Offshore Oil Drilling
Overview of Offshore Oil Drilling
For decades our coasts were protected from new offshore oil drilling. Even when former President Bush lifted a White House
moratorium on offshore drilling in 2008, when Congress allowed a federal ban on drilling to expire, and when the Obama Administration indicated that they would potentially allow drilling along several formerly protected areas of coastline, new drilling in the mid- and south-Atlantic coast, eastern Gulf of Mexico, Pacific and portions of the Arctic has been prevented. Yet the Trump administration brought new risks to these areas, as federal officials work to implement the America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.
The disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig blowout in April 2010 released approximately 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico; fouled beaches and coastal wetlands from Louisiana to the Florida panhandle; killed birds, fish and marine mammals; and devastated the recreation and fishing-based economies of the Gulf States. These horrific developments contributed to the Obama Administration protecting the East Coast, West Coast and eastern Gulf from new offshore drilling in the 2012-2017 leasing plan. The 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Plan extended these protections, alongside permanent protections to portions of the Arctic and Northeast Atlantic.
Despite this, the Trump Administration and oil industry continue to try to open up additional coastal areas to offshore oil drilling. In fact, the Trump Administration has released the draft proposed OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2019-2024, expanding offshore oil drilling to 90% of the nation's Outer Continental Shelf. This includes new offshore oil drilling in previously protected coastlines, as well as in marine monuments, sanctuaries, and reserves. These are areas with well-documented cultural and ecological importance intended to be permanently protected from the threats of seismic blasting, mineral extraction and offshore drilling. An analysis by Oceana demonstrates why new offshore oil drilling would be dangerous and unnecessary. A few months' worth of oil are not worth risking our beaches and coastal economy.
In preparation for potential expansion of offshore oil drilling by the federal government, certain states are trying to take proactive measures to prevent or weaken incentives for offshore oil and gas development off their coasts. For instance, California recently tried to pass Senate Bill 188 which, the Sacramento Bee states
- "would have blocked new leases for the construction of pipelines or other infrastructure in state ocean waters necessary to expand oil and gas development. The measure would have made it more difficult and expensive to transport oil if the Trump administration moved to increase drilling in federal waters off the coast of California."
Unfortunately, extensive lobbying by the oil industry, including the Western States Petroleum Association, California Independent Petroleum Association, and California Chamber of Commerce was victorious in killing the bill on September 1, 2017.
The Surfrider Foundation is opposed to offshore oil drilling in new areas. Our nation’s oceans, waves and beaches are vital recreational, economic and ecological treasures that will be polluted by an increase in offshore oil drilling. Instead of advocating for transient and environmentally harmful ways to meet America’s oil needs, we should seek a comprehensive and environmentally sustainable energy plan that includes energy conservation.
As we have seen with the Deepwater Horizon disaster, offshore oil drilling and oil spills have the potential to critically impact pristine marine ecosystems. Offshore oil drilling can also lead to industrialization of our coastlines. While there are numerous environmental problems associated with oil drilling, there are also negative economic impacts that we simply cannot afford during hard economic times. This article is intended to outline potential impacts of offshore oil drilling, and also to dispel myths that have been put forth by oil drilling proponents.
Ultimately, America cannot drill our way out of an oil consumption problem. We must look toward sustainable solutions that protect our natural resources, rather than drilling for fossil fuels off our coasts. It is in the best interest of our environment and economy to wean America off oil, and develop a sustainable “energy portfolio” that includes renewable sources and conservation.
Energy conservation is the most economical and environmental way to achieve energy independence from fossil fuels. Riding mass transit, increasing auto efficiency, improving building insulation, and better management of electrical use in homes/businesses, are just a few ways we can reduce our oil and energy consumption. Conservation is much cheaper and healthier than investing in further development of dwindling offshore oil reserves. Additionally, technological advances in renewable sources have substantially reduced the cost of wind and solar energy production. As the capacity to store renewable energy increases, the ability for renewables to provide a consistent base load of electricity to the grid will as well.
It’s imperative that America shifts away from an old mindset of relying on fossil fuels. Climate change, and other environmental problems are not waiting for us to ‘rebuild our energy portfolio’. Oil drilling and continued use of fossil fuels will only exacerbate climate change, and keep us trapped in a ‘backwards frame of mind’ which overlooks sustainable energy and conservation. The answers for sustainable energy are already in front of us—and new offshore drilling is not part of the answer.
Information from this article can also be found in the printable and downloadable Not the Answer Fact Sheet.
