FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Trump’s Offshore Drilling Plan

Photo by Anita Ritenour | CC BY 2.0

It was offshore oil drilling deja vu for me—having broken the story about the oil industry seeking to drill in the offshore Atlantic nearly 50 years ago.

But this time offshore drilling would be completely unnecessary with the U.S, awash in petroleum (thus $2.50-a-gallon gas) and oil drilling in the sea ten times more costly than drilling on land. Plus, renewable energy, led by solar and wind, is now well-developed and cheaper than fossil fuels.

And although in 1970, the spill in 1969 from an oil-drilling platform off Santa Barbara, California that blackened miles of coastline and killed birds, fish and marine mammals had just demonstrated the environmental dangers of offshore oil drilling, just eight years ago the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and consequent oil spill disaster in 2010 was even worse, blackening the coasts of several states along the Gulf of Mexico with oil and killing marine life on an even more massive scale. It was the biggest offshore oil spill ever.

Meanwhile, global warming—mainly caused by burning of fossil fuels notably oil—has shown in recent years the danger of continuing to use oil. Another difference: this time partisan politics has become part of the process.

But there I was as the new year began vacationing at an inn in Key West, Florida. This was among the areas I traveled to after, in 1970, at the daily Long Island Press, exposing the oil industry’s Atlantic offshore drilling plans. I picked up The Key West Citizen and read about the Trump administration giving a blanket go-ahead to oil drilling off virtually every U.S. coast.

The arguments against it in The Key West Citizen were similar to those made in the Keys and up and down the Atlantic Coast nearly 50 years ago—that drilling would threaten marine life and a “robust tourist-based economy which generates $2 billion alone in water-based activities,” as the newspaper noted.” Florida Senator Bill Nelson was quoted as calling the Trump administration plan “an assault on Florida’s economy, our national security, the will of the public and the environment. This proposal defies all common sense.”

Back decades ago in traveling the Atlantic coast investigating the, I visited the first offshore drill rig set up in the Atlantic, off Nova Scotia. The dangers of drilling were obvious. On the rig it was admitted by the executive from Shell Canada that the booms promoted in oil industry ads as containing spills “just don’t work in over five-foot seas.” Peat moss was being stockpiled along the Nova Scotia coast to try to sop up spilled oil. On Long Island, “you’d use straw,” the Shell Canada man said. A rescue boat circled the rig 24 hours a day.

But a succession of moratoria voted in overwhelmingly by Congress caused drilling off the U.S. Atlantic coast to largely fade away.

Now the Trump administration had thrown the door to offshore oil drilling completely open—for drilling not only on the Atlantic coast but on the Pacific coast, too, and in Arctic waters.

Returning home to Long Island from Florida, I read the strong protests in this area to the move. DuWayne Gregory, presiding officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, said the Trump offshore oil-drilling plan “would be devastating to our coastal communities on Long Island by damaging marine life and precious natural resources, increasing the chances for a catastrophic spill.” Members of the Suffolk Legislature in a letter to U.S. Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, noted that “the proposed program would promote oil and gas drilling on more than 98 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf, including a region that encompasses the entirety of Suffolk County…This program will cause substantial harm to our county’s tourism revenue…as well as our precious marine resources.”

“Our beautiful coastline is crucial to this state’s economy,” declared New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. It “generates billions of dollars through tourism, fishing and other industries.”

Both Cuomo and the Suffolk County legislators cited a sudden deal between Zinke and Florida Governor Rick Scott exempting Florida from the drilling scheme, and asked for an exemption, too.

That deal, it has been widely reported, has to do with the Trump administration wanting to help Republican Scott in a run for the U.S. Senate, challenging Nelson, a Democrat. At least when I got into the issue in 1970, with Richard Nixon as president, politics had nothing to do with his administration’s decisions about where drilling should take place—this would be an “equal opportunity” environmental threat.

In the many protests to the Trump plan, the Zinke-Scott deal has also been cited.

This Monday, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper—who joined with the governors of six other Atlantic states last week in a letter to Zinke asking that Trump administration offshore drilling plan be reconsidered—said North Carolina would sue the federal government if’s not, and that the Florida exemption would be part of the litigation.
Cooper pointed out that Zinke in granting the exemption spoke of concern because Florida is “heavily reliant on tourism as an economic driver.” Said Cooper: “If that’s the reason to exempt Florida, then it’s the reason to exempt North Carolina.”

But then, on Tuesday it was reported that this past Friday in Washington, Walter Cruickshank, acting director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, told a subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources that the Florida exemption was “not final.”

I originally got into the offshore oil drilling story with a tip from a fisherman out of Montauk, Long Island who said he had seen in the ocean east of Montauk, a major Atlantic Coast fishing port, the same sort of vessel as the boats he observed searching for petroleum when he was a shrimper in the Gulf of Mexico.

I telephoned oil company after company with each saying they were not involved in searching for oil in the Atlantic. Then there was a call from a PR guy at Gulf saying, yes, Gulf was involved in exploring for oil in the Atlantic, in a “consortium” of 32 oil companies doing the searching. These included the companies that all had issued denials. This was a first lesson in oil industry honesty, an oxymoron.

More articles by:

Karl Grossman, professor of journalism at State University of New York/College at Old Westbury, and is the author of the book, The Wrong Stuff: The Space’s Program’s Nuclear Threat to Our Planet. Grossman is an associate of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR). He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail