Offshore drilling is good for the environment.

BaronVonBigmeat

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2005
1,185
163
48
Note: remember that offshore oil rigs transport oil to the shore via underwater pipelines, not oil tankers

Of the roughly 3,700 offshore oil production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, roughly 3,200 lie off the Louisiana coast. Yet Louisiana produces one-third of America's commercial fisheries and no major oil spill has ever soiled its coast.

On the other hand, Florida, which zealously prohibits offshore oil drilling, had its gorgeous "Emerald Coast" panhandle beaches soiled by an ugly oil spill in 1976. This spill, as almost all oil spills, resulted from the transportation of oil – not from the extraction of oil. Assuming such as Hugo Chavez deign to keep selling us oil, we'll need increasingly more and we'll need to keep transporting it stateside – typically to refineries in Louisiana and Texas.

This path takes those tankers (as the one in 1976) smack in front of Florida's panhandle beaches. Recall the Valdez, the Cadiz, the Argo Merchant. These were all tanker spills. The production of oil is relatively clean and safe. Again, it's the transportation that presents the greatest risk. And even these spills (though hyped hysterically as environmental catastrophes) always play out as minor blips, those pictures of oil-soaked seagulls notwithstanding. To the horror and anguish of professional greenies, Alaska's Prince William Sound recovered completely. More birds get fried by landing on power lines and smashed to pulp against picture windows in one week than perished from three decades of oil spills.

But forget cheaper oil and less pollution for a second. All fishermen and scuba divers out there should plead with their states to open up offshore oil drilling posthaste. I refer to the fabulous fishing – the EXPLOSION of marine life that accompanies the erection of offshore oil platforms.

"Environmentalists" wake up in the middle of the night sweating and whimpering about offshore oil platforms only because they've never seen what's under them. This proliferation of marine life around the platforms turned on its head every "environmental expert" opinion of its day.

The original plan, mandated by federal environmental "experts" back in the late '40s, was to remove the big, ugly, polluting, environmentally hazardous contraptions as soon as they stopped producing. Fine, said the oil companies.

About 15 years ago some wells played out off Louisiana and the oil companies tried to comply. Their ears are still ringing from the clamor fishermen put up. Turns out those platforms are going nowhere, and by popular demand of those with a bigger stake in the marine environment than any "environmentalist."

Every "environmental" superstition against these structures was turned on its head. Marine life had EXPLODED around these huge artificial reefs: A study by LSU's Sea Grant college shows that 85 percent of Louisiana fishing trips involve fishing around these platforms. The same study shows that there's 50 times more marine life around an oil production platform than in the surrounding mud bottoms.

An environmental study (by apparently honest scientists) revealed that urban runoff and treated sewage dump 12 times the amount of petroleum into the Gulf than those thousands of oil production platforms. And oil seeping naturally through the ocean floor into the Gulf, where it dissipates over time, accounts for 7 times the amount spilled by rigs and pipelines in any given year.

The Flower Garden coral reefs lie off the Louisiana-Texas border. Unlike any of the Florida Keys reefs, they're surrounded by dozens of offshore oil platforms.

These have been pumping away for the past 50 years. Yet according to G.P. Schmahl, a Federal biologist who worked for decades in both places, "The Flower Gardens are much healthier, more pristine than anything in the Florida Keys. It was a surprise to me," he admits. "And I think it's a surprise to most people."

"A key measure of the health of a reef is the amount of area taken up by coral," according to a report by Steve Gittings, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's science coordinator for marine sanctuaries. "Louisiana's Flower Garden boasts nearly 50 percent coral cover. In the Florida Keys it can run as little as 5 percent."

Mark Ferrulo, a Florida "environmental activist" uses the very example of Louisiana for his anti-offshore drilling campaign, calling Louisiana's coast "the nation's toilet."

Florida's fishing fleet must love fishing in toilets, and her restaurants serving what's in them. Most of the red snapper you eat in Florida restaurants are caught around Louisiana's oil platforms. We see the Florida-registered boats tied up to them constantly. Sometimes us locals can barely squeeze in.

America desperately needs more domestic oil. In the process of producing it, we'd also get a cheaper tab for broiled red snapper with crabmeat/shrimp topping.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/fontova/fontova68.html
 
Florida's tourism industry wouldn't do very well if one had to dive amongst oil rigs.

If you want to see the cost of off-shore drilling to the state of LA, look no further than New Orleans, a city that was destroyed because of oil interests.
 
Florida's tourism industry wouldn't do very well if one had to dive amongst oil rigs.

If you want to see the cost of off-shore drilling to the state of LA, look no further than New Orleans, a city that was destroyed because of oil interests.

