While Barack Obama speaks more specifically to Florida, here are ten reasons why offshore exploration for natural gas is wrong for Virginia.
1. Seventy two percent (72%) of Virginia's offshore drilling zone is within the U.S. Navy's Virginia Capes Operating Area, the principal training area for air, surface and submarine units as well as a testing area for new vessels, aircraft and weapon systems. Vital to accomplishing their mission of national defense and used heavily for training Navy and Air Force combat units for the war in Iraq and the broader War on Terror, the Navy is strongly opposed to the restrictions and hazards presented by the presence of drilling rigs and related structures.
2. In a bill (the Offshore Energy Revenue Fund) that State Senator Frank Wagner plans to introduce at next week's special session, the revenue he envisions ($200 million/yr.) from offshore drilling going to transportation funding, comes from both drilling for oil and gas, which contradicts Virginia's wishes for exploration of natural gas alone as expressed in its Energy Plan of 2007. Wagner's plan also ignores the 72% of Virginia's drill zone that the Navy opposes. Dr. James Koch of the Center for Regional Studies has estimated that under the revenue sharing scheme (for both oil and natural gas) contained in last year's DOER Act, Virginia could gain $150 million in royalties each year. However, if opposition posed by the Navy was respected and drilling was not conducted within the critical Virginia Capes Operating Area, estimated royalties would drop to $42 million a year - a drop in the bucket considering our total demand.
3. Four times more natural gas is available in areas already open to drilling than in waters protected by the moratorium, and the industry is using only a fraction (18-20%) of what it already has access to. These unused areas could produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, nearly double current domestic oil production. We don't need to open new areas for drilling. This is a "drilling decoy" as Rep. Maurice Hinchey puts it. "When Big Oil already has tens of millions of acres available to them right now, it's cynical of them to come to Congress and ask for more drilling territory", he said. That is why he and others have introduced a bill that compels oil companies to utilize the 68 million acres onshore and offshore that are being leased by big oil companies, but not used to produce energy. "Oil corporations are trying to take control of as much land now during the oil-friendly Bush administration years, but are holding off on drilling until the price of oil soars to $200 or $300 a barrel so that they can make even greater profits" said Hinchey. "By stalling energy production, these major energy corporations are cheating the American people out of a domestic oil and natural gas supply, causing prices to unfairly and unnecessarily soar at the pump. The federal government has made tens of millions of acres available for oil and gas development. It's the energy companies that are refusing to produce and now we will make them pay if they continue to refuse to increase our domestic supply."
4. There is no leasing scenario or regulatory framework that would allow development of natural gas and not simultaneously promote the development of offshore oil. "This puts the camel's nose under the tent," said Glen Besa, Virginia Chapter Director with the Sierra Club.
5. Production in the Atlantic region started in 2011 (as proposed) would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices until 2030 - hardly a source for Virginia's current transportation crisis. Then, starting in 2020, total natural gas production from the lower 48 OCS is projected to decline.
6. Virginia lacks drilling platforms, pipelines, terminals, storage facilities, and other energy infrastructure. Conversion to production of Virginia's undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas resources lying off Virginia's coast would require an enormous amount of both time and money, and given the amount recoverable may not be economically attractive to develop. According to the US Department of Interior, of the 115 billion barrels of potential offshore oil reserves, 72 are located off the Gulf Coast, 27 off Alaska, 13 off the Pacific and just 4 off the Atlantic.
7. Imagine the same dollars otherwise invested in drilling infrastructure spent instead on offshore wind. There are studies that indicate that a wind farm the size of Virginia Beach placed 12 miles off our coast, could produce as much as 20% of the entire Commonwealth's energy demand. These are farms placed outside of the Navy's critical Virginia Capes Operating Area.
8. Shoreline processing equipment would clutter beaches and coastal zones with miles of pipelines and roads, and ports, helipads and dorms - hardly the attractive infrastructure greeting tourists to Virginia's Eastern Shore, where they spent $890 million last year in Virginia Beach alone.
9. There is an environmental cost (which translates to financial costs for clean-up/mitigation) to even just exploring for natural gas. Once exploratory drilling commences, the toxic drilling discharges and other routine drilling impacts are similar for either oil or gas exploration and eventual oil or gas development. Normal drilling operations generate an average of 180,000 gallons of waste muds containing toxic metals such as mercury and lead, per well, with most being dumped into surrounding waters. Each drilling platform also normally discharges hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic "produced" water every day containing benzene, arsenic, lead and other pollutants.
10. Finally, the risk associated with offshore exploration/drilling would affect not just Virginia. Any environmental damage would spread far beyond Virginia's coast. It would affect Maryland and North Carolina. You can't just ethically do this on a one-state-only basis. Both Maryland and North Carolina remain adamantly opposed to offshore drilling. Senator Elizabeth Dole has continued to oppose lifting the moratorium.
