Getting on without the ONSHORE Act: A geologist’s view
In January, U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) along with Senators John Hoeven (R-ND), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) introduced their Senate Bill S-2319, named the ONSHORE Act.
The primary purpose of the ONSHORE Act is to eliminate what they consider harmful regulations by the federal government and transfer the power to offer leases to the states. This transfer from federal to state control would allow petroleum companies to drill or frack with much less regulatory conditions. As stated by Senator Lee in an opinion article published on suindependent.com April 29:
“I’m sure many of those activists in Washington, D.C. who are looking to keep Utah’s energy buried underground through cumbersome federal regulations are motivated by good intentions. But make no mistake: There is a very real cost to their agenda. It is a human cost as well as a financial cost.”
In fact, there is an agenda, and yes, some regulations, such as the time it takes the government to process a lease for drilling or fracking, are slow-moving. Actually, those so-called harmful regulations were put in place to protect our natural resources, our environmental conditions, and our quality of life.
However, allowing the states to bypass various studies and speed up the application process allows for more potential problems than it solves.
To a degree, I see this conflict as being similar to parents establishing rules for their children, such as not running in the street, not driving and texting, eating one’s vegetables, doing one’s homework, and so on. These parental rules are to help and protect children.
Similarly, I see federal regulations as preventing individual states from doing things for the benefit of the few and not the many. Perhaps it’s a crude analogy, but I think appropriate as discussed below
Utah Senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch and their three colleagues have dragged out the same tired old argument: that we’ve got to get the federal government and their supposedly annoying regulations off our backs. Let the people in Utah and other states (read: conservative lawmakers) determine when, where, and how much we should drill and frack for fossil fuels. We need to get rid of those “harmful regulations” that prevent state politicians from allowing the petroleum industry to do as they wish with minimal regulation or safety controls. This is perhaps a strange thing for me to object to, seeing as how I am a geologist with a Ph.D. and have taught quite a few students who came to be employed by the petroleum industry.
Senator Lee also mentions the financial and human costs of these federal regulations.
Well, I’ve noticed that since most of these regulations have been in place, there haven’t been any major petroleum production accidents in the U.S. such as the disastrous 2010 BP Horizon well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. Gasoline prices have been noticeably lower for the past few years (mid 2013-17), although these lower prices are primarily due to the OPEC countries producing a glut of oil, thereby driving the price of crude oil down in an attempt to strangle production in the U.S. That has been a successful plan and has clearly depressed U.S. hydrocarbon production.
So what would be the advantage of eliminating federal regulations to allow more domestic drilling and fracking? With this in mind, one comment in Lee’s opinion piece is a bit ironic: “Thankfully, the Trump administration has made it a point to clear away many harmful regulations as part of its ‘Energy Dominance Agenda.’”
While on this subject of increased drilling and fracking, are any of these five senators aware that fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal are non-renewable resources that at some point in the not-too-distant future will be exhausted? Most of these fuels have been formed by organic remains buried and altered within the rock record over the last 400 million years of Earth’s history. At our present rate of consumption, which is likely to increase, we will have exhausted this resource within a few hundred years.
Consider also that approximately 6,000 products are made with petroleum and petroleum byproducts. Some are frivolous, but some are critical.
So in the future, how will this resource be utilized? Will it be used for fuel or for manufacturing products?
Considering human costs, it appears from government statistics that unemployment has decreased in the U.S. and that air and water quality have improved in most areas of the country. Rolling back established regulations will certainly not help maintain air and water quality standards.
In Utah, if this bill passes, the presumed increase in drilling and fracking will create some jobs, but most of them will be short term, mainly in developing new fields.
Furthermore, according to the information presented by Senator Lee, in the State of Utah “… there are 18,000 good-paying jobs in hydrocarbon industries.” Well, I checked and found that the estimated population of Utah as of 2017 is about 3.1 million people, so those 18,000 jobs represent significantly less than one percent of the population (0.6 percent).
So why is this bill being promoted?
How about if we “follow the money”? The list below shows the amounts received in 2018 from oil and gas producers to the five senators who have sponsored this bill:
—John Barrasso (R-WY): $291,900.
—Orrin Hatch (R-UT): $156,500.
—Mike Lee (R-UT): $22,600.
—John Hoeven (R-ND): $11,920.
—Mike Enzi (R-WY): $3,000.
Do you suppose these “donations” have any bearing on their proposal?
On the subject of money, who will really benefit if this legislation is approved and implemented? Will it be the few workers who will have “good-paying jobs,” or will others who reap the benefits in the long term?
Here is the yearly compensation of a few oil company CEOs (2013–15), which are definitely “good-paying jobs”:
—Ray Irani, Occidental Petroleum: $80,730,000
—John Drosdick, Sunoco: $46,190,000
—Clarance Cazalot Jr., Marathon Oil: 43,700,000
—James Mulva, ConocoPhillips: $31,340,000
—Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil: $28,138,000
—J.S. Watson, Chevron Corp: $24,017,000
It is also more than likely that should it pass, the legality of this bill will immediately be challenged in court, and of course, attorney fees and various court costs will come from state funds.
Personally, I consider the proposed bill by Senator Lee and others to be misguided and heading backwards.
So to close with a bit of moralizing, we as a species like to consider ourselves to be highly intelligent. In fact, that is one of the defining characteristics of modern humans. So why are we not acting intelligently? We are breeding like crazy, and our population is exploding out of control, with over seven billion souls now and a projected 8 billion by 2040. In our country, it seems that acquisition of money and power have become the driving force for many. It’s like the American Dream on steroids! Many of these people seem to have no thoughts or interest in the future — only for instant acquisition.
I wonder if Senator Lee, who has three children, has stopped to consider what his actions may mean for his children in the future.
Articles related to “Getting on without the ONSHORE Act: A geologist’s view”
Human population growth: Is the explosion a blessing or a curse?
Global warming denials: Can you say intellectually dishonest?
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
Thank you for this piece. You have said many things I would like to have said about this topic- I’m an environmental toxicologist who works with these regulations and I often feel that my voice is muzzled by organizational discipline. We need to start managing our resources intelligently, and incorporate more “stewardship” into our management. We basically need to start thinking of “farming” water and air (which means farming natural ecosystems) that we will need on this planet going forward- for Mike Lee’s grandchildren as well as ours.
I have never understood the rapacious “make a buck despite the cost” attitude of the people who are paying our politicians, or the total immersion in the “game” of power and the payback received for throwing the vaults open exhubited by our politicians. It’s like they all believe there will be no future, or seem to be utterly unconcerned about it. I hope their children can eat money while they live amid their hellscape.
C Line.
Thanks very much for your supportive comments about my opinion on Onshore Oil. You clearly are also aware of this weird situation, which seems to result from the lure of money and power. It does seem to make many people oblivious or indifferent to the future. I’ve thought for some time that they basically act and behave behave like a drug addict. No thoughts except for getting their next fix.
I’d be glad to hear more of your ideas…