« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

If You Oppose Domestic Drilling, You Support Oil Spills

...or, maybe, you ride a bike. Or walk. And don't use plastics. Or pharmaceuticals. And so on...

By: Steve Maley (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2010 at 11:35 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Oil spill specialists and the U.S. Coast Guard are working to contain an 11,000 barrel* spill in southeast Texas near Port Arthur. The inbound tanker, the Eagle Otome, flying a Malaysian flag, was struck by a barge. More details below the fold.

We have to import oil in boats because 1) many Americans are averse to exploring for it domestically, and 2) regardless of our “green” rhetoric, our appetite for oil is unabated.

If we explored more in the U.S., we could move the oil in pipelines, which is much a safer method of transportation. With a pipeline, you have a fixed facility at either end; if something happens to the pipeline, you can tell right away. Any spill is limited to the volume of the line.

Even spills from offshore oil platforms are usually small in volume and relatively inconsequential to the environment because they happen far from shore. A tiny fraction of the oil in the marine environment is from oil producing operations; most of it comes from natural seeps.

Texas oil spill vessels separated, Coast Guard reports

Crews try to protect wildlife from Texas oil spill

The U.S. Coast Guard said about 462,000 gallons (1.75 milion liters) — or 11,000 barrels — of oil spilled into the water Saturday when an 800-foot (244-meter) Malaysian-flagged tanker headed for an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Beaumont collided with a towing vessel pushing two barges near Port Arthur, about 90 miles (145 kilometers) east of Houston.

It was the largest spill in Texas since 1994, but still well shy of one 20 years ago involving Norwegian tanker Mega Borg that leaked 4.3 million gallons (16.28 million liters) of crude oil about 60 miles (96 kilometers) off Galveston.

Photo credit: Julio Cortez, Houston Chronicle/The Associated Press

Cross-posted at VladEnBlog.

*[UPDATE] The AP reports that something like 1,000 barrels is actually on the water.

According to Petty Officer Richard Brahm, the ship’s crew members said they pumped 69,000 barrels from the damaged tank that carried 80,000 barrels, so they have 11,000 barrels — about 450,000 gallons (1.7 million liters) — that they could not account for.

Several local officials said only 1,000 barrels, or about 42,000 gallons (160,000 liters), of oil had been spilled into the water.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    It is an important part of the American economy. Unlike Iran or Venezuela, our oil is not nationalized. We have private companies that drill here in America and they are free to sell that oil to anyone they want. That is the free market.

    Therefore, if we drilled for more oil here in the US, they would continue to export millions of barrels of oil. We would just have more to export. We would still need to import just as much oil as we do now. We would still be just as dependent on foreign nations as we are now. The only way around that would be to force private companies who drilled here to sell the oil here. And I do not like the government telling a private company what they are allowed to do with the end results of their work.

    • Achance

      I don’t know where you get the idea that US oil is exported. The Envirowhackos are always claiming Alaska oil is exported but NONE of it is. The only time it has ever been exported was when the price was in the toilet and West Coast refineries didn’t have enough capacity for it. Rather than ship it all the way to the Gulf or East Coast and sell it for a loss, the export ban was lifted and we sold some on the open market for a few years.

      We’d be making a lot more off it if we could export simply because the shipping costs would be so much lower. To the West Coast it goes in a brand new double-hull US-built, union crewed Jones Act tanker. Anywhere else it goes in whatever will float.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        That amounts to 12,045,000 bbls per year. If we drill more, we have more to export because we just done have the refineries here to take care of it all. We would still need to import just as much.

        Now, Vladimir is right though. If we had more refineries and more pipelines then we could seriously increase our domestic supply. But I do not believe that should be funded by the government, because then they will want to tell the private companies how to use it.

        • Achance

          so that 33K bbl./dy. hardly even qualifies as miniscule. I don’t know the industry as well as Vlad, but I suspect it is refined into specialty product of some sort and comes right back to the US.

          You might give Yergin’s “The Prize” a read.

      • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

        http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/oil_exports.html

        Oil – exports: 1.165 million bbl/day (2005)

        Calculated over a year that is 425.225 million bbls.