Bottomline: Why explore for something that we don't want to develop anyway. There's too little for such a high cost and it hijacks our resources that could otherwise be spent developing cleaner energy like offshore wind and biodiesel (biodiesel from algae is being studied at nearby ODU) that spur a clean energy economy that creates thousands of new green jobs, reduces global warming and makes us more energy independent. The all important transitional energy source is meanwhile otherwise the huge number of fields already open to drilling.
Thanks for posting this- we need to continue to help preserve the Virginia coastline.
It would be more usefull to spell out in detail exactly what Democrats plan to do to address energy issues both short term and long term.
So far, everything has been abstract. Does the Sierra Club have any ideas on solving our energy crises? It's one thing to find holes in the other argument, but I am so far not impressed with what Democrats have been putting forward because it isn't comprehensive and it isn't filled with specific and concrete ideas.
Your response could be a) attack me for bringing this up or b) spelling out a smart, comprehensive, and specific energy plan being floated by Democrats. Hopefully you choose option (b).
Webb's proposal, unveiled Wednesday with John Warner, would allow Virginia to request a federal waiver to drill for natural gas at least 50 miles from the coastline on an exploration-only basis. A second waiver would be needed if gas is found, and any revenues would be split between state and federal coffers.The legislation "offers a preliminary step toward exploration and development of one of our domestic energy sources," Webb said. "In order to address our nation's energy crisis, all options need to be on the table."
Kaine has carefully distinguished between oil and gas drilling, saying that Virginia so far does not endorse oil exploration. Mark Warner, campaigning Wednesday in the state, advocated lifting the federal moratorium on oil drilling to allow Virginia to explore. He also distinguished between oil and gas, saying that natural gas presents fewer environmental risks.
By itself as "the" solution, new natural gas (or oil) drilling is not being advocated. But by the time and if exploration for at least natural gas, yields market sense 5 to 10+ years down the road, it could very well aid the market to facilitate the economy in meeting longer-term goals for a clean energy future.
As our society grows larger, we are also becoming more dependent on electricity through technological and lifestyle changes. During our transformation from fossil to cleaner energy, there must still be some new fossil, in order to keep pace with these changes.
New gas generation will supplement intermittent renewables like wind, as a backup source to make intermittent renewable profitable. This profitability is necessary so wind's expansion, as an example, is sustainable in the marketplace. The more market sense wind makes, its implementation may reach beyond forecasted goals.
New gas generation will also help replace older retiring baseline coal, and other older-style peaking generators, most often powered by more polluting fuel-types.
Because of our geographic and geology limitations, for the most part, all Virginia has, and most of the mid-Atlantic region for that matter, is nuclear, coal, gas, and energy efficiency. Intermittent renewables and alternatives like biomass, new hydro and pv solar may indeed contribute substantial percentages to our mix of utilized resources, but those will come of age when technological innovations pass their hurdles and are implemented via a more intelligent grid.
Somewhere between now and closer to the end of this transition period, new exploration and drilling for oil, and perhaps most natural gas, may be a thing of the past. Pulling the timeframe closer, however, may only create higher hurdles for industry and consumers to jump over. Ultimately, we run the risk of pushing back the goal-line to our clean energy target dates, if imbalances are created during this transformation.
This isn't necessarily an opinion on the position for new exploration and drilling, I'm just trying to add some information to consider while we move forward towards a cleaner future.
And if the exploration yields just cause for a profitable drilling venture, then the wind pilot would be expanded to generate the equivalent capacity of Virginia's oldest coal-fired generator, which would then retire.
The new natural gas obtained from the venture, would be used to supplement the offshore wind farm, and the wholesale receiptent(s) of the natural gas would have to fund a proportional investment in Smart Grid technologies and EEC resources, to make offshore wind farm fully reliable in the eyes of the SCC.
On the wholesale recipients being required to fund a proportional investment in grid upgrades and EEC programs, why not make the utilities do that right now and allow them to recover the cost through rates? Duke, ConEd, and ComEd are all investing billions in grid upgrades now. What are DVP and APCo doing? As an alternate compromise, we could allow the utilities to earn a higher rate of return if they met certain EEC targets.
So, what is the oldest coal plant in Virginia? AEP's Glen Lyn Plant? Why not go for the gusto and shutter Dominion's Mt. Storm Plant (that's over a GW of coal fired generation)?
Also, why not use both the natural gas and wind to replace coal plants? Natural Gas is much cleaner than coal (no mercury, no Sulfur Dioxide, no NOX). And it also produces less carbon dioxide per BTU than coal combustion.
