Welcome to ArticleXI.com!
We are a group of environmental advocates united in providing a one-stop source for Virginia's environmental news. We each focus on different issues, but share the vision of a Commonwealth that preserves and protects its natural resources. Please join us!
Yesterday, the Richmond-Times Dispatch published an article that covered Larry Nichols' (an energy executive from Oklahoma City) recent speech to the World Affairs Council of Greater Richmond in which he argues that Virginia needs to move forward on offshore drilling.
Here are a few excerpts and observations:
Nichols said oil and gas will remain key energy sources for a long time.
"I'm 100 percent in favor of alternative energy, but wind and solar and whatever else is out there are not very significant now and are not going to be very significant for decades to come," he said.
While wind and solar power are currently not being pursued in Virginia, that doesn't mean that these energy sources aren't "significant." In fact, oil reserves off Virginia's, and the rest of the Atlantic, coast areinsignificant. Developing the infrastructure for offshore wind will take some time (as it would for offshore drilling) but wind reserves are plentiful as can be seen in the map above and won't deplete over time(the red represents "Outstanding" wind reserves off of the Virginia, and much of the Atlantic, coast). The technology to develop wind energy off of our coasts is here. We just need to make the investment.
Offshore drilling has become an issue in the governor's race. (after the jump)
Here's great video (another one below the fold) that allow us in Virginia to envision life on our Virginia beaches as we allow drilling off our coasts.
We should also envision these types of headlines gracing the front pages of the Virginian-Pilot:
Last week, gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell wrote the other candidates for Governor asking them to join him in signing a letter to Interior Secretary Salazar. It was a letter that asked the new Interior Secretary to reject Governor Kaine's recent request that Virginia Lease Sale 220 be removed from the 2007-2012 program and included instead with the 2010-2015 program for offshore oil and gas lease sales. In essence, McDonnell's letter asserts that it is somehow a bad idea to proceed with gathering adequate information and ensure that we have the scientific data needed to make a reasoned decision about the aggressive Bush offshore drilling plans now still aimed at our coastline here in Virginia.
The coast of Virginia is now at a point in the offshore drilling program where a recent "Call for Information" (deadline was Jan. 13, 2009) has asked for "particular environmental, biological, archaeological, socioeconomic, and geological conditions or potential conflicts, or other information that might bear upon the potential leasing, exploration, and development of the program area and vicinity." The requested information was solicited for the Virginia waters located strictly within the initial 2.9 million acres comprising the federal Lease Sale 220 area, but Interior did not ask what Virginians think about a second followup offshore drilling plan only three miles from shore, now scheduled for 2014.
It is this additional expanded drilling plan for which the Interior Secretary has just announced an entirely reasonable 180-day extension of the public comment period as it encompasses waters much closer to shore. "To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside 'the plan' and create our own timeline," Salazar announced. "Our available data is very old and incomplete," he told reporters. "We shouldn't make decisions on America's treasures based on old information."
Governor Kaine simply calls for the temporary postponement of Virginia Lease Sale 220. "This Lease Sale is the only one currently proposed anywhere along the Atlantic seaboard," he writes. "I believe that no lease sale should be conducted in the Atlantic until the process that you have outlined for the 5 Year Program [2010-2015] is complete."
Including Virginia in the same process used to study all other Atlantic offshore drilling, and to incorporate adequate information about other offshore areas of Virginia, makes sense. Certainly, if MMS doesn't have enough information and studies to safely conduct any other lease sales in our region, they certainly do not know enough to conduct the FIRST lease sale, Virginia's Lease Sale 220, which goes on the auction block as early as 2011.
On the subject of Virginia offshore drilling, gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell is wrong, wrong, wrong.
He's wrong by already banking on imaginary non-existent resources off Virginia's shore as Lowell points out here. He's wrong about the imaginary non-existent jobs coming to Virginia as an alleged result of drilling, as my op ed hopefully coming to the Virginian-Pilot points out.
But his biggest boo-boo is pointed out by today's Virginian-Pilot in a searing editorial entitled "Political Pandering is No Energy Solution". "Would-be governor drills a dry hole", they write.
"McDonnell's position on offshore drilling neither respects the position of Virginians nor the law of the land."
"Unfortunately for his hopes of gaining advantage, the people in Hampton Roads know offshore drilling is too important an issue to be lost in the usual gamesmanship."