LOL. It was destroyed because it sits UNDER the sea level in an area that is renowned for HURRICANES. The swamps are vanishing not because of Oil but because of controlling the Mississippi river.

Learn some facts dear.
 
Use a few brain cells. Why do you think they rerouted the Mississippi?

Ohh I see, the ONLY traffic on the Mississippi is Oil traffic, you really are a PEA BRAIN. They also rerouted and leveed it all along its length to prevent FLOODING, which has ZERO to do with OIL.
 
The problems with the flooding of New Orleans can be laid at the feet of the federal government, namely the army corps of engineers. They defied common sense and well-understood water management practices, and went with a "levees only" approach. Thus, they built up the mississippi artifically high, so when it finally spilled over, it was spectacular.

Seriously, if you go back and look at the records before the army corps of engineers started building levees, there were no catastrophic floods. Floods, yes--but megafloods, no. The first big project during the Hoover administration was soon followed by the first killer flood during the 1930's.

Also, if oil platforms cause an explosion of marine life, then I would expect Florida's tourism industry to flourish.
 
Katrina was so devasting, in part, because of the loss of costal wetlands that previously acted as a storm buffer. City elevation became a factor when the levees broke, but the intensity of the unbuffered storm was a significant cause for that failure.

Ravir should not have singled out oil interests, but RSG was wrong (as usual) to deny that factor and to blame elevation alone. The U.S. Geological Survey blamed several factors for degradation and loss of wetlands, including natural processes, massive levees that channel the river, and drainage to accommodate development and agriculture. "In addition, . . . an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate hydrocarbon exploration [that includes oil and gas] and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands."

Much of the development for which wetlands were drained included facilities for oil and gas production, and housing to accomodate employees in that industry.
 
Katrina was so devasting, in part, because of the loss of costal wetlands that previously acted as a storm buffer. City elevation became a factor when the levees broke, but the intensity of the unbuffered storm was a significant cause for that failure.

Ravir should not have singled out oil interests, but RSG was wrong (as usual) to deny that factor and to blame elevation alone. The U.S. Geological Survey blamed several factors for degradation and loss of wetlands, including natural processes, massive levees that channel the river, and drainage to accommodate development and agriculture. "In addition, . . . an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate hydrocarbon exploration [that includes oil and gas] and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands."

Much of the development for which wetlands were drained included facilities for oil and gas production, and housing to accomodate employees in that industry.

I did not claim oil had nothing to do with it. Again try some reading comprehension. For a lawyer you sure can't read well or understand the written word. And as you have just posted it did not have as much to do with as Ravir claimed. Which was my point. The river has been leveed since the 30's, getting more and more controlled as the years passed and not just because of oil.
 
Also, if oil platforms cause an explosion of marine life, then I would expect Florida's tourism industry to flourish.

Not really. Proximity to shore is a factor. And I would expect that boat traffic near the rigs would be limited to prevent accidents and possible spills.
 
Katrina was so devasting, in part, because of the loss of costal wetlands that previously acted as a storm buffer. City elevation became a factor when the levees broke, but the intensity of the unbuffered storm was a significant cause for that failure.

Ravir should not have singled out oil interests, but RSG was wrong (as usual) to deny that factor and to blame elevation alone. The U.S. Geological Survey blamed several factors for degradation and loss of wetlands, including natural processes, massive levees that channel the river, and drainage to accommodate development and agriculture. "In addition, . . . an extensive system of dredged canals and flood-control structures, constructed to facilitate hydrocarbon exploration [that includes oil and gas] and production as well as commercial and recreational boat traffic, has enabled salt water from the Gulf of Mexico to intrude brackish and freshwater wetlands."

Much of the development for which wetlands were drained included facilities for oil and gas production, and housing to accomodate employees in that industry.

True, I shouldn't have singled out oil, must have been my knee-jerk liberal reaction.

Another problem is that the state of LA doesn't get to share in any of the tax revenue from the drilling off of their coast even though the industry puts a huge strain on their infrastructure.
 
I did not claim oil had nothing to do with it.

I was responding to the post were you wrote, "LOL. It was destroyed because it sits UNDER the sea level in an area that is renowned for HURRICANES. The swamps are vanishing not because of Oil but because of controlling the Mississippi river."

You subsequently wrote, "Ohh I see, the ONLY traffic on the Mississippi is Oil traffic, you really are a PEA BRAIN. They also rerouted and leveed it all along its length to prevent FLOODING, which has ZERO to do with OIL."

So I said you blamed elevation alone, because I was responding to your first quote and did not consider your second comment about levees. Sorry for the oversight.

