GOP head backs oil drilling
South Carolina's Republican Party chairman announced support Wednesday for a campaign to allow oil exploration off the coast of South Carolina and other states, an idea that concerns environmental and tourism interests and is opposed by many Democratic leaders and candidates.
According to the state GOP, party Chairman Katon Dawson is the first Republican Party chairman in the country to endorse the "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less." campaign launched by American Solutions, an organization chaired by former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich.
"If we take the bold step to cultivate energy resources here at home, we will not only break our dependence on foreign oil, we will also bring meaningful relief to hardworking families who are experiencing unprecedented pain at the pump as gas prices continue to skyrocket," Dawson said.
Federal rules allow gas and oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, but there has been a moratorium on drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for 26 years. Oil companies, with some GOP support, have long sought to lift the moratorium.
Last year in Charleston Shell Oil Corp. sponsored a roundtable discussion on the subject. At that event, supporters of coastal oil and gas exploration said that even if the practice were allowed off South Carolina today, it could take at least 10 years to produce any new supplies.
Opponents made the same point.
"It would offer no immediate relief from the tremendous burden posed by rising gas and oil prices," said Democratic National Committee member Waring Howe Jr., of Charleston. "Putting my Democratic hat aside for a moment, I, as a life-long South Carolinian, fear that we could pay a tremendous environmental price."
Dawson said it's true that offshore drilling would provide no instant relief from high gas prices.
"It's about releasing the grip that oil dictators have on our economy," he said. "It's not just drilling offshore. It's solar power and wind power."
Dawson also said environmental concerns are a high priority for everyone, including oil companies.
"We have wonderful technology and good, fine, responsible companies," he said.
Environmental groups and Southeastern states with large tourism economies expressed concern or outright opposition to expanded exploration and drilling when Congress took up the issue in 2006.
Reach David Slade at 937-5552 or dslade@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 30 comment(s)
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 10, 2008 at 6:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FINALLY!!!!! Should have been done 10+ years ago.
Posted by BillytheKid on July 10, 2008 at 7:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The oil that has already been discovered in the USA is not being pumped out anymore, the production(pumping it out of the ground) has dropped from it's 1973 high to 60% of that number. It is not that there is less oil, they find new areas with oil and drill and cap the well all the time. It's that they know we will pay for imported oil, bitch about the price, but we will pay.
http://www.seacoastnrg.org/2008/03/31/us...
We are producing more importing less, I think's the oil companies like selling the oil they have in the ground at this high price, and running the country into the crapper with the domino effect of the high fuel cost.
Posted by majorjohnson on July 10, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If they hadn't been putting this off for so long we'd be pumping more oil than Russia and Canada combined right now. They want to argue that it will take 10 years, I say if we don't do it now in 10 years we still won't have the oil and we'll be even more dependent on Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuala. Did you notice that the enviromentalists are stopping 2 nuclear plants here? Did you know that enviromentalists stopped wind power plants? That they've delayed solar for over 2 years? Anyone notice the brown outs in Texas because their wind farm didn't get enough wind during a peak power time and they didn't have the fossil fuel plants to make up for it because they built wind plants instead?
They want to claim it's about the environment, but the environmental movement was taken over by the socialists and communists, just like the democrat party was, and the whole point is to reduce us to a weak socialist state and destroy the very thing that has done the most in the history of the world to allow poor people to leave poverty....capitalism. Kruschev wasn't just whistling dixie...he did what he said he would.
Posted by majorjohnson on July 10, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for reminding me billy...did you know the oil companies haven't been allowed to build a refinery in over 35 years? If we don't allow refineries, we'll have to ship the oil we pump overseas so they can crack the gas to send back to us. That's part of the equation they aren't addressing.
Posted by berthelot on July 10, 2008 at 8:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just can't get on board with this. This is a case of the oil companies recognizing the beginning of the end for their business and desperately clinging to the last bits of profit that are available. Even if we start drilling now we wouldn't see and oil for 5 - 10 years. By that time many reputable auto manufacturers will be completely free of petroleum (Mercedes will be petroleum free by 2015).
People say "we will still need oil to produce plastics". This is true, however, we can recycle most plastics and if the cost of a computer or cell phone goes up because we have to use new plastic so be it. Those are one time purchases that last a long time, unlike auto fuel.
