Deepwater offshore drilling is in the best interest of the United States

Thanks to Con for an interesting topic and timely debate. Every year 30,000 people in the United States die in automobile accidents. Autos pollutes and consume valuable resources. So shouldn't we ban automobiles immediately? No, of course we should not. The advantage of automobiles far outweigh the disadvantages. Con's case against deep water drilling is similarly flawed. Con wildly overstates the risks and ignores the advantages. The principle advantages are reduced foreign dependence on oil, a substantial reduction in the foreign trade deficit, and the providing of jobs despite a weak economy. I will first respond to Con's case. N1. Any oil spill is bad for the marine environment, but the environment always recovers. Con claims that Santa Monica, CA spill proves how terrible an oil spill is. In fact, "Overall, long-term environmental effects of the spill seemed to be minimal." http://en.wikipedia.org... Californians are well aware of the hazards, but a recent poll shows that they now favor more drilling off the California coast. [1. http://www.independent.com... ] Those most familiar with the spill, "the citizens of Santa Barbara support more drilling, with 63 percent in favor of expanded drilling and just 29 percent opposed." [2. http://www.heartland.org... ] Con argues that the Obama Administration and BP did not have an adequate environmental plan. True enough, but that does not mean that a good plan is impossible. We will need such a plan regardless because deep water drilling will continue off Mexico and Cuba. Drilling off Cuba is expected to start later this year, and Cuba's desperate economy make it inevitable. [3. http://www.heraldtribune.com... ] The US must have a sound --and expensive-- clean up plan whether US producers drill or not. If there is no US drilling, more oil will be imported by tanker. The environmental consequences of a tanker spill are no better than a drilling accident. Moreover, very large quantities of oil naturally seep from the ocean bottom. The clean up procedures put in place for drilling accidents can keep the coasts cleaner than if there is no drilling. [2] N2. Jobs are lost temporarily in the fishing and tourist industries when there is an oil spill, but those jobs return. However, banning oil drilling permanently eliminates jobs, "In the state of Louisiana, 2005 figures estimate 15.4 percent of total household earnings could be traced back to these earnings, amounting to some $12.7 billion dollars. The moratorium will lead to a cessation of worker training, as well as job losses among those already employed in these industries. One estimate by a consulting firm places total job losses by 2014 at 120,000." [4. http://www.masterresource.org...] That's just in Louisiana. BP reimbursed economic losses, so even the temporary job losses were substantially mitigated. This is required by law. "Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner or operator of a facility from which oil is discharged (also known as the responsible Party) is liable for the costs associated with the containment or cleanup of the spill and any damages resulting from the spill." [4a. http://www.epa.gov... ] It costs a lot to drill offshore, but no one would do it if it were not a profitable enterprise. Con's failure to account for revenues is obviously an error. No one knows how much oil is offshore. A 1996 study estimated 45 billion barrels in the Gulf, but with current recovery technology. it is probably much larger. 45 billion barrels is about $4.5 trillion worth of oil. [5. http://www.scientificamerican.com...] About 40% of that ends up as revenue to the U.S. government, through leasing fees and taxes. N3. The most dangerous occupation in America, by far, is fishing. [6. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...] The oil industry is below farming, out of the top ten. Bacteria ate the methane, ethane, and propane from the Gulf spill, having a strong mitigating effect. [7. http://www.australianclimatemadness.com...] There were reports of headaches and nausea caused by the remnants of the oil spill, but I cannot find any reports of serious injury to humans from toxic effects. Con's charges of significant long term health effects are unsubstantiated. Deep water offshore drilling is in the best interests of the United States because, P1. It substantially improves the U.S. balance of payments. There is probably more than $4.5 trillion in offshore oil in the Gulf. Not all of that would accrue to the US, but a great deal of it would. There is an estimated $9 trillion in reserves north of the Arctic Circle, much of it off shore. [8. http://en.wikipedia.org...] Again, not all would accrue to the US, but much would. The US has banned exploratory drilling, so in each case the estimates are probably quite low. There is no way to tell how much there is if one refuses to look, and surveys are out of date. To put this in perspective, "This oil-related deficit of $204 billion was over half of the total 2009 trade deficit of $380.7 billion." P2. Every reduction in foreign oil dependence helps. "rising oil imports widened our deficit, increasing the gap between our imports and exports. This is but one example that our economic recovery and long-term growth is inexorably linked to our reliance on foreign oil. The United States is spending approximately $1 billion a day overseas on oil instead of investing the funds at home, where our economy sorely needs it." http://www.americanprogress.org... P3. It will help pay down the national debt. About 40% of drilling revenues ends up with the government [4]. The total potential is more than $13 trillion, with 40% being about $5 trillion. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking real money. P4. Sending money overseas has a very negative impact on jobs, because in addition to the direct loss the money does not recirculate in the US economy. "A recent Economic Policy Institute study aimed to quantify the impact of China's unfair trade surplus on U.S. employment. The study concluded that China trade has eliminated or displaced 2.4 million American jobs since China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001." http://www.globalatlanta.com... "The impact of the China trade deficit is not restricted to the jobs displaced, the report found. Competition with low-wage workers from less-developed countries also has driven down wages for other workers in manufacturing and reduced the wages and bargaining power of similar workers throughout the economy—essentially all production workers with less than a four-year college degree, roughly 80 percent of the private-sector workforce." [9. http://www.pabusinesscentral.com...] The total deficit to China over the period is roughly $3 trillion. It doesn't matter whether the loss is due to oil purchases or other aspects of trade, the effect on US jobs is devastating. Offshore drilling poses risks, but disastrous spills are rare and the effects are temporary. If we ban offshore drilling, we will have increased risks from tanker spills and we will still have to prepare for the contingency of spills from Mexico and Cuba hitting our shores. Allowing offshore drilling reduces dependence on foreign oil, would help pay off the national debt, and could create more than 2 million jobs over time. The resolution is affirmed.