Poll: Would you allow offshore drilling near your beaches?

[Schadenfroh]

Now that the Deepwater Horizon incident has settled in, has your opinion of offshore drilling in your state changed?

Mine has not, I grew up near The Gulf Coast and standing on my home state's beaches, I could see oil platforms in the distance. People still came to enjoy the beaches and many people enjoyed the jobs generated by offshore oil production.

My stance has not changed and I would like to see oil-drilling near shore (shallower waters) expanded.

 

[dammitgibs]

Hey I'm as "drill, baby, drill" as anyone, as long as it's done responsibly, whether it's off-shore or in Alaska or anywhere else, but it still comes down to a NIMBY issue. The first time I flew down the coast of California and saw the oil rigs and realized that they were visible from the beach made me think about what an eye-sore it is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Sure, go ahead- I'm not sure if the nearest beach is in California or Texas... For Righties, it'd be closer because of their Arizona Oceanfront...

 

[nageov3t]

I'm in favor of drilling off the NJ coast as long as adequate regulations and oversight are in place.

imo, the whole gulf fiasco is not an indictment of offshore drilling, but rather, of our regulatory system.

 

[Murloc]

I live in switzerland and it's a landlocked state.

I personally don't like the view of drills refineries and that stuff.
They should be unvisible from the coast for sure.

But this is not enough, sometimes on beaches there are traces of petroelum and that sucks, it gets even to far places because of the currents.
I guess that tanker ships just pollute, if there is petroelum transfer some will always get in the water.

Anyway I'd just let other states decide for themselves.
In the mediterranean sea there isn't offshore drilling afaik, but oil still gets in the sand so it isn't really an issue.

If I had to vote on the topic I don't know what I'd do. In a way it's quite interesting to see what would happen, I mean, it would be a nice push.

In the US they should ban it anyway, gas is so cheap that if the price raises a bit it isn't absolutely a problem.

 

[Harvey]

There are two issues in the question. One is the definition of an "adequate" standard of safety. If the potential down side of a failure is as bad as what is happening in the Gulf, now, and the drilling company doesn't have the proven abilities for prevention, retention and cleanup of any possible damage, the current disaster is all the proof necessary to know that one chance of failure in a giga-zillion is one chance too many.

The second issue is whether the return/yield from the effort would do anything to reduce our need for imported oil. For example, the estimated amount of oil in ANWAR is so relatively small, and the time it would take to bring it to market, that it isn't worth the effort or the risk at any level of safety.

I didn't vote in the poll because it doesn't include a sufficient definition of the word, "adequate." I wouldn't trust the oil and drilling companies to define it, let alone supervise their activities. Neither would I trust the corrupted MMS until the agency has been purged of everyone involved in the documented corruption and reconstituted under the authority and hands on guidance of established strongly pro-environmental experts in the field.

I live in switzerland and it's a landlocked state.
.
.
Anyway I'd just let other states decide for themselves.

Not a good answer. Or haven't you noticed that this disaster off the Gulf Coast may spread oil up the entire east coast? If each state could make that decision, a bad decision by any one state could adversely impact many more that would have no say about allowing a drill site that could destroy their coastline.

 

[TwinsenTacquito]

Yes, only if they are very close to shore.