Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and…
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Deepwater Drilling Royalty Prohibition Act.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not used to incentivize the dangerous and often dirty business of offshore drilling in deep waters.
Over the past decades, Congress has established a number of royalty- relief programs to encourage domestic exploration and production in deep waters. This may have made sense in times when oil prices were too low to provide energy companies with an incentive to drill in difficult places, and before we were ready to deploy large-scale renewable energy production.
But that is no longer the case. The events of the last weeks have shown that safety and response technologies are not sufficient in deep waters. I believe taxpayer-funded incentives should go to clean, renewable energy, not deepwater drilling for oil.
The disastrous impacts of the leak from the Deepwater Horizon have shown that offshore drilling has enormous environmental and safety risks--particularly in deep waters. Eleven people died and 17 others were injured when the Deepwater Horizon caught fire. All these weeks later, we continue to watch in horror as the scope of the disaster keeps expanding:
Oil slicks spread inexorably across the Gulf of Mexico;
Pelicans and other wildlife struggle to free themselves from crude oil; tar balls spoil the pristine white sand beaches of Florida; Wetlands are coated with toxic sludge; More than 1/3 of Federal waters in the Gulf have been closed to fishing; The plumes of oil under water may create zones of toxicity or low oxygen for aquatic life; The oil may spread into the Atlantic Ocean via the Loop Current; The response techniques, such as the use of dispersants, may have their own toxic consequences; and
Upcoming storms may delay or prevent continued containment and response efforts.
The impacts of an oil spill are so dramatic and devastating, it seems clear to me that regulation, oversight and prevention technologies should be rigorous. But that is clearly not the case.
Regulators failed to ensure appropriate safety and response technologies were in place.
MMS gave BP a categorical exclusion from an environmental impact analysis that in my opinion should never have been allowed.
MMS allowed BP to run a drilling operation without the demonstrated ability to shut off the flow of gas and oil in an emergency.
MMS allowed BP to operate without remote shutoff capability in case the drilling rig became disabled.
MMS did not have an inspector on the rig to settle the heated argument between the BP, Transocean, and Halliburton officials on how they would stop drilling and plug the well.
MMS did not have--and did not require the industry to have--emergency equipment stationed in the Gulf of Mexico that could respond immediately to an emergency.
MMS did not have a plan for responding to disasters.
MMS did not, in fact, have a real inspection and compliance program. It relied on the expertise and advice of the industry on how and how much they should be inspected.
This is not how things should be done. We expect more from our government.
Prevention and response technologies show similar unacceptable deficits: they are not good enough.
These have not improved much since the oil spill in 1969 off the California coast near Santa Barbara. That too was caused by a natural gas blowout when pressure in the drill hole fluctuated. It was successfully plugged with mud and cement after 11 and a half days, but oil and gas continued to seep for months. The Santa Barbara spill was devastating, but it was a tiny fraction of the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill.
The old technology was not good enough, but now it appears that even the newest safety technology fails to prevent wellhead blowouts.
The Deepwater Horizon drill rig was just completed in 2001.
The drill rig that caused the 2009 spill in the Montara oil and gas field in the Timor Sea--one of the worst in Australia's history--was designed and built in 2007. That spill continued unchecked for 74 days.
The New York Times reports that the blind shear rams in the blowout preventers--the last line of defense to prevent wellhead leaks are ``surprisingly vulnerable'' to failure. One study found that blowout preventers have a failure rate of 45 percent.
These technologies are insufficient, and they are particularly vulnerable in deep waters.
Methane hydrate crystals form when methane gas mixes with pressurized cold ocean waters--and the likelihood of these crystals forming increases dramatically at about 400 meters depth. These crystals interfere with response and containment technologies. They formed in the cofferdam dome that was lowered onto the gushing oil in the Gulf, and prevented it from working. When a remotely operated underwater vehicle bumped the valves in the ``top hat'' device, the containment cap had to be removed and slowly replaced to prevent formation of these crystals again.
Other risks increase too, as explained by the Wall Street Journal:
Drilling in deeper water doesn't change the fundamental
process, but it makes virtually everything harder. Rigs must
be bigger so they can hold more drilling pipe to stretch vast
distances. The pipes themselves must be stronger to withstand
ocean currents. Equipment on the sea floor must be sturdier
to face extreme pressures at depth. Drill bits must be
tougher so they don't melt in the 400-degree temperatures
they encounter deep in the earth. And it is harder for
drillers to exert just the right amount of pressure down the
well bore, enough to keep oil and gas from spurting upwards--
a blowout--but not so much that they crack open the rocks
beneath the surface, which could also lead to a blowout.
It is clear that prevention, containment, and clean-up measures are not sufficient to handle oil leaks, particularly in deep waters.
American taxpayers should not forego revenue to incentivize offshore drilling. It is not good environmental policy, and it is not good energy policy either.
We need to move to clearer renewable fuels.
I believe that global warming is the biggest environmental crisis we face--and the biggest culprit of global warming is manmade emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels, like oil and coal.
Taxpayer funded incentives should not finance production of fossil fuels--particularly in places where the production itself poses potential devastation, but rather should be used to develop and deploy clean energy technologies like wind and solar. I very much believe this.
That is why I have worked with my colleagues on a number of legislative initiatives designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase energy efficiency and incentivize the use of renewable energy.
One of our biggest victories was the enactment of the aggressive fuel economy law, called the Ten in Ten Fuel Economy Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by then-President Bush in the 110th Congress. This law, which I authored with Senator Snowe, will improve fuel economy
standards for passenger vehicles at the maximum feasible rate. The good news is that the administration has taken the framework of this law and implemented aggressive standards that require raising fleetwide fuel economy to 35.5 mpg in 2016--a 40 percent increase above today's standard.
The other positive development is that the domestic renewable energy industry has grown dramatically over the last few years. Last year, the United States added more new capacity to produce renewable electricity than it did to produce electricity from natural gas, or oil, or coal. A great deal of this growth can be attributed to government renewable energy incentives. That is where public investment in energy development should go.
It is clear that the clean energy sector is the next frontier in jobs creation.
We need to ensure that developers can access financing to launch wind, solar and geothermal projects, so that they can put people to work. Programs like The Recovery Act grant program run by the Treasury Department have been very successful in encouraging private investment in this sector. So far, the program has helped to bring 4,250 megawatts of clean power online and is expected to generate more than 143,000 green jobs by the end of the year, according to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The program, however, is set to expire at the end of year if we don't act. So, I'm working on legislation that will extend this successful program for an additional 2 years.
All told, these types of measures are helping to foster the incentives that will push the United States to adopt a cleaner energy future, and to move away from fossil fuels.
Let me make one final point clear, I don't believe the oil companies need taxpayer dollars to help them out. They are already reaping record profits.
Last year, the top 10 U.S. oil companies' combined revenues were almost $850 billion. Yet we continue to use money that should come to the U.S. Treasury, to add to their bottom line. This is unacceptable.
Oil reserves are a public resource. When a private company profits from those public resources, American taxpayers should benefit too.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and ensure that royalties owed to the taxpayers are not waived to incentivize risky off-shore drilling. In these critical economic times, every cent of the people's money should be spent wisely, on clean, efficient and safe technologies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
