[printfriendly]
[su_pullquote align = “right”] Types of offshore oil and gas structures, further described at end of article. Figure courtesy of NOAA. [/su_pullquote]Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Identifies Top Ten Concerns
By Suzanne Cooper
Over the past year there has been a great deal of discussion about state legislators allowing the Governor and Cabinet to issue oil/natural gas drilling leases within state waters off Florida’s coast. The 2008 spike in oil prices, the widespread calls to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, greenhouse gas emissions and pollution caused by gasoline and diesel engines, and the need to increase state revenues have been cited as reasons that Florida should allow energy resource exploration and development near our shores.
At the same time, the tourism industry and environmental advocates have insisted that a spill from an oil rig or a pipeline would ruin Florida’s beaches and destroy Florida’s marine life for years or even decades. They point to the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, the Tampa Bay spill of 1993 and the recent rig/pipeline spill in the Timor Sea off Australia as examples of what Florida could experience should drilling be allowed in the eastern Gulf.
Florida Energy Associates – the group leading the lobbying effort – and others claim the state could generate $1.5 to 2.25 billion per year from drilling royalties, but the basis for those numbers is not clear. And those figures pale in comparison to Florida’s commercial fishery and beach-related tourism industries – estimated at over $73 billion per year.
The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council’s Agency on Bay Management held a forum in September to learn more about drilling for oil and gas in the eastern Gulf and the potential costs and benefits of developing the industry near Florida. Speakers included State Rep. Rick Kriseman and representatives of Florida Energy Associates, the American Petroleum Institute, US Senator Bill Nelson, USF College of Marine Science and Visit St. Pete-Clearwater.
Following the forum, TBRPC conducted a similar forum and members decided to formulate a position on offshore drilling. At its November meeting, the council drafted a letter to Governor Crist and state leaders which, rather than take a stance for or against drilling, identified ten items that should be thoroughly examined before the state acts on the topic. The list includes:
- The potential impacts, both positive and negative, of oil and gas exploration and development on Florida’s economy, tourism and environment.
- The status of existing leases and wells in the western and central Gulf of Mexico, which are closer to the existing shore-side services, refineries and distribution systems, that may not have been fully explored and developed.
- The susceptibility of Florida’s Keys and East and West coasts to a spill in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, including the economic and environmental impacts.
- The potential impact and recovery time for ecosystems of Florida from a major spill (for instance, coastal Alaska has not fully recovered from the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill).
- A realistic time line for petroleum product exploration and development to occur off the coast of Florida.
- Infrastructure needs, in terms of port facilities, pipelines, refineries, etc., associated with oil and gas exploration and development off Florida’s coast.
- Local governments’ land use regulatory authority regarding land-based facilities that might be needed to support the industry.
- Potential impacts to U.S. military operations in Florida.
- Drilling and development technologies planned for use in Florida’s waters and provisions guaranteed to deal with human error and equipment failure.
- How potential exploration and production rigs and pipeline systems fare in hurricanes compared to existing Gulf systems that suffered considerable damage in 2005.
It is not known whether the issue will come before the 2010 state legislature, but the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council and its Agency on Bay Management will closely watch progress and continue to urge full study of the potential impacts, both positive and negative.
• • •
As we go to press, only one legislator from the Tampa Bay region has responded to the council’s letter. Representative Seth McKeel, R-Lakeland, is a fifth-generation Polk County resident and small businessman who serves on the House Select Policy Council on Strategic and Economic Planning which is currently conducting public hearings on the subject.
Here are excerpts from his letter:
Fostering economic growth and creating sustainable employment for Florida’s one million unemployed workers are two of our most important priorities, and we are looking at the potential of energy exploration playing an important role in those goals.
Before addressing some of your questions specifically, it is important to reiterate that this is an ongoing process. We have been receiving testimony from experts and advocates alike for several months now, and we will continue to do so as we approach the Legislative Session in March. Many of your questions regarding economic and environmental impacts are impossible to answer without the benefit of a thorough review of applications to explore or produce energy at specific locations.
What I can speak to are my intentions in this process and the items that we currently have some control over. I intend to support legislation that permits the possibility of energy exploration, and even production, within three and ten miles off Florida’s coast only if it can be done in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Any energy exploration I support will not interfere with the military’s mission here in Florida, and any technologies used to explore or produce that energy will be the safest, most modern and least obtrusive available. We will also use the best science available to evaluate each application to explore or produce energy in our waters.
Our coastal areas are major tourist attractions, and it would be imprudent to leave their fate to chance. While energy exploration in the United States has an excellent record going back 40 years, we will still require that anyone who explores or produces energy in our waters to provide security in the form of bonds that will pay for any losses in the highly unlikely event of a mishap. It is important to note that continuing a ban on exploration will do absolutely nothing to prevent an Exxon Valdez-like accident, like the one you mentioned in your letter. Maintaining the status quo ensures that oil tankers would continue to travel in the Gulf of Mexico and enter our ports, as they have done for decades. Producing energy in our own waters can only lessen the likelihood of that particular catastrophe.
It is my responsibility as a state legislator to help foster economic growth in this state. While we may not enjoy large revenue increases or job creation from energy exploration in the coming year, each year that we wait to address this issue places us a year farther away from that revenue and those jobs. The time to set aside our fear of a serious, science-based review of the policy options before us is now.
***
Types of offshore oil and gas structures incude: 1, 2) conventional fixed platforms (deepest: Shell’s Bullwinkle in 1991 at 412 m/1,353 ft GOM); 3) compliant tower (deepest: ChevronTexaco’s Petronius in 1998 at 534 m /1,754 ft GOM); 4, 5) vertically moored tension leg and mini-tension leg platform (deepest: ConocoPhillips’ Magnolia in 2004 1,425 m/4,674 ft GOM); 6) Spar (deepest: Dominion’s Devils Tower in 2004, 1,710 m/5,610 ft GOM); 7,8) Semi-submersibles (deepest: Shell’s NaKika in 2003, 1920 m/6,300 ft GOM); 9) Floating production, storage, and offloading facility (deepest: 2005, 1,345 m/4,429 ft Brazil); 10) sub-sea completion and tie-back to host facility (deepest: Shell’s Coulomb tie to NaKika 2004, 2,307 m/ 7,570 ft). All records from 2005 data. http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/media/types_600.html
Originally published in Winter 2010.
[su_divider]