Quote:
Originally Posted by ijusluvit
Here are some suggestions about the topic, which I think is a good example of potential private/public sector cooperation:
First, ask Congress to do only ONE thing, (so as not to strain themselves, or risk that they will screw up the whole plan). Let drilling leases to private companies, for appropriate fees. If this is done soon enough and the leases are attractive to investors and companies, we will eventually get our 'fair share' of Arctic off-shore oil. Every new rig erected by a foreign power in international waters renders the debate about the risks of drilling there more moot.
Then, require that drilling companies commit to accept complete legal responsibility for their mistakes and be heavily bonded to cover costs of spills and other environmental problems up front, rather than waiting to sue or arm-twist afterwards. There is an interesting formula for this being developed in New York as a way of allowing natural gas 'fracking' while still protecting the environment. It's not foolproof, but it may be the most reasonable way to extract resources and protect people and the environment at the same time.
Then, with some of the lease money, provide the Coast Guard some additional equipment. But also remind them to stop whining and do their job, not to manage the whole situation, but to monitor it. Give the Coast Guard the responsibility to inspect, or supervise private inspectors to keep track of drilling and transport procedures and activities. Make it clear that, since their station is in the region, doing this conscientiously and thoroughly is THEIR DUTY. If they have extra time, they can also stop the flood of illegal immigrants and help stranded polar bears.
I'd really like to hear why this plan is either stupid or impossible.
|
I think those are thoughtful and legitimate suggestions on how we might regulate U.S.-based oil companies who drill in open ocean waters. But how do we regulate foreign drillers, like the Russians who have claimed ownership of the continental shelf where they're drilling. As I understand it, we couldn't drill there even if we wanted to, given the failure of our Congress to take the necessary actions to permit the U.S. to be involved in the UN committee which has apaprently granted Russia the rights to those waters and the resources below the ocean floor.
And what about the foreign-flagged oil tankers, Russian or otherwise, who will begin using the route along Alaska's west coast as the shortest and fastest route to refiners in Europe and Asia? What happens if a big tanker sinks on that route, or collides with another coming in the opposite direction, and fouls the ocean shorelines from Alaska to Canada and maybe even the western U.S.?
Currently for a ship to travel from Asia to Europe the ship need to travel a long distance by...
- Traveling westwards through the Suez Canal in the middle east near the region where piracy has become rampant off the coast of Somalia,
- Traveling westward round the Cape of Good Hope at the southern tip of Africa,
- Traveling eastward and passing through the Panama Canal,
- Or traveling eastward round famously rough and stormy Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America
Once the ice in the Arctic Ocean has sufficiently melted, ships traveling to and from Asia and Northern Europe will be able to take a much shorter route--as much as 25-50% shorter--by squeezing through the gap between eastern edge of Siberia and the western edge of Alaska and then sailing through the iceless Acrtic Ocean to reach northern Europe. Tankers transporting oil from the Russian rigs in the Arctic Ocean to Asia would take the opposite route, creating "two way traffic" in that extremely rough but narrow passage in the Bering Sea only a few miles off the Alaska coastline.
Who regulates the traffic of oil tankers close off our western coastline, few if any of which will be U.S.-flagged vessels?