Towns split on new drilling push
Minerals Management Service photo
On Wednesday, the Nags Head Board of Commissioners endorsed the resolution.
Both raised questions about whether gas exploration represents as much of an environmental risk as oil drilling. The bulk of the energy resources off the North Carolina Coast is believed to be natural gas.
John Wasniewski, co-chairman of the foundation’s Outer Banks Chapter, said his group had gathered more than 1,000 signatures from residents and visitors. About 200 businesses signed, he said.
Wasniewski urged the Kitty Hawk council to declare its opposition in a resolution because the state has not yet staked out a position on offshore drilling and exploration since a moratorium was lifted by the Bush administration in 2008.
Offshore exploration is by no means imminent. A congressional moratorium is still in place, and states would still have to get on board. But the prospect of millions of dollars flowing to coastal states has piqued some interest.
In the past, opposition on the Outer Banks to offshore drilling has been nearly universal.
Since gas prices have dipped and national leaders have been occupied with health care and the economy, the drilling debate has been pushed somewhat into the background.
The federal Minerals Management Service estimates that as many as 3.82 billion barrels of oil and 36.99 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are available along the Continental Shelf in the Atlantic. The United States used about 19.9 million barrels of oil a day in 2008, according to the Department of Energy.
Perdue sets up panel to look at offshore wind, oil and gas
In September, North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue created the Governor’s Scientific Advisory Panel on Offshore Energy to examine energy resources in the state, including offshore oil and gas and wind power. The executive order setting it up said that the Minerals Management Service is proposing three oil and gas lease sales off the East Coast between 2010 and 2015.
The order also noted that a recent study by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill found “significant potential for wind energy in the sounds and ocean waters off the North Carolina coast.” It appeared to leave some room to consider both because “the level of scientific knowledge about the potential benefits and risks of all types of offshore energy has also made significant advances.” It noted the state played a vital role as a steward of coastal resources.
Perdue said in a September letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar that the issue of revenue sharing for offshore drilling was unresolved. “Simply put, no state can or should make decisions that could forever alter the state of its coast and economy without a firm commitment as to its share of revenue,” she wrote.
On Monday, Kitty Hawk Mayor Pro Tem Gary Perry, who is on the panel, challenged Wasniewski’s assertion that toxic mud from the ocean floor would be released in the water. Perry said that he inspected oil rigs when he was in the Coast Guard and that mud was shipped away and recycled.
“Some of these things don’t happen because it’s strictly controlled,” he said.
Wasniewski said that natural gas drilling also posed environmental risks and that offshore wind turbines would be incompatible with tourism if they were within sight of the shoreline.
The council did not did not rule out formally opposing offshore drilling, but concurred with Perry that it would be better to wait until more information was available from the governor’s panel.
Wasniewski made his presentation at Wednesday’s Nags Head Board of Commissioners meeting.
Even though the town has gone on record opposing offshore exploration in the past, the Board voted 4-1 to endorse the resolution. Commissioner Anna Sadler noted that the resolution lumped oil and gas exploration together. She indicated that she wanted to know more about the consequences of natural gas exploration and was not ready to go along with opposition to both.
See what people are saying:
Join the discussion:
Ray says:
If you’ve never seen an oil rig in person, then how can you say it’s bad. I’ve fished off the coast of Biloxi, MS the past two years, and I can’t say enough good that they do for the area. The fishing around them is incredible. They create a structure for all sized fish.
If there was a polution problem around these rigs, they wouldn’t be loaded with fish. This is one of the reasons, the Southern Kingfish Association holds their national championship in Biloxi, MS, rather than the Carolinas, Georgia, Florida, Texas and Louisiana. These rigs have helped the fish have a habitat to multiply.
Talking with the locals, they only had positive things to say. The jobs that they create are never ending. You have the laborer’s that work the rigs, supply ships, helicopters that shuttle personnel from rig to rig, scuba divers, and many more jobs that are tied to the rigs.
Then you have the onshore jobs such as rig contractors, numerous vendors that furnish the rigs with all types of supplies and many other professionals like geologist that work with the oil companies.
The technology over the past several decades in drilling for oil has changed dramatically. The days of oil spills are long gone. Now they can drill 20 or more wells from one rig. At a time when this country is so dependent on foreign oil, we need to explore all options and look to the future, not the past.
Earl says:
I have never seen a terrorist in person and I hope that we can agree that we don’t need them here.
Oil rigs are a threat to our beaches, our tourists and our livlihood. One spill and it’s over.
Oil spill in the Pacific spilling and on fire. New technology will prevent oil spills just like it will keep nourished sand on an OBX beach . . . keep dreamin!!
Clark McCurdy says:
Drilling off of NC will do more harm than good to the local economy. It won’t help the state economy. The marginal increase in supply over the time to extract will not reduce consumer prices or slow their increase enough that we would notice. It will also adversely affect the quality of life. It would bring oil slicks, dead birds, fish, and shellfish, and replace salt air with petroleum smells. The Outer Banks are rare and unique and worth protecting.
Question says:
After speaking against offshore oil drilling, the speaker continued stating “natural gas drilling also posed environmental risks and that offshore wind turbines would be incompatible with tourism.” The proposed wind turbines in the Pamlico Sound would be situated so that they could not be viewed from land. What reports is he citing that these turbines would be incompatible with tourism? If one is against oil drilling, natural gas drilling, wind farms, what source of energy does the speaker propose?
John Wasniewski says:
Actually, I didn’t say that turbines would be incompatible with tourism and I think I may have been misquoted. Wind energy presents some issues as well, but there has yet to be a beach shutdown due to a “wind turbine blow out”.
Bill says:
Correct, a wind farm failure may litter the sound with some heavy debris, but it can be easily “picked up.” A major oil spill off the NC coast would be catastrophic! Beyond the rigs, how about tanker shipping which would increase in the offshore waters. Obviously, here too is an increased threat as evidenced by past incidents in Alaska, Africa, and other areas around the globe.
Additionally, would the OBX change from a “tourist” beach community to a community-based upon supporting the oil industry? Imagine what that would look like . . . Would we see refining based on the mainland?
Again, people, “think!” Think about the ramifications. Think from all angles, and then decide whether its best for this chain of barrier islands.
Is the impact really worth the benefit?
Fact Checker says:
As someone who was there, John Wasniewski never stated the wind and tourism were incompatible; he simply said all forms need to be thoroughly investigated.
More facts: Spills aren’t long gone. In Australia, the Montara Atlas rig spewed for 74 days, releasing millions of gallons. It was installed in 2008, only to suffer a blowout 13 months later. Now it will take SEVEN YEARS to clean up. The company who built it touted it as “state-of-the-art’ on its own Web site. And the company who ran it also operates in the U.S. Gulf. So, yes, they could get a contract here and mess up under U.S. watch just as easily. There is no such thing as fail-safe when it comes to human error (or hurricanes as the Rita/Katrina spills exposed:
http://oilonthebeach.blogspot.com/2009/04/no-oil-spilled-during-katrina.html
Also, there was a barge spill in Texas just last month. Tampa roughly 15 years ago. And, of course, Valdez. As a Lousiana senator herself stated before Congress a couple months back when discussing Montara: “These things happen.” (They only say they don’t when they’re trying to get in the door.)
Why should we risk economic catastrophe for less than a year’s supply of oil and 1.5 years of natural gas? (That seems more telling than measuring in barrels and cubic feet.) And that’s if we kept it all here. We exported 1.8 million barrels of oil every day of 2008.
On the other hand, wind would at least start here, and move outward. (The wind study N.C. did — that Perdue and Basnight endorsed last fall — estimated if you maxed out the the potential lease plots we’d generate 130% of NC’s power needs as of 2007, and that’s accounting for bird flight paths, defense, bathymetry — every possible concern. They know we won’t do that, so they ran numbers on just 15% of those plots. The wind energy jobs are 9,100 long-term vs. 6,000, and the dollars after 20 years for wind ($22.5 billion) nearly equals gas and oil after 30 ($24 billion).
Again, this isn’t saying ‘wind is the answer.’ It’s only saying, if you want jobs, you want revenue, and you want long-term energy independence — apples to apples — that’s the clearer choice. It’s also faster to implement, so you get the jobs and money quicker. (Oh yeah: wind turbines need pylons too, which would have the same fishing effects without the muds, which as of 2001, a billion tons of which were documented by the USEPA. Maybe things have changed since then, but then the rigs were supposed to better, too.)
As far as Biloxi goes, I’ve never visited. But I have been to Galveston a number of times. (Every summer for a dozen years). That whole stretch of coast struggles to draw tourists despite being an hour or so from the fourth largest city in the nation. And rightly so. As one oil company worker once told me while vacationing in Hatteras: “The place is a s–thole.” Her direct words. She also said “you don’t need this here.” Another person talked about growing up in Alabama they’d drive four hours past the closest beach to visit a nicer beach in western Florida.
And that’s really the most important point. I see New Jersey plates all summer; never seen an Outer Banks plate in New Jersey. Hard to imagine the day we’d drive to a different beach, but it could happen.
Problem here is we’ve never known what it’s like to have a bad beach reputation. Jersey did. Which is why they’re universally opposed. (As is every state from MD north.) And they have other industries besides tourism. Or look at Florida, where — 66% of their revenue comes from tourism — and both candidates for governor are opposed. They know it’s not worth the risk either.
Meanwhile, there are people right here who would risk the only economic engine, a guaranteed $777 million a year in Dare County’s pocket — and 11,000 tourism-related jobs — for a shot at $200 million less and 6,500 jobs for the state 30 years from now. Jobs no bartender, waiter or nailbanger’s ever gonna get. Why? To appeal to some sense of patriotism or placate the same oil companies who claim they care about ‘energy independence’ but have fought gas mileage standards tooth and nail since the 1950s? The same companies that say ‘we’re here for you’ but let 6,000 Valdez victims die waiting for restitution while they kept the settlement in legal limbo for 19 years?