:)
I don't know if the idea is viable just yet for Virginia. By the time gas is drilled offshore, however, it very well might be, so why not marry the two together in one bill? In the meantime, what's an offshore wind pilot going to hurt?
Why not a farm just yet? Well that all depends on the size, I suppose. I think mid-Atlantic offshore wind needs to be in the several thousand MW size, and that will require incremental investments while other resources (EEC, smart-grid, gas generation and transmission) are brought together. The bigger the farm, the likelihood of its profitability, since it is costly to initiate (but it blows more, 2-1/2 to 3 seasons.) Turbine production capacity is getting booked out 2+ years now and should continue thru late next decade. It seems to me a pilot sets the wheels in motion now, considering the production backlog in the turbine industry, the transmission delays, as well as utility investment in new gas generation, smart grid and eec. All those costs for 100-300 MWs might piss off the SCC and a bunch of Inhofes. We need to be sure we have their partnership.
The point is, if any wind farm is off the coast, it's going to need gas - look for gas, give us the pilot; drill for gas, build us the farm. If anyone has read EPAct 2005 and EISA 2007, what's all the gas for if there isn't any wind or other renewables? EEC will bring more backup via a smart grid, so offshore wind in Virginia is doable and less gas dependent.
Rigs and turbines can't be too close obviously, but the area involving gas exploration would extend out 50 miles, whereas offshore wouldn't have to be any farther than 8-12 miles (to keep the viewshed people happy), while capturing the best wind, while not being too far out for transmission costs. Not sure what that will mean to shipping lanes and military space but one would think there is enough room for all 4 of them.
1. Gov't lets gas explore. Gov't funds the pilot.
2. Gov't sells leases to drill. Gov't uses proceeds and other funds to "incentivize" the farm and/or the transmission and/or eec contracts, and/or smart grid build-out.
3. Producer sells gas, gov't taxes gas to pay back what it put in.
4. PJM signals markets a gas generation & EEC is needed.
5. Wind blows, wind generator makes money and wants to expand.
6. Wind's dead, eec contracts kick in, gas generators operate. EEC participants and gas generator makes money.
Not cheap but clean, and market profitable (?)
(Hurricane Lowell destroys wind farm, fire up retired coal)
More gas = more wind. More EEC = more wind. Smart grid makes it all happen.
Wind or any other intermittent renewable + gas + EEC = reliable cheaper electricity = less baseline coal.
PS - Think ComEd $1bill+ is partly for stuff they had to already do (very old T&D equipment). Duke is the leader in EEC no doubt. AEP is a industry leader in many ways, especially DG and transmission. DVP's service region has one of the highest growth rates in the nation (that's a hurdle), but DVP is dropping $600mill into smartgrid from 2009-14. That's not too shabby.
- There is no leasing scenario or regulatory framework that would allow development of natural gas and not simultaneously promote the development of offshore oil. Thanks to people like Sen. Frank Wagner and Rep. Thelma Drake, Virginia is considered the "weakest link" in the chain of Atlantic coast states. Big Oil wants that moratorium lifted and they want at the greater amount of oil reserves predicted off the coasts of other Atlantic coast states. They have no interest in what little lies off Virginia's coast and certainly not to be limited to production of only natural gas.
- Starting in 2020, total natural gas production from the outer continental shelf (OCS) off the lower 48 states is projected to decline.
- Prices for drill ships/ rigs are about $500 million each, and currently there is a 5-year waiting list for new rigs.
- I'll reiterate #9 point above regarding the environmental damage caused by even just exploring for gas.
A nation with nothing but renewables from today forward paints what picture? The answer is, it doesn't. We gotta break some positions, suffer a bit, to gain a better outcome.
Virginia is only in this boat because starry-eyed Wagner and Drake have long ago been sold a bill of goods by Big Oil, who will ultimately drop Virginia like yesterday's news when/if that moratorium gets lifted.
I've heard that idea of using natural gas to power wind turbines in situations when the winds are not ideal or consistent enough. But I've also heard that offshore the mid-Atlantic there is oodles and oodles of steady-eddie wind (I think Bacon's Rebellion had a link to the science there.. I'll try to dig it up again).
Virginia needs to develop offshore wind and leave the natural gas development to areas mostly in the Gulf Coast where there's leases already in place.
Pulling resources from far distances to generation centers then delivering it far away to demand centers, is something the industry will be escaping, because this macro-network it is everything that a micro is not. A more intelligent grid makes this all possible, so the market pressure for it will never abate, hence the option for accessing local resources across the board comes in play, fossil & renewables.
Aside from Wagner and Drake, what about both Warners and Webb's support gas exploration at the federal level? That's pretty good cause to respect the debate from both angles.