Myths from the Right about the Disaster in the GulfNews at Home
A new narrative reverberating in right-wing political circles blames the Deepwater Horizon disaster on a favorite scapegoat: the federal government.
But this narrative does not feature the Minerals Management Service, the Interior Department agency whose compromised oversight of the industry may have permitted BP to take excessive risks in deepwater drilling,
Rather, government environmental restrictions on drilling onshore and in shallow water allegedly forced the oil industry to move into deepwater, and it was none other than President Bill Clinton who gave Big Oil the fiscal incentives to turn this move into a headlong rush.
Both parts of this new story are myths.
The idea that environmental regulations forced the industry into deepwater, as proclaimed by Sarah Palin and echoed by pundits, is a whopper. The offshore industry set its sights on drilling in one thousand feet of water before significant federal environmental laws and regulations existed (many of these were implemented by that radical leftist, Richard Nixon). The closure of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling in the 1980s did force the industry to concentrate its efforts in the Gulf of Mexico. However, oil companies would have moved into deepwater by the 1990s wherever they could, in which case the current disaster might have happened elsewhere, perhaps even closer to shore. The continental shelf drops off so quickly on the Pacific Coast that in places one can almost drive a golf ball into deepwater from the beach.
Big Oil drills in deepwater because that is where the largest remaining oil fields are and where the oil flows most prolifically. Despite intensive exploration onshore and in shallow water, U.S. oil production has been declining since 1970. Old fields are being exhausted and newly discovered fields in explored areas are getting smaller. That decline would be occurring even if the environmental movement had never existed.
The federal government did give the oil industry a boost into deepwater, but it happened first under President Ronald Reagan and his Secretary of Interior, James Watt, not Bill Clinton. In 1983, Watt introduced “area-wide leasing,” which gave oil companies access to greater offshore acreage at much cheaper lease prices. During the 1980s, Shell Oil led the industry in acquiring huge numbers of deepwater leases, which it could readily afford thanks to area-wide leasing.
In 1994, first production from Shell’s “Auger” prospect, in 2,860 feet of water on tracts obtained in one of the first area-wide sales in 1984, transformed the economic picture of deepwater. Auger revealed that deepwater reservoirs were much more productive than most people in the industry had anticipated. They form in turbidite sandstones capable of producing as much as 40,000 barrels per day from a single well, compared to 1,000-2,000 barrels per day from a good well in shallow water on the continental shelf.
The signing of the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act (DWRR) by Bill Clinton in 1995 did provide extra incentive for deepwater exploration, but it did not “catalyze drilling in deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico,” as Dick Morris recently asserted. Area-wide leasing and the Auger announcement were all the industry needed to embark on a scramble for leases and deepwater drilling in the Gulf. By exempting a certain amount of deepwater production from royalty payments, DWRR merely sweetened the deal for companies already poised to make huge investments.
It is absurd to blame the Gulf oil spill on “environmental extremism” (Palin) or “misguided policies begun by the Clinton Administration” (Morris). The historical roots of deepwater exploration can be traced back to Reagan and Watt, who introduced reforms that encouraged the industry’s expansion. Subsequent administrations fell in line to ensure that the industry enjoyed a large degree of self-regulation in drilling for deepwater treasures. As domestic oil production declined elsewhere, politicians in both parties signed on to support the development of this promising new area. That support lowered federal revenues from offshore leases and constrained government oversight.
Today, Louisianans are among the loudest voices blaming the Obama administration for failing to contain spreading crude oil from the blowout. They have a right to be angry at their impending economic and environmental losses. But that anger would be more fairly directed at their state’s politicians and the voters who elected them. Louisiana’s congressional delegation led the charge in the 1990s for DWRR and reduced regulation of drilling in the Gulf. Tellingly, former Louisiana senators, John Breaux and Bennett Johnston, now are lobbyists for the oil and gas industry.
Until April, admiring analysts often attributed the astonishing development of deepwater reserves in the Gulf of Mexico to technological innovation enabled by minimal government intervention. Now that something has gone wrong and an uncontrolled volcano of oil in 5,000 feet of water threatens the Gulf Coast, are Americans really supposed to believe that it’s all the fault of environmentalists, bureaucrats, and Democratic presidents?
comments powered by Disqus
Ernest T Spoon - 6/28/2010
"...that anger would be more fairly directed at their state’s politicians and the voters who elected them."