        Again, I don’t oppose domestic drilling. But we do not have the refineries or pipelines to manage what we drill already. That is why we have to export as much as we do now, as Vladimir points out below. If we drill more, we export more. We would still need to import just as much.

        • Achance

          not a big tanker, just a decent sized one like works the Alaska trade. “Decent” sized tankers carry 1-2 MM bbl., big ones twice that much or more.

        • Vladimir
          • Vladimir

            http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_wkly_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_w.htm

            Yes, it is true that we export about 33,000 bbl/day of crude oil. This is where that number came from.

            It is also true that we export 1.9 million barrels a day of refined products..

            But what is important is our net status.

            We import 8 million barrels a day of crude oil. Compared to that, 33 thousand barrels is almost nothing.

            We also import 2.5 million or so barrels of refined product, and as achance points out, that’s headed north.

            The central point being, if we made a policy commitment to produce an additional 1 million barrels a day of crude oil, that’s one million fewer barrels than will have to come here in a boat.

  • Achance

    They want a new “citizens group” to watch over the TAPS. Here’s the ADN piece: http://www.adn.com/money/industries/oil/story/1108573.html

    And read threw the thing and you see that of all the groups playing this game, the parent is the one based on money extorted after Exxon Valdez, then it applies for federal grants and forms groups that apply for more federal grants and before long you just got a great long daisy chain doing the producers and the State just as hard as they can.

    • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

      They always want a “citizens group” or some government agency to watch over everything. Why not have the private companies who own the pipelines manage the pipelines? That would just make too much sense.

  • Scope

    and the environazis will surely make this into a national disaster. This will be a poster issue for not drilling anywhere in the US. As you said Vladimir, if we didn’t have to ship oil into our country, this kind of thing wouldn’t happen. It just doesn’t fit the communist agenda of breaking the American economy, and pretending as though we don’t have abundant resources ourselves.

    I suspect Exxon Mobil will be in court tomorrow, and they will be bankrupt by the next day.

  • Vladimir

    “Therefore, if we drilled for more oil here in the US, they would continue to export millions of barrels of oil. We would just have more to export.”

    The crude oil that’s exported, about 33,000 bbls per day, is mostly because better refinery options exist overseas. That’s way less than 1% of production, BTW.

    Regardless of the numbers, can we agree that net imports would decrease if we had more domestic supply?

    • Vladimir
      • joayn

        Short answer: REFINERIES. Before all the regulatory laws and conditions were placed on oil companies (those evil profit-hungry vampires and nature killers), there were plenty of refineries processing crude. But thanks to enviros and Dems and very, very expensive regulatory laws, companies’ refineries were closed and/or no new refineries were built. You can see that effect in oil-producing states all over the country. States that have held Republican control, for the most part, are pumping and refining oil the most. Other states under Dem control, not so much.

        Here in California we have to export our crude for refining to meet specific emission criteria, then import it back to California – all due to lack of refineries.

        It’s not cost-effective for companies to keep crude here and refine it. They have to export if they want to make a decent profit and it’s all due to government control.

        So yeah, I guess if companies drilled more they’d export more ’cause they need to pay the bills and make money. But, if we fixed the regulatory problems in the U.S., we would not need to EXPORT/IMPORT so much, thus, become more energy independent.

        Like we used to be.

        • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

          I live in Utah. We produce a ton of oil and it is used here. Also we get oil from Wyoming. The only point that I was making (that you made as well) is that increased drilling alone does not help us. We need to remove all regulations from the oil companies and let them build more refineries and pipelines. With the increase in refineries and pipelines alone, and with the regulations gone, we would have greater domestic supply. And then we could start drilling more. Especially in Alaska, California, ad Florida. Which is why we need real conservatives running all three of those states.

          Then the conversation turns to nuclear and coal and the dems really get scared …

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            has been going on here in MI for years DESPITE having the Canadian-Socialist Governor Granholm…. Democrats here in MI, for the most part, just stay quiet about it because of the obvious needs and benefits to the State — while they, of course, on any National stage decry the Oil companies and the usual GREEN garbage rhetoric.

    • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

      So unless our government is willing to buy new refineries for private companies to use (not very likely) we still need to export/import just as much. Which means we still have these big ships moving around and oil spills are just as likely. And then someone has to pay for the pipelines as well.

      But you are correct. If we had the pipelines and the refineries alone, we could increase our theoretical domestic supply. Then if we drilled more in the US we could continue to increase our domestic supply. Unless a foreign customer offered to pay more. Or unless the oil companies decided to sell more overseas for some reason. Then we would still need to import just as much as we do now.

      • Achance

        There’s enough refinery capacity for most of that 20 MM/bbl./dy. here in the US; we don’t import a lot of refined product, though the amount is increasing. Developing domestic crude would just displace imported crude at those refineries.

        Yes, we need more refineries, especially here in the West but we import a lot more oil than we produce, so increased domestic production would just offset imported crude.

        Somebody’s got you convinced that exporting US oil is some kind of issue, but as I said above, even if your figure is right, we export one tanker a day to some refineries somewhere and probably ship it right back.

        • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

          that cause delays with switch over shutdowns and other balancing games they have to play. Not to mention the “Ethanol Splash” game for Gas.

          Looking back (2008 Election Issues, for anyone that wants a review): Oil and Environment

          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            to purposefully attempt to keep punative costs up and end Consumer final price INFLATED, as Liberals cater to EnviroTerrorist fringe demands to (at least pretend to show to) do something and keep the GREEN energy cost comparison argument on FALSE comparison plain….

            GAO Report: Complicate Supply and Contribute to Higher Prices

            additional Gas Blend links

      • joayn

        “So unless our government is willing to buy new refineries for private companies to use …”

        You make no sense at all.

  • http://www.skiloveland.com skicougar

    that the ocean floors naturally release more oil either yearly or every ten years, i forget; than has ever been spilled by all US ships, ever.

  • Achance

    we have to have US licensed, union crews, on those nasty tankers. They probably already have to have a US licensed pilot. Oh, and some “Ocean Ranger” polution guards, also union, like the Greenies forced on the cruise ships here. And now that I’m on a roll, why not only allow US-built double hull tankers to come withing the 200 mile limit. Then the Gulf Coast could be like Alaska.

  • Richard Mullins

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6833095.html

    They don’t know they cause and oil was bound for the Beaumont Exxon plant. It’s nice to know that almost half of the oil is out of the water. I wonder if AET is really good guys to have running Tankers in the US. It’s not the first time and it seems that it’s been coming for a while.

    • Achance

      The local office of the Masters, Mates, and Pilots has a pre-printed press release for whenever there is a collision or allision involving a foreign flag vessel saying it wouldn’t have happened if it had a US union crew. Well, got a flash, the union guys have plenty of accidents too, and this one probably has a US licensed pilot at the conn. And the local Machinsts or UAW or whoever is left representing the people who build US naval or Jones Act ships has a pr-printed press release anytime a foreign bottom is involved saying it wouldn’t happen if it had been a US built ship. Well, sorry, the only people in the World who’ll buy US built ships are the Navy and people who have to, and I’d bet even the Navy would use more foreign content if they were allowed to.

      I’d bet on “loss of situational awareness.” They were in a channel though I don’t know if it qualifies as a narrow channel and I’d assume they’re running on either Inland or Western Rivers rules, so they would be required to acknowledge each other and arrange their meet with the downstream vessel, I think the tug and tow, being the stand on vessel so he can pretty much dictate the terms of the meet so long as he doesn’t endanger the other vessel. So, either they didn’t arrange their meet or somebody wasn’t paying attention – or both.

      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        good reminder on how it is the same tired arguments from the Left that only promote their cronies over actual “concern.”

        • nessa

          …by the time we figure them all out it won’t matter anyway. Union crews, union hull building, eco wackos protecting us from ourselves, all to our own detriment.

          Build more refineries, drill more oil, gas, support ourselves. Where would the middle east be without our oil money? Same for Venezuela… Let our corporations make money, stop stabbing capitalists in the back.