"We expected such stubbornness from the Bush administration, which was populated by people who somehow managed to pay lip service to the dangers of climate change while also doing nothing about it. And from legislators - including those from Virginia - who were bought and paid for by the petroleum industry.
None of that explains the political theater orchestrated by Bob McDonnell, the former attorney general and current Republican candidate for governor, that unfolded over the past week."
Thanks to former Rep. Thelma Drake and State Senator Frank Wagner, may I present to you little lonely Virginia, all by itself on the Atlantic coast, poised and ready for lease sale as early as 2011.
It was actually under Gov. Mark Warner's administration that MMS was prompted by the infamous "Drilling Duo" to put Virginia in the 2007-2012 Five year plan. That action came mere months after both houses of the Virginia General Assembly passed (Feb. 2005) a Wagner bill (SB1054 Natural gas exploration, off-shore; exemption to existing moratorium.) Gov. Warner vetoed that bill (April 2005), but regardless, come Feb. 2006 we get the big announcement that Virginia has been put in the 5 Year plan. The train was already out of the station by the time Gov. Kaine signed Virginia's Energy Plan, which contains the exploration for natural gas only language, which he has repeatedly had to reiterate and reinforce with the Feds.
But it is a new day, new year, new administration. This time Gov. Kaine will be listened to.
In a letter dated Feb. 19, 2009, Kaine calls for the postponement of Virginia Lease Sale 220. "This Lease Sale is the only one currently proposed anywhere along the Atlantic seaboard," he writes.
"I believe that no lease sale should be conducted in the Atlantic until the process that you have outlined for the 5 Year Program [2010-2015] is complete."
Including Virginia in the same process used to study all other Atlantic offshore drilling, to include other offshore areas of Virginia, makes sense. Certainly, if MMS doesn't have enough information and studies to safely conduct any other lease sales in our area, they certainly does not know enough to conduct the FIRST lease sale.
Sen. Frank Wagner will be testifying tomorrow (Tues.) in a hearing before Chairman Nick Rahall's House Natural Resources Committee. This time, hopefully, Wagner won't again "misrepresent" the truth before Congress as he did in his congressional testimony in June 2007 where he spread the following "mistruths":
Mistruth #1: "Keeping Virginia in the five year program is consistent with the desire of the Virginia General Assembly".
Mistruth #2: "Virginia has adopted Renewable Portfolio Standards" (said in an attempt to trump Virginia's supposedly comprehensive energy plan and it's plans to include offshore oil and gas in those supposed plans).
The contact phone for this House Committee is (202) 225-6065. Available here is a live webcast of committee hearings. Check out Wagner tomorrow starting at 10am.
Thanks to lieutenant governor candidate Jon Bowerbank for this statement, which he issued this morning under the headline, "Bowerbank Takes Strong Position Against Offshore Drilling Plan: Now is the Time for New Solutions to Our Energy Crisis."
"Drilling off Virginia's coast is a backwards way of solving our energy problems. It will not produce enough oil to change our energy situation significantly; I do not believe there are commercial quantities of hydrocarbons off the Virginia coast; it will potentially irreparably damage an internationally recognized environmental habitat; it poses challenges to our national security training capabilities; it will garner no revenue for the Commonwealth of Virginia unless a new law is passed by Congress, but rather it will threaten tourism income at a time when we can least afford to lose it.
"We need to invest in new energy solutions that can reduce our dependence on oil and create jobs in Virginia while helping our environment. In the meantime there are 68 million acres of leased land available for energy extraction that are not being used by oil companies. Rather than expand the area available, companies should be using these previously leased areas. I urge President Obama and Secretary Salazar to halt the Lease Sale 220 proposal and not hurt Virginia's economy and environment. We should be looking forward for solutions to our energy crisis," Bowerbank said.
Great statement by Jon Bowerbank. Now, I'd very much like to see similarly strong statements from other candidates for LG this year. Meanwhile, it's nice to see that at least Jon Bowerbank "gets it" on offshore drilling as posing a threat to the economy, national security, the environment, while offering essentially no "upside" potential for Virginia. This really isn't that complicated...
Hopes dashed as Interior Secretary Ken Salazer delivered remarks about the prospect for offshore oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However fraudulently Virginia was enrolled in the 2007-2012 program, it still lives on.
However, one last parting "gift" from the Bush Administration, which vastly expanded the 2010-2015 program to even more areas of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and the Gulf of Mexico, was granted a 180-day delay. Salazer called the Bush move a "headlong rush of the worst kind."
New Jersey is one of the many states off the hook. "The Obama administration rightfully put the brakes on the Bush administration's runaway drilling train," said NJ Rep. Frank Pallone said. "It is not in our nation's long-term interest to fast-track a five-year plan that focuses on drilling for fossil fuels and putting miles of our coastline at risk."
Don't get too comfortable, New Jersey. Writes Scott Harper in the Virginian-Pilot, "In addressing this argument [industrial development of the coast to handle raw products coming to shore from drilling platforms], Kent Satterlee [Shell Oil] said energy companies might instead build underwater pipelines to refineries in New Jersey, bypassing the Virginia coast altogether".
There is however one tiny glimmer of good resulting from this MMS leasing process on Virginia's 2.9 million acres slated for sale as soon as 2012. MMS also administers leasing for any offshore wind projects as well. As George Hagerman, a research scientist at Virginia Tech who is heavily involved with the Virginia Coastal Energy Research Consortium, the potential of offshore wind gains from the overall study of Virginia's deep coastal waters too.
And with Salazar's promises to return "science" to the Federal government's vocabulary, we also get promises that offshore oil and gas development will be responsible and part of a broader comprehensive energy policy focused on producing more renewable energy from wind, solar, geothermal as well as tidal and wave power.
First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, Sen. Deeds' Blue Commonwealth interview is particularly disappointing. Here are the relevant excerpts with my comments.
Blue Commonwealth: One of the more vexing environmental problems is obviously coal.
Creigh Deeds: Right.
Good, Sen. Deeds admits that coal is a "vexing" environmental problem. That's a start. Let's see where he goes with this.
Blue Commonwealth: And what makes it vexing is you have on the one hand the environmental impact of coal and the fact that for some communities in our state it's an economic lifeline. How do you balance that, not just looking at policy for this year or next, but when you look out 10 years from now, or 15 years from now, what would you like to see?
This is a question, not Creigh Deeds' answer, but I would sure hope that Sen. Deeds would disagree with the assertion that coal constitutes an "economic lifeline." For an alternative view, how about we ask Jim Webb what he thinks about this (from his book, "Born Fighting").
The people from the outside showed up [in Appalachian coal country] with complicated contracts...asking for "rights" to mineral deposits they could not see, and soon they were treated to a sundering of their own earth as the mining companies ripped apart their way of life, so that after a time the only option was to go down into the hole and bring the Man his coal, or starve. The Man got his coal, and the profits it brought when he shipped it out. They got their wages, black lung, and the desecration of their land...Coal made this part of Appalachia a poverty-stricken basket case while the rest of the mountain region remained mired in isolation.
Yeah, that's some "economic lifeline" there. For "the Man," that is. Also, as we've pointed out here previously, coal represents only 6% of jobs in Southwestern Virginia, let alone in the Commonwealth as a whole, where it constitutes a much, much smaller percentage (99.95% of Virginians are NOT employed by coal mining). In other words, so much for that theory. Now, back to the Deeds interview.
Creigh Deeds: The other vexing point is this. More than 50% of the electric power we have in this country comes from coal.
What I'd like to see in the future is alternative sources of energy developed. I also want to make sure - you know, some people say there's no such thing as clean coal. Well, perhaps there isn't.
Huh? First, Sen. Deeds doesn't correct the "economic lifeline" assertion. He then appears completely confused on the issue of "clean coal." There is such a thing, there isn't such a thing, who knows. Coal's a problem, we need to develop alternatives, or not. Maybe there's "clean coal." Etc., etc. With all due respect, does anyone have any idea what Creigh Deeds is getting at here? I'm lost. And does anyone who knows anything about energy believe that large-scale carbon capture and sequestration (necessary for any hope at "clean coal") will be technologically and economically feasible anytime in the next 15-20 years? Nope, didn't think so.
