Congressman
John E. Peterson

Opponents of offshore production rely on fear, not facts

By Congressman John E. Peterson
May 2006

In what was seen around Washington and in many parts of the country as a courageous stand for a Florida newspaper to take, the Ft. Myers News-Press came out last week in support of a plan I recently introduced in Congress that would finally allow us to access our own vast domestic reserves of natural gas in federal waters offshore.

In offering that endorsement, the newspaper was forced to sort through and exorcise some major demons about offshore energy production given stature by those who either genuinely believe drilling to be inimical to the state’s long-term interests, or who seek to seize upon a political opportunity by giving undue weight to unsubstantiated, and emotionally driven, environmental fears.

I won’t suggest for a second that Florida’s senior senator, Bill Nelson, falls into that latter category. But I will suggest that the distinguished gentleman would do well to approach the subject of offshore natural gas drilling with an open mind and fresh perspective independent of, and unencumbered by, fears he may have about the exploration and production of oil.

Such were on display in this space yesterday, as Sen. Nelson went to great lengths to respond to the News-Press editorial which took a favorable view of my natural gas legislation. The senator was quick to point out that there was, in fact, a recorded case of a natural gas well spoiling a beach in the history books: Pacific Ocean, 1969, off the California coast near Santa Barbara.

And what a spill it was, apparently. According to historical accounts, a full 200,000 gallons of crude oil were released, resulting in what the senator cites as an “800-square-mile slick” which “blackened 35 miles of California beach and killed thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, fish and other wildlife.”

It killed thousands of seals? Now, Sen. Nelson, you have my attention. But wait. In constructing that emotional image, he fails to mention how the natural gas that ostensibly wisped into the air after the oil spill had anything to do with the surrounding environment damage.

Oil may have seeped and spread from that well, but natural gas did not – and that’s an inconvenient fact opponents of my legislation are forced to wrestle with at night. Worse for them yet, natural gas burns clean, it can be extracted safely, and contrary to Sen. Nelson’s stated belief, we can produce it without pulling up any oil. One only needs to look north to see that particular process in action, as the Canadians drill only for natural gas in Lake Erie everyday and then sell it to us.

Legislation I’ve offered with Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat from Hawaii of all places, would finally allow the United States to start taking advantage of our vast natural gas resources in the same way that every other coastal country in the world has done for both oil and gas for years. And it would help American businesses, who use natural gas as both an energy source and a raw material, better compete with their counterparts around the world – such as China – which pay two, three, even 10 times less for natural gas than we do here at home.

China, in fact, is an interesting case study. The Chinese are so keen on the idea of securing additional energy supplies in an attempt to lower national energy costs that they are currently in negotiations with Fidel Castro to buy up tracts of water only 45 miles from the Florida coast. They’ll soon find out, however, that it’s already pretty crowded down there: Canada and Spain have dropped wells already, and Norway, Venezuela, and others – just about everyone but the United States – are not far behind.

Sen. Nelson, however, is right on one point: We do need to accelerate a structural shift in our nation’s energy infrastructure allowing for greater use of alternative sources of power. Ethanol, as the senator suggests, should be tops on our list. I couldn’t agree more. But ethanol is generally produced from corn, and corn requires plenty of fertilizer to grow. Take those two points and set them alongside the fact that natural gas accounts for 90 percent of the cost of nitrogen fertilizer, and you see where I’m going: We need affordable natural gas to create ethanol. We need affordable natural gas to create fuel-grade hydrogen. And we need affordable natural gas to create the electricity that heats and cools a full two-thirds of American households.

Luckily we can access that natural gas safely using technology that has advanced by leaps and bounds since 1969. It says something about the safety record of the offshore industry that Sen. Nelson has to go back 36 years to find an example of an offshore oil incident that he himself calls “relatively small.” You start to wonder how long an industry has to get it right before we can start to admit it’s safe.

One thing I believe even Sen. Nelson would admit is that our economic well-being is in danger if we can’t get our arms around this energy crisis soon. Entire industries have already left this country, or are making plans to leave right now – taking with them some of the best paying jobs we have left. I believe natural gas can be the energy source that helps keep American jobs at home in the near-term, and puts us back on course toward the alternative energy future in which we all want to live.

John E. Peterson is a member of Congress representing the Fifth District of Pennsylvania. He is co-chairman of the Congressional Rural Caucus, and serves on both the House Appropriations and Resources Committees. He can be reached in Washington at 202-225-5121.