Happy Anniversary, Exxon March 31, 2009
Posted by jdf15 in Climate Change, Offshore Drilling.Tags: Alaska, Exxon, Exxon Valdez, Offshore Drilling, Oil, Oil spills
add a comment
Imagine 11 million gallons of oil coating beaches from Massachusetts all the way down here to North Carolina. As the Natural Resource Defense Council’s Kate Slusark points out, this is what the Exxon Valdez oil spill would have looked like had it occurred on the East Coast instead of Alaska’s Prince William Sound. Last Tuesday marked the 20th anniversary of the country’s largest oil spill. Exxon Mobil, despite it close association with the poster child of environmental disasters, has not learned from its mistakes.

Oil pours into Prince William Sound
I cannot speak to whether Exxon still hires drunks to captain its supertankers, but the company has balked at a simple precaution to reduce the likelihood of another oil catastrophe. In 1989, 100 percent of the oil supertanker fleet was single-hulled, including the Exxon Valdez. Since then, the percentage has dropped to just 21% as that old design is phased out in favor of much safer double-hulled ships.
And that percentage will continue to decline. Singe-hulled tankers will be banned from the United States in 2015, and a similar ban by the U.N. International Maritime Organization will go into effect next year. France and Spain haven’t even allow single-hulled tankers within 200 miles of their shores since their own major spills in 1999 and 2002 respectively. As a result, most Western oil companies have abandoned risky single-hulled tankers even ahead of the upcoming bans. But Exxon has brazenly defied this logical trend.
The nation’s largest oil company remains the biggest Western user of single-hulled tankers. And this is not just a function of its size: In 2008, Exxon hired more single-hulled tankers than the next nine largest companies combined. Why? The only apparent benefit is that the older, more accident-prone tankers cost about 20 percent less to rent.
Bloomberg estimates that choosing single-hulled tankers saved Exxon less than one cent per share in 2008. Granted, that scales to a savings of about $18 million, but compared to the company’s record $45.2 billion in profit last year, that’s not even a drop in the barrel. And if you consider the $3.8 billion cost for Valdez cleanup and damages to date, any cost-benefit analysis becomes even more absurd.
Such flagrant disregard for environmental safety reinforces the negative feelings many still harbor towards Exxon. But they don’t seem to care. The Exxon Valdez (repaired, renamed and sold) is banned from returning to the Prince William Sound. But Exxon still operates the Valdez’s single-hulled sister ship, the SeaRiver Long Beach, and regularly sails it right through the scene of the crime.
All that the Valdez experience has taught Exxon is that the courts are their friends. In repeated legal battles after the spill, Exxon was able to reduce its punitive fines by almost 90% and delay that restitution for literally decades. After its Supreme Court victory in 2008, Exxon owed the equivalent of just four days’ profit in damages. That’s not a deterrent, it’s barely a slap on the wrist.
In 1989, Exxon’s CEO predicted that the Prince William Sound would be completely restored in just a few years. And earlier this month, the company claimed that the area has recovered with “no long-term damage.” This is patently untrue; oil can still found be on or under many of the sound’s beaches.

How can Exxon claim there is no long-term damage while oil still lies on miles and miles of beaches?
The Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council recently found that 17 of the 27 monitored species have not recovered, especially the larger predators that suffer from the bioaccumulation of toxins. For example, researchers say one of the two Orca pods in the sound is doomed with “no hope of recovery.”
And for those less sympathetic towards cetaceans, there are the missing schools of Pacific herring that used to support a profitable fishing industry. Their absence impacts the families of local fishermen who used to rely on that fishery for half of their income. The Exxon Valdez spill has undoubtedly caused long-term damage.