Creigh Deeds: It's clear to me we cannot burn coal in the future as we did in the past and continue to exist as a people, as a planet. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to consider clean coal technologies. And frankly, those people that say you can't do it, I mean, this is the country where an airplane was developed; this is the country that developed both the wartime and the peaceful uses of nuclear power; this is the country that put a man on the Moon. The only barrier to what we can't do is our imagination and the creativity and the genius of the American mind, so I'm not willing to concede that we can't develop clean coal technology. I'm not willing to concede anything.
OK, so we can't "exist as a people, as a planet" with coal, but we're not "willing to concede anything" in terms of using coal? Is your head starting to spin yet, along with the frantic political spin?
Creigh Deeds: I know this. I know we can't exist if we continue to burn coal the way we have. We have to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint. We have to find ways to reduce the emission of greenhouse gasses. That's why we have to continue to look for ways to develop alternative and renewable sources of energy.
But the key to our energy future, it seems to me, is that we can't afford to take any tool off the table. We have to consider everything. We have to consider all of our alternatives and let the science govern what works and what doesn't.
Back and forth...can't continue with coal, but must use coal. [image of "The Scream" painting comes to mind] Then, to top it all off, comes my favorite line of all, that we "can't afford to take any tool off the table." In other words, we're back to coal again. But why? I mean, if it's expensive and dirty, economically and environmentally ruinous to the region where it's mined, why can't we take it off the table? Uhhhhhhhhh. [cue sound of crickets chirping]
Blue Commonwealth: I'm kind of embarrassed. I don't know your position on off shore drilling and exploration.
Creigh Deeds: My position is that, like coal, you can't take it off the table. If we can get royalties, if we can do it in a way that protects our environment, if we can do it a way that does not hamper naval or other military operations offshore - military operations are a huge part of our economy in Hampton Roads in Southeast Virginia, if we can do it a way that doesn't affect our fisheries in a negative way, if we can do it in a way that doesn't affect our tourism industry, which is also a huge part of our economy all over Virginia, then by all means we ought to explore off-shore drilling.
Ugh, here we go again with the "can't take it off the table" evasiveness and/or code language. Let's see: we can't take offshore oil drilling off the table, UNLESS of course it harms fisheries, tourism, the military, etc. Which it almost certainly will (the navy, for instance, is dead set against it). Is that clear?
Creigh Deeds: I think I've got the same position as Jim Webb. In fact, I know it's the same position because we've talked about it. I think my position is probably the same as Mark Warner's, and as far as I know if very close to the position of Tim Kaine.
And the relevance, Sen. Deeds, of your position on offshore drilling supposedly being close to other politicians is...what exactly? How about just stating your case, clearly, and let the voters decide what to make of it, without hiding behind all these popular politicians?
Blue Commonwealth: So, it's fair to say that if off-shore drilling couldn't happen with all those conditions -
Creigh Deeds: Then it wouldn't happen. I just don't think it's fair to say, "Never. Never can we do that." If certain qualifications are met, yeah, yeah, we ought to consider it.
OK, so offshore drilling won't happen...unless it will. Or not. Or something. Again, is that all clear? Maybe clear as mud, or clear as a coal ash spill, or clear as an oil slick on Virginia Beach...
In response to Robert Murphy's recent opinion piece in the Daily Press on why offshore drilling was a good idea for Virginia, I would like to offer the following:
• He dangles possible royalties as a revenue stream for an economically beleaguered state. The federal government is not interested in sharing these with Virginia.
• He mentions how Americans want our country to produce as much fuel as possible here at home. The Interior Department's Minerals Management Services predicts Virginia's potential supply (130 million barrels of oil) at less than seven days of this nation's 20 million barrel a day habit. Mr. Murphy feels these reserves could reduce the dependence on foreign oil so many Americans want, but how much would seven day's worth really free us?
• He states that tapping into Virginia's reserves would reduce retail price fluctuations if foreign supplies are disrupted. The amount of oil from Virginia would represent a drop in the world oil bucket and would have a negligible effect on gas prices. Increasing Virginia's supply will not decrease prices.
• He extols the remarkably clean environmental record of modern offshore "energy operations". Current drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico have destroyed more wetlands than exist between New Jersey and Maine. 180,000 gallons per well of toxic oil well waste mud containing mercury, arsenic and lead are discharged into surrounding waters every day. Can the already troubled Chesapeake Bay tolerate that additional strain?