People say "drilling now will provide relief at the pumps because they will begin to trade futures based on the oil that we will eventually have and refine". That is counting your chickens before they hatch. This happens all the time in futures trading (that is pretty much the definition) but it is a bad idea to continue down this oil road when there are much better alternatives out there that will become dominant no matter how desperately the oil companies cling to their ways.
My solution: Put the oil companies on notice. "You guys can still control the transportation energy in this country, you just need to find a way to do it that doesn't involve oil... now get to work."
Posted by wino on July 10, 2008 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your local tree-hugger chiming in. Remember oil is an international industry, just because we are producing it here doesn't mean it will stay here.
First of they are a business and owe it to their stockholders to make the highest profit possible. Do you think they care about lowering gas prices here in America?
Also since gas prices for consumers are higher overseas, they will ship US produced oil to China and other developing countries.
Posted by YankeeLady on July 10, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Oil is a dying industry; the supply is finite, and the planet will be dead before they can drain irreparable resources like our coastal waters and the Artic. This is indeed the last gasp and grasp of the oil industry to squeeze the last buck out for their stockholders. I agree with berthelot - tell them to find another way that doesn't involve oil. Alternative energy is out there and doable; let go of the shortsighted views that drill, drill, drill is the answer. Try to see beyond the end of your own nose or gas tank.
Posted by cappy on July 10, 2008 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Before we open up new drilling areas we need to start pumping from existing but capped wells. There are hundreds of them in the Gulf of Mexico as well as on shore. I worked the Gulf oil fields and saw the platforms that were put up after oil was found and the well capped. The oil companies will have you believe we have a shortage of oil but what we really have is greed. If they stop exporting the oil we do pump we might find there is plenty of domestic oil. They oil barons know they get higher prices overseas so why should they keep the oil here.
Posted by cappy on July 10, 2008 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Everyone is talking about oil spills and the polution it causes. This is true but there is another factor about the oil industry that no one mentions. Take a ride along the Gulf coast and look at what the oil industry does on shore. There has to be someplace for the assembly and repair of the equipment used offshore. There are acres of yards along the coast filled with rusted metal pipes and frameworks for the platforms. A constant line of trucks bringing in supplies, 24/7 loud boat traffic in the waterways. Boat traffic control like at airports. Congestion on the water from the boat traffic. Not a good place to take a Sunday cruise.
Posted by Neponset on July 10, 2008 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Crappy
Take a look at the industrial sections of river front property here, particularly on the Cooper. Industry, is messy, but it can be contained, but we need it and it adds wealth to the country - what would you have us do, condoize (sp?) the entire waterfront with all those pretty building that produce nothing?
Posted by VMI1990 on July 10, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Most people don't seem to get it. We are attacking the problem like the failed war on drugs- the supply side. The solution is simple, however it is not an overnight one- reduce demand substantially. If the oil companies and the automotive industry had not been in collusion for the past 50 years, we would have cars already fueled on something other than gasoline. Detroit was pulled kicking and screaming into developing hybrids. Now it's time for them to use their engineers and developers and create an engine that does not require gasoline. It can be done.
Posted by Name_Withheld on July 10, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
1969 Oil Spill
On the afternoon of January 29, 1969, an environmental nightmare began in Santa Barbara, California. A Union Oil Co. platform stationed six miles off the coast of Summerland suffered a blowout. Oil workers had drilled a well down 3500 feet below the ocean floor. Riggers began to retrieve the pipe in order to replace a drill bit when the "mud" used to maintain pressure became dangerously low. A natural gas blowout occurred. An initial attempt to cap the hole was successful but led to a tremendous buildup of pressure. The expanding mass created five breaks in an east-west fault on the ocean floor, releasing oil and gas from deep beneath the earth.
For eleven days, oil workers struggled to cap the rupture. During that time, 200,000 gallons of crude oil bubbled to the surface and was spread into a 800 square mile slick by winds and swells. Incoming tides brought the thick tar to beaches from Rincon Point to Goleta, marring 35 miles of coastline. Beaches with off-shore kelp forests were spared the worst as kelp fronds kept most of the tar from coming ashore. The slick also moved south, tarring Anacapa Island's Frenchy's Cove and beaches on Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa and San Miguel Islands.
Ecological Impact
Animals that depended on the sea were hard hit. Incoming tides brought the corpses of dead seals and dolphins. Oil had clogged the blowholes of the dolphins, causing massive lung hemorrhages. Animals that ingested the oil were poisoned. In the months that followed, gray whales migrating to their calving and breeding grounds in Baja California avoided the channel —their main route south.
