So Webb and Kaine clearly are not in opposition to oil drilling and exploration off the Virginia coast, even though the potential addition to real production of oil and gas is pretty miniscule even under the most optimistic predictions. They need to look at wind and solar as immediate resources to be developed and get off the oil "teat". I hope they have advisors who know something about renewables and efficiency v. increased fossil fuels, because if they don't they already sound like they're being swayed by BIG OIL.
The fact is Virginia's potential oil and gas production is miniscule compared to the gluttonous demands of US consumers.

The potential for offshore Virginia oil drilling to do anything about our oil import dependence is basically zilch. But the potential for severe harm to our coastline, beaches, fisheries, etc. is great.  I am 100% against this.

As I read the articles it jumped off the page, here are 2 people who are buckling to corporate profits. Both are very weak statements that if I were an oil exec, I would assume to have to okay to expore.

After all it sounds Like I have the okay of the Democratic party in the state of Virginia.

Why don't we build a HOT lane out to the off-shore oil platform.  :)

I think, Shen Dem, if you care to read more closely, they both say they are not opposed to natural gas exploration but not in favor of oil exploration.  There's a big difference. 

Once again, the Governor has laid out a very progressive, balanced approach that is not knee-jerk to either pole.

I am glad that there are folks in both parties who are willing to look at the big picture, short and long term, and consider both the economic effects of government policies that strangle resource develop and starve jobs, as well as send our kids off to the Middle East to protect energy resources we could very well develop on our own.

As most of Virginia's congressional delegation in the House is for drilling, they are not fighting very hard for maintaining the Coast. Some geologists question the stability of the Atlantic coast vs the Gulf of Mexico (where Florida agreed to allow drilling).

I understand the current Va law allows for natural gas but if oil is found-do we all really believe that it wouldn't be extracted? 

Oil or gas exploration-- That's a very difficult geological distinction. The fact is gas is always found with oil, called associated gas by geologists, and occasionally gas is found independently from oil. Generally geologists, like me, are looking for hydrocarbons, so the distinction is useless in terms of how the government is going to regulate. A lease does not specify only oil or gas--how could it? If they are only looking for gas and find oil are you telling me they couldn't develop it--no way! Once the door is open look for oil on Atlantic beaches and Chesapeake Bay. Not worth the miniscule production versus the threat to beaches, water quality, Bay restoration, etc.

Obviously, you are not a petroleum geologist - or else you would not be so comfortable in that statement.  It is quite true gas is always found with oil but gas is found alone or with de minimis quantities of oil far more often than "occasionally."  In fact -- there are regions of the world where the chance of hitting oil in a gas well are less than 1 in 1,000.  There are many such "gas prone" regions and I will be happy to cite a few if you like.  C'mon, please ask.

How does exploration for oil and gas impact the stability of outer continental shelf off Virginia? Is it worth the risk? Will Congresswoman Thelma Drake issue water wings to all the residents of Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and the Eastern Shore?

____________________________________________________________________________
Geology
Article: pp. 407-410 | Abstract | PDF (1.22M)

Potential for large-scale submarine slope failure and tsunami generation along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast

Neal W. Driscoll1, Jeffrey K. Weissel2, and John A. Goff3

1. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA, 2. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA, 3. Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78759, USA
The outer continental shelf off southern Virginia and North Carolina might be in the initial stages of large-scale slope failure. A system of en echelon cracks, resembling small-offset normal faults, has been discovered along the outer shelf edge. Swath bathymetric data indicate that about 50 m of down-to-the-east (basinward) normal slip has occurred on these features. From a societal perspective, we need to evaluate the degree of tsunami hazard that might be posed by a major submarine landslide, such as the nearby late Pleistocene Albemarle-Currituck slide, if it nucleated on the newly discovered crack system. Toward this goal, a tsunami scenario is constructed for the nearby coastal zone based on the estimated volume and nature of the potential slide. Although a maximum tsunami height of a few to several meters is predicted, the actual extent of flooding would depend on the tidal state at the time of tsunami arrival as well as the details of the hinterland topography. The Virginia-North Carolina coastline and lower Chesapeake Bay would be most at risk, being nearby, low lying, and in a direction opposite to potential slide motion.

Keywords: slope failure, tsunami, submarine canyons, continental margin morphology

Received: August 9, 1999; Revised: January 18, 2000; Accepted: January 31, 2000
DOI: 10.1130/0091-7613(2000)28<407:PFLSSF>2.0.CO;2
____________________________________________________________________________

will shake like a giant bowl of jello when the next big one comes, which is why, when the last big one hit in the 1830s(?) in New Madrid, Tennessee it rang church bells in Boston.  Maybe it's slightly off topic, but I'd appreciate any comment on earthquake potential, outer shelf fragility, and tsunami possibilities. 

The possibility of earthquakes during drilling is not off topic.  I saw a show about it.  Sorry, can't remember what channel or what the show was called.  But, the gist of the show was that yes, earthquakes are a very real possibility causing much more instability to the coastline than there already is.

Was a vicious earthquake said to have rung the church bells in Richmond.  This was before the time of seismic instruments, but the estimated magnitude was 7.3
http://earthquake.us...

See CQ's analysis here.  Here's part of it:

"Once that genie left the bottle last year, and opened the door on revenue sharing, there was a lot more interest," said Athan Manual, a director of the Sierra Club. "Since the weakening in Virginia, we may see some more softening from other states - after all, money is money."

A case in point is Webb, who said he supported drilling in his state's waters, as long as there were efforts to preserve Virginia's coastline and naval bases. But "there's no question" that the prospect of boosting the coffers of his home state plays a big role in his support, said a Webb spokeswoman. The state plans to channel any new revenue into the schools and infrastructure.

Interesting way to make it more politically palatable, by talking about channeling the money to "schools and infrastructure."  Unfortunately, it remains a really, really bad idea to risk Virginia's coastal environment, fisheries, etc. for the miniscule amount of oil and gas likely to be found offshore.  If we really need more money for schools and infrastructre, we should do it by raising taxes or cutting spending in other areas (or both), not risking the ruination of our coastline.

This is why I am still a Republican :-p

The democrat view

If we really need more money for schools and infrastructre, we should do it by raising taxes

The republican view

If we really need more money for schools and infrastructre we should do it) by cutting spending in other areas

"If we really need more money for schools and infrastructre, we should do it by raising taxes or cutting spending in other areas (or both)..."

The area proposed for drilling is adjacent to the Gulf Stream - whatever the drilling/extraction/transfer puts into the ocean will end up painted along the entire eastern seaboard, riding a 5 knot current north. Are DE, NJ, NY, CT, MA, NH, and ME on board with this petroleum drilling?  Because they will share the outcome. 

Check this out:

The new plan is "a step in the right direction," said U.S. Rep. Thelma Drake, R-2nd District, whose support for offshore drilling was a flashpoint in her hotly contested race for re-election last fall.

"We have got to be energy- secure and energy- independent," and offshore resources are critical to freeing the nation from its reliance on foreign oil, Drake said.

But she complained that the Interior Department's proposed boundaries for leasing off Virginia would shortchange the state. A map divvying up waters off the Eastern United States would give larger expanses of the seabed to states such as Delaware and Maryland, which have shorter coastlines than the Old Dominion, Drake has complained.

With the moratorium in place until 2011, "there is a little bit of time here" to fix the map, she added.

No, Thelma, the only thing that would be a "step in the right direction" where offshore drilling is concerned is to to replace you in 2008 with someone who OPPOSES this blatant giveaway to Big Oil, and this blatant risk to Virginia's environment.