Here's what Mr. Murphy didn't mention: (more on the flip)
Four days before leaving office, officials in the Bush administration issued a draft of a five-year drilling plan that calls for energy leases to be made available in both the Atlantic and Pacific waters, including vast areas that until recently had been off limits for a quarter century.
But Salazar indicated that plan is all but dead.
"It seems to me the appropriate place to address the OCS and issues like royalty reform would be in the context of an energy bill," said Salazar, referring to Outer Continental Shelf development and an overhaul of the way his department collects royalties from drilling in federal waters.
This issue is not resolved and there will still be a fight to keep offshore drilling out of Virginia's waters but it seems that the rush to "drill here, drill now" has been tempered, at least for now.
Yesterday I had the opportunity to ask Jody Wagner's campaign manager regarding her position on offshore drilling. It was the muddled milk-toast ala-Kaine response with the expedient "let's see what's out there first" and the ignorant "we're only interested in natural gas". It is also a carbon copy response given by gubernatorial candidates Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe. Only Brian Moran has stood out firmly opposed.
I say it is an ignorant response as there is absolutely nothing preventing development of both gas and oil once Virginia Lease Sale 220 is sold off as early as 2011.
Q15: The Commonwealth of Virginia indicated interest in possibly having gas-only leasing, as part of Virginia's Energy Policy as defined in Virginia Code § 67-300. Is that an option?
A15: No, gas-only leasing is not currently an option because the OCS Lands Act does not allow for leasing of and exploration for natural gas only, as it authorizes "oil and gas leases" under section 8 (43 U.S.C. 1337). Additionally, there are technical and engineering challenges to gas-only leasing including maintaining appropriate reservoir development and determining what would happen if oil was found.
Know this too, candidates...
In a letter submitted to MMS and published in Oil & Gas Journal from the American Petroleum Institute and other industry folks, not only does Big Oil support leasing off Virginia's coast but they want the entire Mid-Atlantic and they are urging that the 50-mile coastal buffer zone be eliminated. The camel's nose is under the tent. Virginia was the entry point. Playing mamby-pamby with the Feds has gotten us to that point.
User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club and/or the League of Conservation Voters. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters do not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.
ArticleXI.com is paid for and authorized by
Virginia League of Conservation Voters PAC, 530 East Main Street, Ste. 410, Richmond, Virginia 23219, (804) 225-1902 and
Sierra Club VA PAC, 422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 302, Richmond, VA 23219, (804) 225-9113.
Last week, gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell wrote the other candidates for Governor asking them to join him in signing a letter to Interior Secretary Salazar. It was a letter that asked the new Interior Secretary to reject Governor Kaine's recent request that Virginia Lease Sale 220 be removed from the 2007-2012 program and included instead with the 2010-2015 program for offshore oil and gas lease sales. In essence, McDonnell's letter asserts that it is somehow a bad idea to proceed with gathering adequate information and ensure that we have the scientific data needed to make a reasoned decision about the aggressive Bush offshore drilling plans now still aimed at our coastline here in Virginia.
On the subject of Virginia offshore drilling, gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Thanks to former Rep. Thelma Drake and State Senator Frank Wagner, may I present to you little lonely Virginia, all by itself on the Atlantic coast, poised and ready for lease sale as early as 2011.
Thanks to lieutenant governor candidate 
Hopes dashed as Interior Secretary Ken Salazer delivered remarks about the prospect for offshore oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). However fraudulently Virginia was enrolled in the 2007-2012 program, it still lives on.
First, let me just say that I like Creigh Deeds, find him to be a thoughtful and intelligent man, someone who cares deeply about people and who is in politics for all the right reason. In conversations I've had with him, he's also seemed sincerely concerned about protecting our environment. In that context, 
In response to Robert Murphy's recent opinion piece in the Daily Press on why offshore drilling was a good idea for Virginia, I would like to offer the following:
Last minute actions by the Bush Administration to expand offshore drilling on the entire Atlantic and Pacific coasts 
Yesterday I had the opportunity to ask Jody Wagner's campaign manager regarding her position on offshore drilling. It was the muddled milk-toast ala-Kaine response with the expedient "let's see what's out there first" and the ignorant "we're only interested in natural gas". It is also a carbon copy response given by gubernatorial candidates Creigh Deeds and Terry McAuliffe. 
