Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

This is the second installment of Critical Questions related to the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drill rig and the subsequent oil spill that has resulted from the failure of the well to be capped and shut down. Readers are referred to our earlier (April 23) feature entitled Gulf Oil Rig Explosion for additional details and commentary.

Q1: What is being done to contain the oil spill?

A1: At this writing, a combined effort by federal, state, and local governments, in combination with the private sector and volunteer organizations, has mobilized to attempt to contain and clean up the massive oil slick that is moving toward the U.S. coast in the Gulf of Mexico. Of greatest concern are oyster harvest areas, wildlife sanctuaries, marshlands, fisheries, and beaches. Over the weekend at least six separate staging areas had been set up along the coastal areas, and the entire effort currently involves several thousand workers and over 300 vessels, including aircraft.

With respect to spill containment, a number of surface efforts are underway simultaneously, including the installation of over 50 miles of floating boom barriers, the introduction of chemical dispersants (think detergents that break down the oil into small droplets that can then be absorbed by microbes), surface burning, and skimming and collection. Unfortunately, rough seas and strong winds have limited the effectiveness of these efforts.

In addition, BP, the operator of the Macondo well site in which the accident occurred, is set to deploy massive steel containment domes that they intend to lower to the seabed to capture escaping oil from the well hole and then pump the oil to the surface to a floating storage vessel, though this effort too has challenges at these (5,000 feet) water depths.

Aside from containment activity, the real focus of the effort is aimed at reducing the well pressure and stemming and sealing the leak. In addition to other redundant mechanisms designed to seal and cap the well in the event of a pressure surge, down-hole blowout preventers (BOPs) were installed to handle such eventualities, but they failed to operate correctly. Consequently, submersible robots have been deployed to the seabed floor to physically stem the flow, but it is possible that the BOPs were damaged when the drilling rig structure sunk and collapsed on the drill pipe. Efforts are also underway to drill a “relief” well(s) to divert the oil flow in order to relieve the well pressure and allow the well to be sealed off eventually.

Q2: How has this accident impacted U.S. energy policy, especially efforts to increase leasing acreage and oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)?

A2: It is premature to fully gauge the impact of the blowout and spill on future leasing and production activity except to speculate (with a high degree of confidence) that, at a minimum, greater regulatory scrutiny; calls for additional system redundancy, including testing; and spill containment plans will (and should) be enhanced, as a once-unthinkable type of calamitous accident has now occurred. While some groups and politicians have used the accident to reinforce calls for reimposing a moratorium on further offshore drilling, the administration has taken the thoughtful and pragmatic approach of delaying new leasing decisions pending a determination of what really caused the accident and a spill of this magnitude (e.g., inadequate safeguards and containment plans, defective equipment, human error, etc.), and it should be commended for doing so in the face of political pressure.

The United States is the world’s third-largest oil producer, and roughly a quarter of our current production comes from the Gulf coast OCS. Some 97 percent of our transportation requirements are met with petroleum-based fuels. Oil-based products are also used as lubricants, as industrial and home heating fuels, and in petrochemicals, medicines, clothing, and foodstuffs. And while it is laudable and prudent to advocate for cleaner and alternative fuel forms, as a practical matter, there is currently no available technology that exists at scale able to replace our need for oil (and gas).

Events of the past several weeks, including the mining explosion and global nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea, reinforce the notion that all of our energy choices come with some inherent risk. Renewables have intermittency challenges, and the electric grid could be subject to cyber security, as well as physical sabotage. Consequently, even as we advance research for and promote new alternative, clean-fuel technologies, we need to ensure that our conventional system also remains robust. In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon accident, ensuring that robustness will now also require a reexamination of existing technologies and safeguards for offshore oil and gas operations as well.

Frank A. Verrastro is senior vice president and director of the Energy and National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2010 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.