[StBernard] Sen. Landrieu responds to flawed NYT editorial

[Westley Annis]

Dear Friend,

Last week, the New York Times published an editorial
<http://landrieu.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=21
00061036.5295.211&gen=1&mailing_linkid=13862>  supporting the Obama
administration's blanket 6-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling. The
editorial was based upon a flawed and incomplete analysis of the
moratorium's severe economic impact on the already struggling Gulf Coast.
Today, the New York Times was gracious enough to print my letter to the
editor
<http://landrieu.enews.senate.gov/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=21
00061036.5295.211&gen=1&mailing_linkid=13863> , where I noted a few of their
editorial's flaws. But since the Times limits letters to the editor to 200
words, it was impossible to offer a full rebuttal. Below you will find a
more complete response that I hope you will share with your friends and
family.

Sincerely,

Mary

A Response to Supporters of the Moratorium
July 20, 2010

The New York Times editorial "A New, Necessary, Moratorium" displays a
stunning lack of understanding of U.S. offshore energy exploration and
production.  The piece does a disservice to its readers by making an
out-of-touch argument, especially in light of a new Bloomberg News poll that
found that 73 percent of Americans oppose the Administration's moratorium.

New deepwater drilling employs substantially more people directly and
indirectly, and sustains more small businesses than the 3,432 platforms
currently producing oil in the Gulf. Just as it takes thousands of suppliers
and construction workers to construct a high-rise building, but only a
handful to maintain it, so it is with energy exploration. Cutting off this
exploration is more ruinous to the region than the oil soiling our beaches
and polluting our marshes, and its effects potentially more far-reaching.

The fact is that thousands of jobs are created and sustained across the Gulf
Coast when new wells are drilled.  These are labor intensive operations.
Once a well is online, it is producing profits for oil companies, not jobs
for crewmen, deck hands, engineers, welders, ROV operators, caterers,
helicopter pilots, drivers, or fabricators.  Minimal labor is required to
tend a passively producing well. 

By shutting down the 33 rigs in the Gulf conducting new deepwater drilling
and halting the movement of six more rigs that were coming to the Gulf this
summer, the blanket moratorium has effectively laid off as many as 46,000
workers living in 68 percent of U.S. congressional districts. The net effect
is like laying off every police officer and firefighter in Mississippi,
Alabama and Louisiana.

Anyone familiar with the industry knows that every one of these rigs can
leave the Gulf for years, which would put 46,000 jobs in jeopardy long after
the moratorium is lifted. Some rigs are already on their way to foreign
countries, like two Diamond Offshore platforms that are currently heading to
Africa. Others may follow suit if something is not done soon.

Second, supporters on the moratorium must account the hundreds of thousands
of indirect jobs that will be lost due to a prolonged moratorium. The Gulf
Economic Survival Team has presented findings that Louisiana alone could
lose up to 120,000 jobs by 2014, if moratorium remains in place for longer
than six months. Dun & Bradstreet analysts have shown that more than 2,800
businesses in Louisiana will be impacted.  Armed with this data, it is clear
that one-time $100 million fund specifically for rig workers will not even
scratch the surface to keep these businesses afloat and help workers feed
their families. Given the economic ripple effect of the drilling moratorium,
this $100 million fund will be just a drop in the bucket.

Thirdly, it is important to note that the oil and gas experts brought in to
advise the Administration on future offshore energy production roundly
rejected the idea of a prolonged moratorium. In a letter to my office, the
experts wrote, "A blanket moratorium is not the answer. It will not
measurably reduce risk further and it will have a lasting impact on the
nation's economy which may be greater than that of the oil spill. We do not
believe punishing the innocent is the right thing to do." We must ourselves:
Why is the input from experts being ignored?

Finally, supporters of the moratorium totally ignore the increased
environmental risks associated with shutting off new domestic offshore
production. The moratorium does nothing to reduce America's daily
consumption of 20 million barrels of oil. This oil is needed to power our
cars and make products that we depend on every day. By stopping new drilling
here, we simply export our oil production to foreign countries like Egypt,
Nigeria and Venezuela that do not have the resources, safety standards or
political will to protect the world's oceans. In addition, more oil from
overseas will be tankered to our shores. According to the National Academy
of Sciences, prior to this spill, oil tankers contributed four times as much
oil in our oceans as the practice of oil exploration and extraction. Is that
the environmental solution the U.S. wants to advocate?

Americans deserve to have the facts of about the impact of this
ill-conceived policy. That should start with a fair representation of both
the economic and environmental impacts of this deepwater moratorium.