There are serious environmental impacts associated with each stage of offshore drilling. While some impacts may not be seen by the naked eye, there are a myriad of impacts that local communities and elected officials must know about before considering new oil drilling. Because the Surfrider Foundation is so concerned about the environmental ramifications of drilling, we have chosen to highlight the most harmful impacts for this article.
- Oil Exploration—Seismic Surveys: Seismic surveys, also referred to as ‘air gun blasting’, are conducted to locate and estimate the size of an offshore oil reserve. In order to conduct surveys, ships use ‘airgun arrays’ to emit high-decibel explosive impulses to map the seafloor. The noise from seismic surveys can damage or kill marine life. High decibels are known to reduce the presence of zooplankton, impair fish eggs and larvae, and temporarily if not permanently deafen adult and juvenile fish and marine mammals. Without the ability to hear, fish and marine mammals struggle to communicate, navigate, avoid predators, and locate prey. These disturbances can also disrupt important migratory patterns, forcing marine life away from suitable habitats meant for foraging and mating. In addition, seismic surveys have been implicated in whale beaching and stranding incidents.     In 2014, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management completed a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on proposed seismic surveying in the Atlantic, and estimated that 13.6 million marine animals would be disrupted.
- Drilling and Processing Oil: The process of drilling releases thousands of gallons of polluted water, known as “drilling muds”. These muds contain toxic substances like benzene, zinc, arsenic, radioactive materials, and other contaminants used to lubricate drill bits and maintain pressure. Unfortunately, discharges are unregulated. High concentrations of metals have been found around drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. Air pollution is yet another major problem associated with drilling and processing. Over its operational lifespan, a single rig can pollute the equivalent of 7,000 cars driving 50 miles per day. Air pollution is also a problem at oil refineries. For the state of California alone, refinery emissions of greenhouse gases account for about 40% of industrial emissions and almost 10% of the state’s greenhouse gases. Additionally, the drilling and construction of oil pipelines used to transport extracted oil back to shore disturb fragile seafloor habitats, wetlands, and beaches.
- Oil Spills: Oil spills have the ability to cause devastating and irreparable impacts to entire ecosystems. Nearly 20 years after the Exxon Valdez spill, more than 26 thousand gallons of oil still remain in the soil on the shoreline. Sadly, oil spills take place on a consistent basis. If we average the amount of oil spilled since 1969, thats about 880,000 gallons of oil spilled annually from U.S. drilling operations. From 1995 to 2010, the U.S. Mineral Management Service recorded 183 spills in the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean (including spills of toxic chemicals related to drilling). Nationwide, there have been [www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/osrr-oil-spill-response-research/1086aa.pdf 725 oil spills] between 2001 and 2007, resulting in 207.4 million gallons of oil tarnishing our coastlines.
- Natural disasters also prompt spills. When Hurricane Katrina whipped through the Gulf of Mexico, she destroyed over 100 platforms and caused the largest oil spill in the U.S. since the Exxon Valdez (until the Deepwater Horizon disaster), which may have been even worse than reported. The Gulf of Mexico ecosystem was still in crisis more than three years after the Deepwater Horizon disaster.  Nearly five years after Deepwater Horizon a study estimated that 6 to 10 million gallons of oil remain submerged at the bottom of the Gulf. Another study published in May 2015 identified lung and adrenal lesions consistent with petroleum product exposure in several deceased bottlenose dolphins. The dolphins had been stranded in the northern Gulf of Mexico since the start of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Center for Biological Diversity estimated that 115,000 birds, sea turtle, and marine mammals were killed or injured as a result of Deepwater Horizon. For a perspective by Surfrider Foundation seven years after the spill, see here.
- Onshore Environmental Impacts: Oil production requires massive infrastructure on land (e.g., roads, storage tanks, pipelines, processing facilities, and other facilities) which have caused local communities to experience onshore environmental problems because of offshore drilling. Impacts associated with infrastructure can severely damage beaches, wetlands, and coastal habitats, which directly impact local communities that rely on tourism and recreation. Oil processing plants can also contribute to air pollution and use large amounts of freshwater during processing. It is unfortunate that the oil industry is externalizing the costs of the air, water and land pollution at the expense of our environment and tourism.
Tesoro Corporation's Anacortes Refinery on the shore of Puget Sound in Washington state.
Offshore drilling requires onshore infrastructure which disrupts the natural environment.