The oil took its toll on the seabird population. Shorebirds like plovers, godwits and willets which feed on sand creatures fled the area. But diving birds which must get their nourishment from the waters themselves became soaked with tar.
The Santa Barbara Zoo was among three emergency bird treatment centers established during the disaster. Volunteers were recruited to pluck oiled birds from local beaches. Grebes, cormorants and other seabirds were so sick, their feathers so soaked in oil that they were not difficult to catch. Birds were bathed in Polycomplex A-11, medicated, and placed under heat lamps to stave off pneumonia. The survival rate was less than 30 percent for birds that were treated. Many more died on the beaches where they had formerly sought their livelihoods. Those who had managed to avoid the oil were threatened by the detergents used to disperse the oil slick. The chemicals robbed feathers of the natural waterproofing used to keep seabirds afloat.
In all 3686 birds were estimated to have died because of contact with oil. Aerial surveys a year later found only 200 grebes in an area that had
previously drawn 4000 to 7000.
Posted by Name_Withheld on July 10, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cleanup Efforts
It took oil workers 11 1/2; days to control the leaking oil well. Workers pumped chemical mud down the 3500 foot shaft at a rate of 1500 barrels an hour. It was then topped by a cement plug. Residual amounts of gas continued to escape and another leak sprung up weeks later, releasing oil for months to follow.
Skimmers scooped up oil from the surface of the ocean. In the air, planes dumped detergents on the tar covered ocean in an attempt to break up the slick. On the beaches and harbors, straw was spread on oily patches of water and sand. The straw soaked up the black mess and was then raked up. Rocks were steamed cleaned, cooking marine life like limpets and mussels that attach themselves to coastal rocks.
What Went Wrong?
Union Oil's Platform A ruptured because of inadequate protective casing. The oil company had been given permission by the U.S. Geological Survey to cut corners and operate the platform with casings below federal and California standards. Investigators would later determine that more steel pipe sheating inside the drilling hole would have prevented the rupture.
Because the oil rig was beyond California's three-mile coastal zone, the rig did not have to comply with state standards. At the time, California drilling regulations were far more rigid those implied by the federal government.
Aftermath
In the spring following the oil spill, Earth Day was born nationwide. Many consider the publicity surrounding the oil spill a major impetus to the environmental movement.
Only days after the spill began, Get Oil Out (GOO) was founded in Santa Barbara. Founder Bud Bottoms urged the public to cut down on driving, burn oil company credit cards and boycott gas stations associated with offshore drilling companies. Volunteers helped the organization gather 100,000 signatures on a petition banning offshore oil drilling. While drilling was only halted temporarily, laws were passed to strengthen offshore drilling regulations. Union Oil suffered millions in losses from the clean-up efforts, payments to fishermen and local businesses, and lawsuit settlements. But maybe worse, the reputation of the oil industry was forever tarnished.
Posted by Name_Withheld on July 10, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In Their Own Words . . .
Nature writer John McKinney:
"I had been impressed by the way energetic college students, shopkeepers, surfers, parents with their kids, all joined the beach clean-up. I saw a Montecito society matron transporting oily birds in her Mercedes." McKinney witnessed the event firsthand as a volunteer who rescued oiled birds. A chapter of his book A Walk Along Land's End describes his experience.
Fred L. Hartley, president of Union Oil Co.:
"I don't like to call it a disaster," because there has been no loss of human life.
"I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds."
Santa Barbara NewsPress Editor Thomas Storke:
"Never in my long lifetime have I ever seen such an aroused populace at the grassroots level. This oil pollution has done something I have never seen before in Santa Barbara – it has united citizens of all political persuasions in a truly nonpartisan cause."
U.S. President Richard Nixon:
"It is sad that it was necessary that Santa Barbara should be the example that had to bring it to the attention of the American people. What is involved is the use of our resources of the sea and of the land in a more effective way and with more concern for preserving the beauty and the natural resources that are so important to any kind of society that we want for the future. The Santa Barbara incident has frankly touched the conscience of the American people."
Many credit the 1969 oil spill with igniting the environmental movement. For eleven days, 200,000 gallons of crude oil spilled into the channel from a disabled oil rig. In the aftermath, 3600 birds were dead along with ten seals and dolphins and countless fish and marine invertebrates.