But you did deny that oil had anything to do with the loss of swamp land, and blamed the levees alone, which is contradicted by the USGS. If you had written "The swamps are vanishing not [just] because of Oil but [also] because of controlling the Mississippi river", my comments would have been off the mark. But you didn't, so STFU about my ability to read when it is your ability to write that's deficient.
 
I was responding to the post were you wrote, "LOL. It was destroyed because it sits UNDER the sea level in an area that is renowned for HURRICANES. The swamps are vanishing not because of Oil but because of controlling the Mississippi river."

You subsequently wrote, "Ohh I see, the ONLY traffic on the Mississippi is Oil traffic, you really are a PEA BRAIN. They also rerouted and leveed it all along its length to prevent FLOODING, which has ZERO to do with OIL."

So I said you blamed elevation alone, because I was responding to your first quote and did not consider your second comment about levees. Sorry for the oversight.

But you did deny that oil had anything to do with the loss of swamp land, and blamed the levees alone, which is contradicted by the USGS. If you had written "The swamps are vanishing not [just] because of Oil but [also] because of controlling the Mississippi river", my comments would have been off the mark. But you didn't, so STFU about my ability to read when it is your ability to write that's deficient.

Shall we review your inability to comprehend the written word in several other threads? One where I was clear that gang members did in fact have rights like everyone else? How about the one where you were and are still to stupid to admit you could not grasp satire?

I swear , we have 3 admitted lawyers on this board and 2 of you need proof readers and cliff notes to understand anything said here.
 
Florida's tourism industry wouldn't do very well if one had to dive amongst oil rigs.

If you want to see the cost of off-shore drilling to the state of LA, look no further than New Orleans, a city that was destroyed because of oil interests.




That's debatable. I've been on several offshore fishing trips in which we tie off to oil rigs and pull up snapper, ling, mahi mahi, and grouper. Guides make a living doing this and tourists pay good money and have no complaints with the rigs. We really do need to drill more in the gulf and off the coast of Florida while we're on our way to electric and other technologies.
 
That's debatable. I've been on several offshore fishing trips in which we tie off to oil rigs and pull up snapper, ling, mahi mahi, and grouper. Guides make a living doing this and tourists pay good money and have no complaints with the rigs. We really do need to drill more in the gulf and off the coast of Florida while we're on our way to electric and other technologies.

Rigs create artificial structures that baitfish live around for protection. The rigs will have an effect on the biodiversity of marine life, but I don't know what marine ecologists think the outcome will be.
 
Pronounced aggregations of fish close to the platforms cannot be used as a surrogate for explaining the complexities of species-specific and community level spatial and temporal patterns.

The most reasonable way to draw conclusions would be to compare fish assemblages between platforms and nearby natural reefs and not by comparing the Flower Gardens in TX-LA to the reefs of the FL Keys. If rigs are supporting similar fish assemblages with similar spatial and temporal patterns as nearby natural reefs, then one can draw conclusions that the rigs offer suitable habitat.
 
Rigs create artificial structures that baitfish live around for protection. The rigs will have an effect on the biodiversity of marine life, but I don't know what marine ecologists think the outcome will be.

Not sure that florida has a problem with a lack of offshore reefs.. hell.. its hard enough trying not to hit em with anything more than an Island packet type keel ...I'm not sure that any oil spils have resulted from LA drilling. I am not sure as well that the gulf has been harmed by oil drilling at all.. although I'd say that there is a serious problem with light pollution when navigating a field at night... almost got rundown by a tanker that was invisble against the rig backdrops... Gov Bush shot down many a proposal to drill... does anyone from Florida know why this was?
 
Not sure that florida has a problem with a lack of offshore reefs.. hell.. its hard enough trying not to hit em with anything more than an Island packet type keel ...I'm not sure that any oil spils have resulted from LA drilling. I am not sure as well that the gulf has been harmed by oil drilling at all.. although I'd say that there is a serious problem with light pollution when navigating a field at night... almost got rundown by a tanker that was invisble against the rig backdrops... Gov Bush shot down many a proposal to drill... does anyone from Florida know why this was?

So he'd get re-elected. Almost everyone in Florida is against offshore drilling.
 
The oil is there. Drill it. I'm not saying we should destroy the coral reefs but we do need to be realistic. I'd rather have people being able to afford a way to pay for gas so they can go to work versus saving a few species. And while we're doing this, push for new technologies.
 
The oil is there. Drill it. I'm not saying we should destroy the coral reefs but we do need to be realistic. I'd rather have people being able to afford a way to pay for gas so they can go to work versus saving a few species. And while we're doing this, push for new technologies.

There isn't enough there to matter. And it isn't just a matter of saving a few species. It's a matter of saving the economy of a state. How many states do you want to ruin for oil?
 

Forum List

Back
Top