Established 1826 — Oldest College Newspaper West of the Alleghenies

Oilrigs must have stricter regulations

Jensen Henry

(334): Not good on the oil front. Heading for the beaches. Environmental disaster in making. And now other states can share in this joy with new permission given to them to offshore drill.

I was forwarded that text message earlier this week from a friend who had received it from his father, a science professor in Alabama. And while it probably isn't the most exemplary Texts From Last Night material, it does raise an enormously important question: how will the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico affect United States policy on offshore drilling, especially given President Obama's recent decision to open many new areas of American coastline for oil and natural gas excavation?

Initially after an oilrig located 50 miles off the Louisiana coast exploded on April 20, injuring 17 and killing 11, the consequences were unforeseeable. However, when it was discovered that one of the underwater pipes was leaking crude oil at a rate of 200,000 gallons per day, the tragedy turned into an environmental catastrophe. By Tuesday of this week, the oozed oil covered an area 48 miles long and 80 miles wide, which is larger than the state of Rhode Island. Marine scientists are fearful for the fates of sperm whales, endangered sea turtles and myriad other fish and bird species in the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, officials at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) believe that, depending on weather conditions, the oil slick could hit American shores by Saturday.

The timing of this could not be worse for Obama, who announced at the end of March his desire to open previously-untouched areas along the Eastern seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and northern Alaska for exploration and drilling. If accepted, this proposal would open 167 million acres of Atlantic and 130 million acres of Alaskan coastline for oil well development.

Three hundred million acres is a lot of acres. And now, given the deaths of the workers because of the explosion, the hazards to nature and the ominous approach of oil to beaches across the southeast, environmental activists and politicians now have a substantial weapon with which to fight the expansion of offshore drilling. In an interview with a Tampa Bay newspaper, Florida Governor Charlie Crist said this event should force politicians to rethink their eagerness to drill: "If this doesn't give somebody pause, there's something wrong."

Although it's possible that Obama's offshore drilling proposal was a cunning tactic to win over Republicans in big oil states (perhaps to get their swing votes on upcoming climate legislation) or even stave off rising gas prices, there is growing evidence that it was a strategic international move to stop nuclear proliferation. How is this possible? Currently, Iran is one of the big kids in the international oil production sandbox. If the U.S. wants to put a sanction on Iran because of their nuclear programs, the world will need to decrease its reliance on Iranian oil, possibly by expanding offshore drilling in other areas. Need further proof? According to Time magazine, Obama reportedly told the Chinese president "the U.S. would help China make up any shortfall in oil imports resulting from Iranian retaliation for any Chinese support for sanctions."

So, it becomes evident that this black gold problem has left us in a morally gray area. It is impossible to weigh the devastation of environmental disaster (remember the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989?) against the benefits of sanctioning a threatening nation. The only thing we can do in the meantime is advocate for the improvement of safety regulations on oilrigs. But even then, we're still left with a giant spill that has caused an even greater mess.


Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter