Our industry must work together to dispel fears about safety and the environment.
Last month I wrote about drilling for gas in the Great Lakes, the largest source of fresh water in the world. Canada does it without blinking an eye, but US environmentalists are up in arms about the possibility, and even the lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are having a conniption. I think the emotion they are having is fear. And sorry to say, it is fear of the unknown, as our industry has done precious little to educate them about the safety of our offshore drilling operations.
Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCollum thinks it's "nuts" that drilling in the Great Lakes is even being discussed. "We'd better have an awfully good backup emergency plan if this water becomes contaminated," she warned. As if gas will coat the beaches and wildlife with black goo like the oil from the Exxon Valdez. If there is a blowout, the gas will bubble up into the air, where it could ignite if there were a spark, producing water and carbon dioxide. Formation water might make the lake a little saltier, but that's about all.
Brian Petty, senior vice president for the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), tried to assuage the lawmakers' fears. "Simply said, there are already wells producing offshore Michigan, and they haven't had any problems at all. In the Gulf of Mexico, there are some 30,000 wells producing, and there hasn't been anything like a major spill." Petty told them drilling is far safer than sending in a fleet of oil tankers, but the legislators continued to denounce drilling in the Great Lakes, reasoning that the reserves were too small to even bother "risking a catastrophe."
The lawmakers are so scared they don't even want to discuss it like adults. "This is not even a legitimate question," said Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich. "There shouldn't even be a debate about this." Senators from Minnesota are endorsing a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes until the National Academy of Sciences can fully study the potential risks. As if they would know.
Offshore California
The US Minerals Management Service (MMS) recently published a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on proposed drilling offshore Santa Barbara County, Calif. The potential effects of sequential drilling of four or five delineation wells at four undeveloped units on the shelf, Gato Canyon, Bonito, Purisma Point and Point Sal, using a single semisubmersible, are outlined in the report (available for download at www.mms.gov/ omm/pacific). Significant quantities of hydrocarbons were found on all four units. Previously, 28 exploration wells were drilled in this area, but that was so long ago the MMS wants operators to update their exploration plans.
The development of a draft EIS for exploration or delineation is unprecedented. The MMS included an extensive cumulative analysis of the impacts of the hypothetical development of all 36 undeveloped leases until 2030 in response to concerns expressed by California Gov. Gray Davis and California Coastal Commission Chair Sara Wan in 1999. What can they be so afraid of?
The MMS did not say in the draft EIS that drilling should be banned offshore California. Quite the contrary; the agency is actually looking at the opportunity of developing those resources, estimated at 558 million bbl of recoverable oil and 208 Bcf of gas, over a period of 15 to 18 years.
Will this initiative finally move forward? That will likely depend on the outcome of the public hearings in July. The public has until Aug. 13 to comment on the EIS - a generous 60 days instead of the usual 45 days. I suggest we have a few members of the public who actually know something about offshore drilling provide some comments. (Yes, that means you.)
If this initiative flies, drilling can begin in May 2002.
North Atlantic
On another front, the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the US Department of the Interior has recommended that an offshore drilling moratorium be lifted in five areas, one of which is off the Atlantic Coast from Cape Cod to Nova Scotia. The White House Energy Task Force, headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, agreed that offshore drilling there should be reconsidered. The North Atlantic area is under a drilling moratorium until 2012. Drilling off the Georges Bank in 1981 and 1982 showed promise of gas reserves. But the lawmakers and environmentalists are against drilling here, too. They are afraid something bad may happen.
Up the coast, however, residents in Newfoundland are happy as larks with the jobs that offshore drilling has brought to their area. Why the difference? Maybe there is more public information available to assuage people's fears in Canada.
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has published two information backgrounders related to safe operation of offshore oil and gas activities in Canada. What a concept: fear-reducing information for the public published by the petroleum industry!
The brochures, "Health and Safety in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Atlantic Canada" and "Emergency Planning and Response," give readers an inside view of how the industry protects its workers, contractors, nearby communities and the environment during exploration and production activities offshore Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The first outlines how the industry has been able to enhance its safety performance during the past 15 years by integrating safety systems throughout its operations. It tells about regular safety meetings, rig and platform inspections, safety awareness and training, stringent standards and procedures, and performance monitoring. The second focuses on the many steps companies take to prevent emergencies from happening and how redundancies are built into every aspect of drilling and production operations to prevent accidents. It shows how immediate response to an oil spill can mitigate any damage to the environment.
To get copies of the brochures, visit www. capp.ca.

Comments