Before scrutinizing ‘oil drilling myths’, it’s important to examine economic
arguments that prove our coastal communities are the mainstay of the U.S.
economy and will undoubtedly suffer economically if new drilling occurs. The
potential of catastrophic oil spills, not to mention the eyesore of an industrialized
coastline, could throw our already fragile economy into a tailspin.
Nothing proves this point more than a recent study conducted by the National Ocean Economics Program showing our “ocean economy” (specifically focusing on tourism and recreation) contributes three times the amount of money to the U.S. economy, compared to offshore oil production.
The report defines “ocean economy” as: ocean resources that have a direct or indirect input of goods and services to an economic activity. Nearly 75% of jobs within the “ocean economy” sector are related to coastal tourism and recreation. Coastal tourism contributes significantly to the U.S. economy. Offshore drilling could put coastal economies at risk and therefore have an impact on our larger economy.
COASTAL TOURISM REVENUE
Note: revenue calculations are conservative estimates based on leisure and hospitality
|State||Billions of Dollars, 2015|
In addition to tourism and recreation being impacted by drilling, fishing industries could also be disrupted and uprooted. Seismic surveys, oil rig construction, potential spills, and decommissioning activities may displace fisherman. The fishing industry is another pillar in our U.S. economy that we cannot afford to put in jeopardy.
FISHING GENERATED INCOME IMPACTS BY REGION, 2010
|Region||Commercial Fishing||Recreational Fishing|
|Gulf of Mexico||$3,910,844,000||$2,946,960,000|
LONGTERM CLEAN UP COSTS AFTER A SPILL
The Deepwater Horizon disaster provides a prime example of the devastating long term impacts and costs of an oil spill. In 2015 the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment Trustee Council ("Trustees") proposed to accept a settlement with BP to resolve BP’s liability for natural resource injuries from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Under this settlement, BP would pay up to $8.8 billion for restoration. Based on the Trustees' assessment of impacts to the Gulf’s natural resources, they determined that the best method for addressing the injuries is a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem restoration plan. The draft plan would allocate funds from the settlement for restoration over the next 15 years. That draft plan, and information on the proposed settlement with BP (called the Consent Decree), can be found here.
Facts vs. Fiction
MYTH: By expanding offshore drilling, America can wean itself off “foreign oil”.
Reality: A Congressional report from 2003 indicated that increasing offshore
production would not significantly reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. By completely developing our oceans for oil extraction, the Department of Energy estimates that oil imports would be reduced by a mere 2.5% in 2030, at which point we will have begun exhausting our offshore potential. The term “foreign oil”
typically conjures up oil that is sourced from Middle East or OPEC nations. In
actuality, the United States imports nearly half its oil from non-OPEC
people are surprised to find out that America’s receives approximately 30% of its oil
from North America. In fact, Canada and Mexico are two of the largest oil
suppliers for the U.S.
The United States is the world’s largest consumer of oil, churning through 18.8 million barrels a day. By contrast, the United States only produces about 9 million barrels a day. According to the Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University, even under the most optimistic 'drill baby drill' scenario, the U.S. would only produce an additional 2 to 4 million barrels a day, still leaving us with a large import deficit. Even with new drilling, the U.S. would still need to import about 40% of its daily oil consumption. 
The U.S. needs a comprehensive energy plan that doesn’t contradict itself! While the U.S. imports a large amount of oil, we are also exporting our own oil. Believe it or not, the U.S. exports about 12 million barrels a year of oil. Why should we drill, if the U.S. is exporting oil? U.S. oil exports have steadily increased over the past 30 years and the trend doesn’t appear to be changing anytime soon.
MYTH: New offshore oil drilling will give Americans “relief at the pump”.
Reality: The U.S. Energy Information Administration (part of the Department of
Energy) stated: “…[drilling in] the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would
not have a significant impact on oil prices before 2030”. The report continues to
say: “Because oil prices are determined on the international market … any impact
on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant.” The estimated maximum reduction in gas prices from increased offshore drilling is three to four cents a gallon. 
So, let’s get this straight… we have to wait several years in order to experience a tiny amount of relief at the pump? And while we’re waiting for “relief at the pump”, we would be harming our economy and environment by drilling.
MYTH: Offshore drilling will help us ensure our Nation’s long-term energy needs.
Reality: Even under the best-case scenario, America’s offshore oil reserves in the Atlantic and Pacific would provide us only 758 days, or about 25 months supply of oil at our current rate of consumption. A recent study conducted by Surfrider staff used BOEM technically recoverable offshore oil estimates and US Energy Administration on national daily oil consumption to quantify the following estimates by region. These findings are supported by a similar analysis showing that new drilling will not significantly help long-term energy needs. Two years of oil is not worth risking the future health of our marine environments and coastal economies for decades to come.
