The decision last week for the US to lift its moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the deeper waters of the Gulf of Mexico has left many analysts on opposing sides of this change. The Obama administration did keep the original timelines in place for the moratorium but skeptics feel that it has been lifted too soon and was done for political reasons just before the midterm congressional elections. While I’m not qualified to deduce just how much safer the industry has been made following the BP disaster earlier in the year, I do wonder if six months provides enough time to compose both a full and proper analysis and then implement any new changes that such an analysis would dictate. The director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management made a statement that doesn’t really offer a full endorsement in one direction or the other:

“There has been significant progress over the last few months in enhancing the safety of future drilling operations, and in addressing some of the weaknesses in spill containment and oil spill response. More needs to be done, but we believe the risks of deepwater drilling have been reduced sufficiently to allow drilling under existing and new regulations.”

I find myself hinging on two parts of the statement above. If “more needs to be done” why would we be returning to business as usual when it comes to offshore drilling? Why would the ‘more’ that needs to be done not take precedence if the risks still exist? Also, if more needs to be done how can the statement that ‘the risks of deepwater drilling have been reduced sufficiently’ be made? Surely ‘sufficiently’ also means enough, if the risks have been reduced ‘enough’ then it doesn’t make sense that more would need to be done. The reality is most probably a compromise has been made between making some improvements versus making all necessary improvements. The potential for a future disaster has probably been reduced to a certain degree but not eliminated.

Naturally there is an argument that says deep-sea drilling is inherently a dangerous business. The question remains as to whether another spill with the potential for loss of marine and human life, plus the environmental devastation that goes with it is just a risk we have to accept? Reading between the lines the answer is yes we do (not that I feel we should) but the risk has been reduced to a certain extent. I’m not a professional gambler but if this were roulette it’s as if the double zero has been taken off of the wheel and we’re told not to worry about the single zero that remains as the ball never lands there. Of course my lack of expertise in offshore drilling knowledge results in that being an oversimplification but I would challenge a government official or oil executive to disagree with the fundamental facts that short of slowing the industry down for six months the environmental risks remain completely in play.

On the other side of the equation oil industry executives are proclaiming that the far more demanding regulations from the Interior Department will result in far fewer permits being issued and a resultant reduction in new drilling projects. In an obtuse justification for meeting demand (or making money?) the executives are in essence complaining about regulations that they were part of creating and which safeguard the industry from which they profit. The point being debated is that new permits are far too difficult to acquire, whereas before the BP event permits were given out far too easily. I can’t help feeling that the issue should more closely mirror what happened in the North Sea after the Piper Alpha disaster in the 1980s. The focus at that time was to deeply study the existing oil rigs for safety rather than make it almost impossible to begin new drilling. That seems to make more sense as the existing rigs in theory at least pose a greater risk.

Reluctantly I’m realistic enough to know that offshore drilling will continue although I feel it should end. If it must continue it must be in everybody’s best interest to delay the process to a point where the risk is mathematically as low as possible, not just ‘significantly lower’. Anything less than that will almost certainly result in a future disaster potentially thousands of feet below the ocean surface once again.