To risk our livelihoods and ways of life for a short-term energy supply is simply bad business. And we shouldn’t let people who’ll shoulder none of the risk — inland interests like the farm bureau — tell us we should, especially based on bad data or some misplaced guilt.
We have the most beautiful natural resource on the planet here. It’s way more valuable to our economy — and our country — then the limited supply of oil and gas underneath. And we should be proud to protect it.
Holy Mess says:
How about natural gas? I have never heard of a tanker leaking natural gas or natural gas washing up on the beach. Or a natural gas spill. Also, you mentioned a lot of oil related “spills” that are all linked to shipping. There is a lot of oil in ships moving past our coast, arriving from some far off land, coming into port so we can all fill up our car to head to the beach.
Fact Checker says:
The danger with gas — besides the infrastructure issues which some part of coastal NC will have to inherit, storage facilities and transport pipes that UNC’s Pete Peterson calls ‘”incompatible with current tourism and fishing issues” and says will make the area “more like New Jersey” (one more reason NJ said no: they understand the the damage just the impression of a dirty beach can have on tourism since they continue to feel its effects of dirty needles from two decades ago) — depends on how much you trust your elected officials and energy co’s to strictly limit exploration and drilling to gas, since oil and gas are often found in the same places and yield simultaneously. At the DOI meeting in Atlantic City last year, the same companies who told the anti-oil contingent “we don’t want oil, there’s not enough out there” told the pro-oil contingent “our data’s so old, we could find millions of more barrels.” (Sort of like the burglar who knocks on the door ‘”ust to use the phone.”)
If a state can say “we only want this” and make that ironclad law that successive legislators won’t overturn, well, maybe so. But that doesn’t solve infrastructure problem number one (why leave NJ for more of the same?) or the possible catastrophes on land, such as what just happened in Connecticut as they were constructing a natural gas power plant:
link
Then there’s the long-term issue of carbon emissions. Gas may be cleaner than coal, but it’s hardly clean. As a barrier island, we should be worried about sea-level rise. (Dare County’s 2005 resolution opposing drilling actually sites the climate change issues as a reason.)
Shipping: increased activity produces increased risk. Plain and simple.
I agree, we do all fill up our cars. Doesn’t mean we have produce the fuel here. (Especially when we don’t keep it here.) Think of the country/economy as a giant ecosystem. Every part has its place and its most appropriate industry. I don’t expect the oil fields of Texas to become a tourist destination; no reason they should expect us to become an oil producer. (If they found oil under the Washington Monument or Arlington National Cemetary, would they drill there? No. I’d argue Cape Hatteras is as much of a treasure.)
By that same logic, we do happen to hold some of the best offshore wind potential anywhere. Again, we need to do thorough EIS and economic studies, but should they check out, you actually have a way to create clean energy in numbers that could cut down dependence on foreign oil and domestic emissions. In fact, one of the main arguments against electric cars is that you’re just using coal to charge them, which is dirtier than gas. Were we to max out the wind potential and get that 130% of state power up and running, you’d have 30% extra to plug your car into. Now you’re solving two problems. Instead of perpetuating them.
But again, that’s just theorizing based on what numbers are being put forth. Could be complications I’m not considering. But as far as big broad concepts – like ‘risk versus reward’ offshore drilling makes no sense for the Outer Banks.
pelican says:
Please don’t drill, like obama said “the nation that leads in clean energy leads the world in a good way”
Nick Gonzalez Demendoza says:
Off of the Atlantic Coast 3 leases approved for all of that Energy, Great! VA, NC, SC, and GA. need to get some very safe mobile ships out there, so we can get some exploratory wells to Prove reserves, and Produce! We have 53,000,001+ residents in NC, SC, AL, TN, GA, and FL.
32 + M of them are in FL. and GA. The State Lotteries can produce multi-Million$; and Education needs Energy for schools, classes, kitchens, busses, etc. The SouthEast USA is booming in populations; and we need more than just GOM offshore! If there is Shale out there too; as there is onshore NC in the Black Shale Oil; then there are very new, and great technologies to Produce it.
Sobriety should be enforced for Safety! The workers must be coherent, clean, sober, and safe for all Life on Earth! I don’t enjoy being dependent on the Middle- East! I want the USA Oil & Gas Industry Stateside to set records. Georgians US should recieve Royalties, also!
Alabama black coal bed methane gas; and The Carolinas need to produce their Energy!
Wells can be underwater now too with robotics, automation, and remote operating vehicles!
You want to talk about tourism; then turn down the energy usage by going green everyday and night! Turn down the blue flame of gas in the chef’s area of the kitchen! Why do so many of them just waste energy; because they don’t pay the bill. That is why so many hotel clerks can’t get a raise!
Alliance-Bernstein funds are known to invest in Hilton Hotels and Blackstone Equity properties, ConocoPhillips, and now StatOil! STO is in the Chukchi Sea of NW AK., and the Gulf of Mex. US. Shell is in the Beaufort Sea N. AK, and the Ch. Sea, too. BP also. Let’s GO!