- The North and Mid-Atlantic contain a small amount of oil. At 2016 usage and recent prices, the region contains about 4.2 billion barrels of oil, which would supply the nation with oil for 212 days (about 7 months).
- The South Atlantic contains an even smaller amount of oil. At recent prices the area is estimated to contain approximately 0.55 billion barrels of oil, which would supply the nation with oil for only 28 days.
- In California, at recent prices and usage, there is an estimated 9.8 billion barrels of oil off California’s coastline, which would supply the nation with approximately 500 days of oil (16.5 months).
- In the Pacific Northwest, Washington and Oregon only have a minuscule amount of oil, 0.4 billion barrels, and would supply the nation with just 20 days of oil.
MYTH: Advances in drilling technology have made offshore drilling “safer”.
Reality: New technology is far from safe as proven by numerous recent spills,
including the latest huge spills in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Australia. The Gulf of Mexico oil well blowout in April 2010 gushed for three months and totaled approximately 200 million gallons (about 4.7 million barrels). Off the west coast of Australia, using “state of the art”
technology flaunted by oil companies, an oil rig blew out in 2009, spilling at least 400 barrels
of oil per day (estimate by oil company) and could have been as much as 2,000
barrels a day (estimate by Australia Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism).
That spill covered thousands of square miles of ocean and was not able to be
stopped for over two months.
There are claims by oil drilling proponents that “sub-sea drilling” can be done safely and ‘kept out of sight’. However, a recent investigative report exposed the truth that sub-sea drilling installations are almost entirely used in depths greater than 5,000 feet. Coastal waters off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts only run a few hundred feet deep.
For example, in certain areas of the Pacific along the continental shelf, it’s estimated waters are approximately 650 feet deep. Most waters off the coast of Florida run no deeper than 100 feet.
We know from experience that platforms are not safe in the face of powerful storms. This was illustrated in the Gulf of Mexico when both Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita damaged a combined total of 124 platforms and spilled at least 741,400 gallons of oil.
MYTH: Potential economic benefits of offshore drilling “outweigh the risks”.
Reality: In most instances, risk assessments of offshore drilling fail to take into
consideration the potential risk to our beaches and coastlines in terms of their
functioning as economic engines. As discussed above, our coastlines are single-handedly the biggest revenue source for our economy. Our nation’s oceans,
waves and beaches are vital recreational, economic and ecological treasures that
will be polluted by an increase in offshore oil drilling. Why bother with such risk?
Images of oiled marine life and vast amounts of oil covering the ocean have been
permanently etched into our hearts and minds over the years. America needs to
conserve energy, protect our natural resources and look for innovative ways to
build a sustainable ‘energy portfolio’. Offshore oil drilling is Not the Answer.
- Oiling a Rich Environment: Impacts and Assessment
- Protecting Our Ocean and Coastal Economies: Avoid Unnecessary Risks from Offshore Drilling
- Patin, S. (Translations by Cascio, E.) 1999. “Waste discharges during the offshore oil and gas activity”. http://www.offshoreenvironment.com/discharges.html
- MMS. 2001. “Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 181”, Final Environmental Impact Statement. https://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2008/2008-011.aspx
- “Dirty Business” USPIRG http://uspirg.org/uspirg.asp?id2=24551
- “Oil Refineries Fail to Report Harmful Emissions” http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20040827114147-65907.pdf
- 18 years on, Exxon Valdez oil still pours
- Minerals Management Service 2007. OCS Leasing Program: 2007‐2012. Final Environmental Impact Statement
- Offshore Oil Drilling Incidents
- GEOTIMES: “After Katrina.”
- Oil Spill Commission Final Report
- 2009 National Ocean Economics Program Report
- 2009 National Ocean Economics Program Report
- National Ocean Economics Program, 2015
- NOAA Fisheries Economics of the US, 2010
- Can Offshore Drilling Really Make the U.S. Oil Independent?
- EIA - Imports and Exports
- Energy Statistics
- Oil Index
- New offshore drilling not a quick fix
- EIA—Imports and Exports
- EIA—Other Analysis
- Will More Drilling Mean Cheaper Gas?
- ABC: Oct 22, 2009
- Herald Tribune “Faulty Promises.”
- Herald Tribune “Faulty Promises..”
- MMS: Report on Hurricane Rita and Katrina