          Progressivo delenda est…

          • Richard Mullins

            But I need to more on the ground reporting than the AP. The Houston Chronicle and Beaumont Enterprise are Hearst papers, but they happen to be a bit better than the AP. http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/local/crews_clear_half_of_oil_spilled_in_waterway.html . The Beaumont Enterprise has updated the story. My thoughts are that this isn’t really an ecological disaster at all. It going to get absorbed into the Gulf soon. I remember after Hurricane Ike that they were talking it taking a long time to come back and it’s come back sort of well. We’re are just going to have past any stories and look at it latter.

          • nessa

            They blow everything out of proportion, use the same alinsky tactics that their progressive brethren do… I remember when they used to spray waste oil on the roads to keep the dust down. Now I have to pay to turn it in after I change the oil on the car. Everything is a disaster with these people, and their disasters are all lies.

            If it comes down to it, I pick people over animals every time. Did you know it takes 58 baby seals to make a queen size blanket? I counted their hides on mine. the only downside is I didn’t get to club them myself. Oh well, everyone has to have goals, I’m planning on mounting one with the Louisville slugger that does it in above my fireplace.

          • Richard Mullins

            I thought that the brigade from the Montrose of Houston would be there by now. It’s a good thing it’s here because we can handle it.

          • Richard Mullins

            It looks like it gotten better, now the first ships are going to be allowed go down it Tomorrow. http://www.beaumontenterpise.com/news/local/update__vessels_readied_for_move_from_channel.html . Now I know why Econuts are going to Port Arthur, it’s going to fast for them to mobilize.

  • joayn

    about the seeps.

    About a year or so ago, the seeps were so bad in Santa Barbara that even the enviros were concerned and partnered with the city to get some drilling going there to relieve the pressure.

    But our dear governor nixed that idea pronto.

    • Vladimir

      As soon as the oil industry finds a way to stop a seep, someone will find and endangered organism that depends on its presence.

      • dennism

        ,,, if Mr. Obama would just repeal the law of gravity.

  • miketheknife

    I can understand that you and even most of your readers might buy into this line of thought/belief but you would do well to research before you go there. I’ve spent thirty plus years in petro-chemical transportation in both pipeline and via water in ships and barges. Water is absolutely the best, safest and cheapest. Accidents happen in every industry, maybe you will remember the gas pipe explosion in northern Mexico, but if you compare ton-mile of cargo lifted, nothing beats shipping bulk via water. Why do you suppose the railroads own the major inland navigation companies when they argued for years that rail was cheaper! You also haven’t any clue with regard to what you propose because you imply a pump at point “A” pumps to point “B” and that is that. You never take into account friction loss and a multitude of other factors i.e. viscosity, density, gravity, pressures, elevation differences, terrain or right of way issues as well as every political fifedoms specific rules and taxation to name a few.
    I also have navigated the Port Arthur ship chnl. where the incident pictured happened and can assure you you haven’t a clue of the issue until after the Coast Guard’s investigation. Spare me and try again!

    • Vladimir
    • Richard Mullins

      The fact is that it’s not and the oil getting out quickly. Half of the 462,000 gallons is up already and sure by the end of the week it’s going to be all out of the water. The area is use to having oil around. Just look at what the do with any spill around, it’s going to cause havoc. I don’t think so and at the end of the day, we’ll be all right. They’ve reacted in some what the same way in Galveston Bay, so this is a redoubling of that.

  • miketheknife

    You really should know what you are addressing before you point your finger at the marine transport industry. Like with airlines you only remember the crashes and not the thousands of safe and complete flights every day. Every time someone sees a picture as presented it’s Prince William Sound all over again until your tank is empty.
    I believe as much as any in energy independence and think that the administration would do well to close the Dept. of Energy, which has proved to be usless and use the savings to actually promote the position rather than padding thousands on payroll for over thirty years to make excuses.

  • Richard Mullins

    http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/poe__crasj_shows_need_for_better_ship_channel.html

    Congressman Poe is my congresscritter and as well as Port Arthur. I think in way he’s right and the smallness of the Ship Channel seems to have some effect. Looks more like an unfortunate accident but thankfully it’s being cleaned very quickly.