In 1994, 37 marine oil spills were reported in the county. In addition, natural oil seepages in the ocean ensnare many migratory birds. Last year, the network treated 47 oiled birds.
Posted by Rebel_Yell on July 10, 2008 at 11:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Screw it -- as long as I can keep driving my big truck funded with my extended credit card debt so I can appear to be successful when I should be driving a scooter and investing the puny salary I make, I say drill. I am not really sure why or what effect it will have, but hey, if the republican party is catering to my emotions they must be right. Me first, all others second. That's the James Island way.
Posted by bkeelin on July 10, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Name withheld,
Don't you think they have improved the technology a little bit since 1969? since 1989?
Let's be real, oil will be around for a long time. I predict Mercedes will not be gas free by 2015. In part because the amount of gas users around the world will only increase and Mercedes is not going to miss out on that market, and in part because they will probably rely on electric cars to try and fulfill this goal which will need to be charged at home or at work and the electricity will most likely be generated from a fossil fuel power plant and therefore they will still be burning fossil fuel somewhere in the supply chain.
And to think that we can reduce the demand on fossil fuels to a level required to reduce the price substantially is ridiculous. The earth is becoming more and more industrialized by China, India, several other developed countries and developing ones, so even if the liberal whackos take control using marshall law and stop everyone from using fossil fuels these other countries are going to keep buying it at record levels. The larger the population the larger the demand. Should we kill all the babies for a couple of years to reduce future demand for oil by reducing the population? That is a discussion not outside the realm of liberals.
The idea that we can conserve our way out of this supply shortage is regressive and backwards.
Posted by zoomru on July 10, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Katon,
Finally...a shot over the bow! How does it feel to LEAD !! Now.. get with the Conservation League and Lasso a smart Democrat and show some Carolina teamwork. !!
Posted by iceman1978 on July 10, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gas prices in the US are more of a reflection of the world oil price. Even if they were to drill off the coast and export it, it wouldn't lead to lower prices in the markets of Europe. In Europe they place a much higher tax on gasoline which helps to maintain the mass transit programs. The biggest factor that will effect margin of profit on oil is how far it has to be shipped. Shipping oil to markets in Asia vs selling it right here in the US would reduce transport costs. It's why we get more oil from Mexico and Canada, and the EU tends to get more of theirs from the North Sea and the Middle East.
Offshore drilling is not a long term solution. I believe that it's workable considering that it's done in Norway and the UK, but I would prefer that they drill in ANWR before going off the coast. By drilling in Alaska it would be that more oil is brought in by pipeline and less would have to come in by ship. Less oil brought in by ship would reduce the likelihood of an oil spill and it would also relieve some of the pressure placed on seaports, as well as reduce water pollution near the ports. Also, if the US was able to use more of its own oil it would lessen the dependance on foreign oil, and it would reduce the trade deficit.
The long-term solution is that we need to get an alternative source that it clean, renewable, and something that we can make here at home. What I would like to see is another Manhattan Project. Only this time we would be developing alternative energy rather than a new weapon. If there's one thing that history has shown us it's that the US can accomplish just about anything when they are serious about it.
I would have to go against offshore drilling and instead drill more in Alaska. Tell the oil companies that any subsidies and tax breaks that they currently recieve are going to be contingent on their cooperation in both developing and implementing the use of alternative sources.
Posted by Name_Withheld on July 10, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes bkeelin,
It will never happen again, especially if we have wells off the coast of South Carolina. This state is lucky like that.
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 10, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...it is a bad idea to continue down this oil road when there are much better alternatives out there that will become dominant no matter how desperately the oil companies cling to their ways."
The alternatives are better. Not now. Name one.....you can't and don't say hybrids. Take a look at the nickel plant that supplies the Toyota batteries. We test our lunar rovers there due to all the effects of that.
Posted by bflosue on July 10, 2008 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Did you know that 8000+ TONS of nerve gas, mustard gas, and Lewisite were dumped off the Charleston coast but no one knows exactly where (not the army and not the DNR)? And that there's a LIVE H-bomb in the mud off of Tybee Island but no one knows where (not even the pilot who dropped it)? With all of the crap that we've dumped into the oceans, it's sheer stupidity to drill there. Not to mention the environmental damage an oil spill would cause - Alaska has still not recovered from the Exxon Valdez spill. Let's invest in wind and solar - they'll be around long after oil supplies have dried up!
