Why is BP drilling in deep water in the first place? Are there other places to drill which are safer?
We need oil. We will continue to need oil. The economic costs of either importing oil or drilling in deep water are quite high. Perhaps it is time to explore options which do not have such staggering economic costs.
It’s economics. In the U.S. it’s cheaper to produce in deep water than to try to squeeze extra production out of dying land wells. We hit peak oil back in the early 70’s.
Deep water wells aren’t going anywhere, with the whole earth hitting peak oil sometime in the next 0-20 years.
Aren’t there places which are either not so deep or on land, which would be safer for the surrounding environment? For instance, wouldn’t drilling in ANWR be safer and less costly?
I refute your statement about the cost of drilling in deep water being a lower economic cost. Presently, we are seeing the economic costs of this drilling, and they are extraordinarily high. Moving forward, the costs for drilling in deep water will be realized. Permits, machinery, expert personnel, insurance premiums, and cash reserves set aside for disaster will all increase in costs to reflect the costs BP and TransOcean incur from this disaster. There have to be other on-land or shallow-water alternatives which are less costly.
You mean something along the lines of drilling in Alaska? On the California coast? More drilling in Illinois and TN? That would make FAR too much sense. Next you will want a new refinery too
Aren’t there places which are either not so deep or on land, which would be safer for the surrounding environment? For instance, wouldn’t drilling in ANWR be safer and less costly?
I refute your statement about the cost of drilling in deep water being a lower economic cost. ** Presently, we are seeing the economic costs of this drilling, and they are extraordinarily high.** Moving forward, the costs for drilling in deep water will be realized. Permits, machinery, expert personnel, insurance premiums, and cash reserves set aside for disaster will all increase in costs to reflect the costs BP and TransOcean incur from this disaster. There have to be other on-land or shallow-water alternatives which are less costly.
The economic costs aren’t all that high for BP who will easily recover from this. So they could give two $hits. The economic cost lies with those living in the path of the oil and those people BP could really care less about.
My wife asked me last night what is going to happen now to BP. My response:
They’re just going to go on, pay the price for the disaster, become the largest corporate conglomerate in the world and report the top 10 highest ever quarterly earnings. Ala Exxon Mobil post Valdez.
The economic costs aren’t all that high for BP who will easily recover from this. So they could give two $hits. The economic cost lies with those living in the path of the oil and those people BP could really care less about.
I doubt BP will come through unscathed, but the people to whom you refer are already being dealt a double blow by our response:
“In the aftermath of the BP spill, Obama is suspending exploration in two areas off Alaska, canceling pending lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and proposed sales off Virginia’s coast, extending by six months a moratorium on deepwater drilling permits and suspending operations at all 33 exploratory wells being drilled in the Gulf.”
This could be a game changer. Remember that after Three Mile Island in 1979, there have been no new nuclear plants started here in the US. If the public, or opportunists in govt, decides something similar should be the fate of oil drilling in the states, it’s a whole new paradigm, one that looks evermore like what Obama has outlined for America btw.
Ah yes, the Krauthammer story about all this being the environmentalist’s fault for not allowing drilling in ANWR.
Of course, you might want to ask yourself whether or not drilling in ANWR for the last 20 years would have kept us from drilling in deep water of the gulf.