolled and prolonged release of oil, like after Saddam Hussain blew up the oil wells in the first gulf war?
How could that impact the incredibly important fisheries up and down the west coast, that are worth many billions every year and an important source of food for a large part of the planet.
The opportunity costs, future costs, and potential environmental costs need to be thoroughly considered by independent experts as a basis for any decision regarding offshore drilling. Public opinion polls don't qualify as expert fact based opinon.
By all means drill!
The more oil and gas we can produce domestically the more secure our supplies and greater supply puts downward pressure on prices.
It would also bring jobs and income into a part of the state where it's desperately needed.
No drilling...
Does not solve the gas price problem.
Does not resolve the current dependence on foreign oil.
Will ruin tourism.
Increases the chance of massive oil spills that will ruin the coastal areas and wetlands.
Oil companies have used less than 60% of what they currently have leased for land exploration. They say they do not have money to explore the land they have but they can find plenty of money to "lease" offshore property. This is the next scam of the oil industry, supported by the Oil President and cronies. In their minds and actions,our Country is their personal property.