From the Hampton Roads, VA Daily Press, Oct 30, 2005:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-02761s...
"One of the first of the now-identified dump zones created at the end of World War II was also one of the largest. The Army dubbed it Disposal Site Baker.
The Army has only the vaguest idea where it is on the ocean floor - somewhere off the coast of Charleston, S.C., the most specific surviving records indicate.
"I have never had any information to suggest this was done," said Charles Farmer, a marine biologist who's worked for South Carolina's Department of Natural Resources for almost 40 years.
"I would say this is not well known to us at all. This is something that is new, at least to me. It's incredible some of the things we've managed to do."
The first documented dump near that state was in March 1946, when four railroad cars full of mustard gas bombs and mines were tossed over the side of the USS Diamond Head, an ammunition ship.
Several months later, an estimated 23 barges full of German-produced nerve gas bombs and U.S.-made Lewisite bombs were dumped in the same location. Lewisite is a blister agent akin to mustard gas. A single barge carried up to 350 tons.
"If we don't have any idea of depths of water or location, hell, they could be anywhere," Farmer said. "As we have more and more activity and more and more development off the coast, I hope this was buried in 6,000 feet of water ... or a lot of this stuff is going to come back to haunt us.
There's one indication that those weapons were dumped in relatively shallow water: Army records show many of those 23 slow-moving barges were unloaded in one-day, out-and-back operations."
Posted by berthelot on July 10, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FiscalConservative: Fine, here is one.
VMI1990: It has been done.
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080616...
Posted by berthelot on July 10, 2008 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
By the way, I just can't wait to hear all the crack pot reasons you all can come up with to try to convince us that a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle is worse than what we have now.
Posted by auger on July 10, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Within a year, China will be sucking oil from the same pocket of oil that we share with the territorial limits of Cuba. What would you rather have happen in this situation? The Chinese drilling 65 miles from Florida in the time proven "safe" manner they do everything else, or a truly safe, well planned series of US rigs drawing the oil in a responsible manner? Also note, that the area is right in the middle of the gulf streams strongest effluence. If someone screws up, the result will travel up the East coast and continue all the way to Europe, via Greenland and Iceland.
Posted by rollo on July 10, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The Dems will oppose any and all progress, they are undermining our freedom at every opportunity.
They bill themselves as "progressives" but they plan to 'progress' us right back to the early 19th century.
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 11, 2008 at 6:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You got me berthalot. A whole five people got one. It really sucks trying to find gas to put in my car with all the hydrogen pumps everywhere. Oh wait! there are none. If it is going to take more than a couple of years to install them we better not. Too long.
Posted by berthelot on July 11, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
FiscalConservative: It is brand new. You know, not the same as what we have now. You know, progress. In the near future there will be more of them with fueling stations, starting in Southern California. How soon it comes to the rest of the world will depend on how much support it has. If we ignore/write off new technology and continue to support out-dated oil "technology" then we will continue to be in the situation we are in. Good thing the intelligent people in this country will make it happen with or without you lot who can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted by bflosue on July 11, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses."
Not necessarily.
Due to the wonderfully skilled drivers in this town, my 2005 Subaru was totalled last year. My choice was to buy a 2007 Subaru or a 2007 Prius. With comparable options, the Prius was only $1000 more than the Subaru.
Assume I drive 12,000 miles/year.
Subaru gets 23 MPG (I owned both the 2004 and 2005 of that model and actually was getting a little less than this). So the Subaru requires 12000/23 = 522 gallons of gas. At $4.25/gallon (it also requires premium gas), that's $2218.50 per year.
Prius gets 55 MPG (53 in the summer when A/C is needed and 58 the rest of the year). So the Prius requires 12000/55 = 218 gallons of gas. At $4.00/gallon (it uses regular gas), that's $872.00 per year.
At current prices, that's a savings of $1346.50 per year for only $1000 more in purchase price. And as gas prices go higher, my savings vs the Subaru will be even greater.
Posted by berthelot on July 11, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They don't respond to math and reason bflosue, you are wasting your time.
Tripsa is clearly the JohnQ of the far right - no need to even acknowledge those comments from now on.
Posted by FiscalConservative on July 11, 2008 at 6:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not saying to not explore and implement new technology but we have to have oil. Opec said if we go to war with iran prices would go up exponentially. So we need our own oil to power our war machines if nothing else. I would love to get off oil but until we can we got to get off the Mideast's teat.