A truer statement has never been written!
Why is it that nearly all political writers, especially those of the ideologically pure left, absolve the voting public from its complicity in the crimes against humanity and nature committed by the natural gas and oil exploration industry and the coal mining industry. After all it was the American voter who threw Jimmy Carter and his plan for "energy independence" out of The White House in favor of the prophet of petroleum profligacy Ronald Reagan. It was the American voter who rejected Al Gore and global warming in favor of a failed Texas oilman George Dubya Bush, himself son of a pioneer in Gulf of Mexico offshore oil drilling, grandson of an investment banker and great grandson of a crony of John D. Rockefeller.
As more and more television and YouTube.com images come in of oil soaked shorebirds, sea turtles set aflame and tales of economic woe from commercial shrimp fishermen we poor dumb Yankee liberals must remember that a vast majority of Louisiana's voters fully support even more deep water oil drilling! A June 15 poll cited by Talking Points Memo.com revealed that when asked, "Do you support or oppose drilling for oil off the shore of Louisiana?" an astonishing 77% answered in the affirmative.
How am I supposed to feel empathy for a people who willfully aid and abet politically favored corporations like BP or Halliburton or Transocean in their own long term ecological and economic destruction? When a Louisiana fisherman or tourist resort owner cries copious tears for the loss of his livelihood due to the oil leak we must keep in mind that his livelihood is also dependent on cheap and plentiful petroleum distillates. More residents of the Gulf Coast make their daily bread by working in the petroleum and ancillary industries than from the commercial fisheries or tourism.
On the human side of this man-made catastrophe there are no innocent victims.
The residences of the Gulf Coast long ago made their bed from petro-dollars and lax regulations. Now it is soiled and so they should sleep in it.
William J. Stepp - 6/28/2010
I should have said anyone who is actually informed and serious, which excludes the big fat idiot Rush L. et al.
One of the problems with "libs" is that they think RL and such are representative of free market opinion on matters such as this. They're clearly not.
Lisa Kazmier - 6/28/2010
Are you kidding? Why don't you see a roundup on blaming environmentalists.
Here's one roundup: http://mediamatters.org/research/201006040038
Rush Limbaugh specifically blamed the Sierra Club.
Jonathan Dresner - 6/28/2010
I don't know of anyone who is actually blaming environmentalists, Dems, et al. for BP's oil spill.
Then you're not paying attention. Aside from the examples cited, there's been a steady stream of offhand comments in a similar vein: it's a quick and easy to remember way to shift blame away from Republican deregulators.
Replacing the head of that organization won't solve the problem
Which is why it's being absorbed into a less pathological bureau.
William J. Stepp - 6/27/2010
I don't know of anyone who is actually blaming environmentalists, Dems, et al. for BP's oil spill.
However, Terry Anderson cited Energy Department numbers that almost 80% of offshore lands with oil can't be developed, and 60% of oil-rich onshore lands are off limits to oil producers ("Why It's Safer to Drill in the 'Backyard'," Wall Street Journal, June 25). Private lands have been developed, which leaves "public" lands.
And clearly the MMS has been part of the problem, not the solution.
Replacing the head of that organization won't solve the problem.
- This New York Times ‘Hitler’ book review sure reads like a thinly veiled Trump comparison
- Chicago Tribune editorial: The government should release secret grand jury testimony about its 1942 scoop: "Jap Plan to Strike at Sea"
- US owes blacks reparations over slavery: UN experts
- Mali Islamist jailed for nine years for Timbuktu shrine attacks
- Poland wrestles with its past — and present
- What Historians Are Saying About the First Trump-Clinton Debate
- Princeton professor documents the movement that ended single-sex education at elite schools
- Annette Gordon-Reed tells historians the controversy over Harvard law school's shield is different from the fight over the Confederate flag
- Historian EP Thompson denounced Communist party chiefs, files show
- Voting opens soon for the leaders of the OAH in 2017