Obligatory.
Although shipping spills have decreased with the post-Valdez regulatory improvements, its risks are intrinsic and will never be completely averted. And offshore drilling poses similar threats with a whole host of new ones – especially during severe weather events. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone caused 125 spills that dumped about 685,000 gallons of petroleum into our oceans. Oil spills will inevitably continue as long to rely on this dirty, climate-altering fuel (as if we needed another reason to pursue alternative energy).
The transition from oil is a long-term goal, but it won’t become reality without short-term action. And we can start down that road by removing the Bush II administration’s contributions: For example, in 2007, Bush opened the previously protected Bristol Bay to offshore drilling. Such shortsighted policy must be overturned and prevented. Even from a purely economic standpoint, this move jeopardizes $2.2 billion in annual fishing revenue for less than $8 billion in oil – over the next 20 to 40 years. That’s just silly and a great place to start.
In the meantime, though, we need to hold companies like Exxon fully accountable for mistakes of such egregious magnitude. We cannot afford to let them repeat their history, even if they refuse to learn from it.
A version of this post ran in The Chronicle at Duke University.
Offshore Drilling: They’re Lying. September 17, 2008
Posted by jdf15 in Offshore Drilling.Tags: ANWR, Gas, Gas Prices, House of Representatives, OCS, Offshore Drilling, Oil
4 comments
Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the “Comprehensive American Energy Security & Consumer Protection Act.” This bill has a lot of good policies in it, such as renewable tax credit extensions, repealing oil company subsidies, and establishing a national renewable energy standard. It also compromises a lot (read: bad policies). The most notable of these is the opening of the outer continental shelf (OCS) to oil companies. In light of this development, I have decided to write my long overdue post on offshore drilling.
Over the last few months, offshore drilling has been all over the media, largely is response to a major propaganda push by the GOP. Republicans would have you believe that science is a political debate, but there are some things that just cannot be spun. In this post, I will attempt to clearly explain why this gimmick will not help our country both to help clear up any uncertainties and, with any luck, to arm you with the facts to help explain this to people you know. Because we need to talk about this – the Republicans certainly are. And they’re winning. So we begin:
1) Domestic drilling cannot lower oil prices. We, the US, represent 25% of world oil demand and <3% of the world’s supply (EIA International Energy Outlook 2004). Oil prices are determined on the global market, and we produce so little that we simply can’t affect prices from the supply side. Gas price fluctuations in response to regional disruptions in refining capabilities (such as we see in the wake of hurricanes) are an exception, but they just raise prices even higher and cannot drop prices below the floor set by the global market. And since OPEC is a cartel, even if we were miraculously able to significantly affect prices, OPEC could just reduce their supply to negate that effect.
2) Drilling won’t lower gas prices. Even if we were to tap all of our resources, including OCS and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), according to Bush’s own EIA and EPA, drilling would not have a significant impact on prices. We’re talking gas prices lowered by about 4-6 cents/gallon in 2030.
If you listen to what Bush, Gingrich, McConnell, Boehner, and now McCain/Palin, are actually saying, they even admit that increasing supply can’t bring down oil prices. They are saying things like “the market signal will ease pressure on gas prices.” What that translates to is “drilling won’t bring down prices, but we’re hoping people are stupid enough to believe that it will and stop speculating oil futures so high.” Which won’t work for long if at all. They are choosing their words carefully, but even the biggest drilling advocates tacitly admit this is a political gimmick.
3) Drilling is a long-term proposition. This is not at all a short-term idea (I refuse to use the word ‘solution’ in this context). Even if we opened ANWR and the continental shelf tomorrow, oil wouldn’t begin to flow for 10 years and maximum production wouldn’t be achieved until 2027. Only THEN could we get our prices lowered by less than 6 cents/gallon.
4) We don’t have nationalized oil companies. In many other countries, oil companies are government-run. A country taps its own resources and distributes them as the government sees fit. That, for better or for worse, does not happen here. “Our” oil companies are giant, private companies that span the globe and act in the interest of their stockholders. Just because American companies get oil does not mean we do. Does anyone else find it suspicious that the oil companies tell us we just need to increase supply in the same year that American petroleum exports reached a record high?

"Our" oil companies are EXPORTING record amounts of petroleum products. But really, we just need more supply. They swear.
Industry front groups try to set up cost-benefit analyses to show us how much money we save/earn by drilling domestically, but the American people (who do not own stock in Exxon) don’t benefit from US oil company profits. We still pay the same money for the same gas. I’m not endorsing foreign oil, I’m just saying that US oil companies are not our saviors or even our friends. They are just companies trying to make as much money as they can.
5) Big Oil profits from our suffering. With soaring gas prices in recent years, the oil companies have been posting record profits while the American public has struggled. The fanatical support oil companies enjoy from the rank and file Republican is sadly ironic as these companies profit at the expense of regular people and, while they do contribute handsomely to campaigns, do nothing for the everyday people who champion their cause. It really is a testament to the expertise with which the GOP and industry advertising/lobbyists manipulate the public. And to add insult to injury, the Big 5 are spending most of their profits on buying back their own stock. They are spending under 4% of their profits on exploration for new oil and even less on research and development. This makes me pretty angry, but I’ve had people tell me “well, they’re private companies making a profit. Good for them.” Just because I am a Democrat does not mean I automatically begrudge businesses for their success; this is different for one fundamental reason: the oil industry is very heavily subsidized; oil companies receive millions and millions of taxpayer dollars and tax breaks each year. If they are going to continue to be supported by the American people, they must act on our behalf. Their expenditures clearly indicate that they do not.
6) They can increase supply without offshore drilling. There is plenty of oil available to oil companies even without this new bill. There are millions of acres across the country currently available for purchase or not being utilized. Furthermore, there is a great deal of oil still sitting in the ground beneath tapped wells. Conventional drilling techniques by no means empty a reservoir; there are numerous Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOC) techniques that could help us get more oil out of our existing wells right now (for example by injecting steam into the ground to increase pressure in the well and draw oil out of the surrounding rocks). But the industry rarely employs them. Some of these techniques could even sequester carbon underground (click the EOC link above) and help us fight global warming even while we make the most of our current drilling infrastructure. If the oil companies really wanted to increase supply they could; this is a last ditch land grab before Bush leaves office.
So there it is: offshore drilling is not the answer. It just isn’t. There is no substantive debate on the issue. In fact, more drilling isn’t even part of the solution. The “All of the Above” scam the GOP is pushing is terrible for so many reasons it would require its own post. So what IS the solution? A comprehensive strategy of clean energy in conjunction with increased efficiency and conservation. It may not be sexy, but that’s what we have to do. The Natural Resources Defense Council outlines the plan in this fact sheet and the graph below shows how such a plan could actually help us in the short term and dwarf the “benefits” of increased drilling in the long term.

