What are some opinions on why oil companies drill for oil in such deep water off the US?

Answer 1

They drill in deep water, despite the high costs because US environmental laws force them to. The government doesn't want them drilling next to the shore or on land. This is what happens when we let the government try to be all things to all people. They force the companies into deep water operations, when in fact a portion of the fault lies with our inadequate government listening to environmental groups rather then makes decisions based on real abilities of mankind. The fact that Government listened to uniformed people to determine their policy is a contributing factor to this situation. Had our Government listened to experts in the field rather then extremists groups with a radical environmental agenda the situation could have been capped in a few hours. Perhaps it could have been completely avoided.

It is more likely it was the wealthy owners of ocean front real estate that did not want oil rigs in their panoramic view, that had something to do with deeper water drilling. But my research shows that the oil companies drill in deep water because that is where the oil is.

The fact is that there is a great deal of oil in places far closer and safer. If BP, or any other company, were chasing profit, this is not their first choice. There are many inland locations that would work for this purpose. These deep water wells are horrible and unsafe locations. It is the environmental groups that have caused restrictions to their drilling locations. If profit were a motivating factor, drilling inland would ALWAYS be chosen. Super deep wells (40K feet) can reach abiotic oil deep within the earth in many locations. We need a more honest and logical drilling plan for the United States that takes into account actual demands and abilities of oil companies.

Selling our oil (70% now is sold overseas) is something we should also stop, which would reduce our need to drill in unsafe locations and wage war for oil. It is crazy for the US to sell oil and use that same money to buy oil form overseas.

The scientific information and positions have to be dumbed down so much that TV anchor men think they understand what's going on. Their mis-interpretations are poorly understood by listeners, who then band together to "do the right thing". As a consequence, we have environmentalists fighting heavy Alberta oil because "it's bad" and opting for offshore drilling instead of using that available resource.

A big part of the problem is that governments have been keeping the oil companies on life support for years. If an equivalent amount of money had been directed into alternate energy, we'd be pretty much sufficiently supplied by now. Denmark, as an example, has about 20% of its power generated by wind. Wind power is increasing by about 12 fold/10yrs.

The argument that the environmental groups forced the oil companies to drill deeper, seems a little like a red herring. That is similar to the "blame the victim" approach to criminal case defenses. I agree with the person who suggested it was more likely wealthy owners of expensive homes on the shores who had that kind of influence, if it were any entity other than the greedy mega oil corporations (who have long owned our regulators and law makers).

The above statements is not true. You blame the victim only if he also did the crime. That is exactly the case here. We demand cheap and available oil on one hand and then complain when they try to drill for this oil where they can do so safely. You tell BP they must get us oil, but can only do so in certain areas, they go to those areas. It is a shame we didn't tell them to drill in Colorado, North Dakota or in reserves where this couldn't happen. They can not because our Government has restricted drilling there ONLY because of the lobbying of Environmental groups. Clean, pure and simple. Is it BP that was saying drilling in Alaska should not occur or an Environmental group? Who has the bans on slant drilling in National Parks? Is drilling there more or less dangerous? Which is a cheaper location to drill? This issue is a direct result of listening to groups that have no knowledge of drilling and the issues involved.

The Exxon corporation was allowed to stop cleanup due to Federal Demands. A true capitalist system would still have them cleaning up their mistakes, as BP should.

The idea we are somehow past peak oil (whatever that is supposed to mean) is completely uninformed. The Green Valley Reserve alone has 400 years of oil in it. If we could drill there. Abiotic oil may hold even more centuries of oil production.

If the capitalist system is causing the destruction of forests, I am curious why the largest capitalist system's forests are growing? North America has more acres of forest and thicker forests then it had 100 years ago. Did we just now turn Capitalist? If acid rain wiped out Canada's forests, how is it they are thicker and more abundant today then even 100 years ago?

The idea that "alternative" power systems will save us is probably the biggest red herring around. NO country can develop more then a small percentage of their power from these sources for a number of reasons.

Stating tuna will soon be a luxury is as silly as saying polar bears are endangered. You are speculating, rather then stating facts.

At BEST case a wind system will deliver about 8% of what is rated for the system. Solar does even worse. The fact is that we have three honest power sources today. Hydro, Nuclear and fossil fuel. Anything outside these three is still a pipe dream. This is another issue with listen to feel god groups rather then people that are experts in the field. These systems today can not deliver enough power to even reproduce the system, much less solve energy needs. If you wish to help, turn off your air handlers permanently. That is the only real method to reduce demand. The current alternatives are mostly feel good technology at present. They may work someday, but the technology is not working yet.

The fact is that the capitalist system may not be something that the non-working people enjoy much, but that tends to be because they do not participate in the system. It may not be perfect, just the best we have on the planet. The socialist system, on the other hand, has never worked long term. Great strides in achievement do not come from societies that do not reward achievement. They come from societies that allow freedom of expression and the ability to make a buck from a good idea.

Where our current system (as opposed to Capitalism) fails is the enforcement side. When liberal politicians decide a Corporation is "too large to fail" and bail them out. We currently allow unbridled greed with a safety net for large companies. In a true Capitalist society, a Corporation like BP would be forced until bankrupt, to clean up their mess and repay ANYONE hurt. Exxon spent billions cleaning up the mess they made with the Valdez. A true Capitalist society doesn't limit their liability and allow them to stop the clean up until done.

Money. Why would any corporation spend money just to lose money? Although it is more expensive than on-land drilling, off-shore drilling is profitable, more so if there are few accidents, and costs are held to a minimum. The more oil prices rise, the more profitable each oil drilling endeavor becomes.

Why off-shore as opposed to near shore: Again money. Shore land is expensive for oil companies to buy, and many people who own shore land don't want to see their property devalued by having industrial processes near by.

Blaming environmentalists is laughable and absurd, as environmentalists in general would prefer to see less oil drilling as opposed to riskier oil drilling. Another possibility:Ixtoc I, the oil spill which happened in shallow water in 1979 in the Gulf of Mexico caused irreparable damage to the ecosystem that still lingers today.

There is always the conflict between safe oil and cheap oil. Oil accidents are not preferable in areas where spills cost more money than the money it would cost to prevent them. No one is putting a gun to BP's head and saying "Drill for oil in the ocean!" They do it because they want to. It benefits them.

Further notes: It is always possible for oil companies to lobby and spend money to allow them to drill in areas such as the US National Parks. This would require extensive lobbying of politicians and spending on public ad campaigns. However, this route is also expensive particularly when there are established anti-drilling campaigns by the citizens of the area. Companies usually deem this option to be not worth it if they can find cheaper oil, e.g., in the ocean, or third-world nations such as Nigeria.

Why oil companies are banned from drilling oil on certain land areas such as Alaska:

BP has already spilled oil in Alaska due to slipshod procedures. See the 2006 Prudhoe Bay Disaster in Alaska. As recently as 2010 May 25, there was another spill in Alaska from a pumping station in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

The job of any corporation is to stay in business and make money. The idea that BP or any oil company should go out of business or that they should allow people to die off from a lack of oil for their cars or heat for their home is foolishness. A gun is absolutely pointed at the heads of all oil companies.

The choice is give to them by our Government when it listens to bad ideas from well meaning environmentalists that do not understand how the world works. They have the choice of going out of business and letting people starve and freeze or drill where they are told. BP chose to drill and try to make some money in very difficult situations. They were held at gun point. Drill here or die is absolutely a very difficult position to put any corporation.

You want spills to stop? The answer is fairly simple. Stop listening to the environmentalists and listen to people that understand what is possible. If we stopped putting pipelines in Alaska and allowed drilling in the lower 48, we would have less energy independence (read fewer wars in the Middle East) and no pipeline leaks. There would be no deep water leaks if we didn't force companies into these deep waters.

The scariest comment above is about wind being a valid alternative. Wind produces almost no actual power when you factor in the cost of energy used to build the system, the cost used to keep the blades in sync and the cost of maintenance. Most wind systems produce less then 8% of what they are claimed to produce. The main advantage of wind is that power companies receive ongoing subsidizes to keep these horribly ineffective systems running. A great first step towards a greener world would be outlawing these bird-killing machines.

An interesting side note is that the oil companies are also the major players in alternative energies. BP, the hated giant of oil, is also the number one producer of solar panels.

There is another so-called "renewable" [sic] energy source being investigated, and that is tidal-flow turbines. Put crudely they are like wind turbines but rotated by tidal streams. Again, like wind power, you could build thousands of the machines but still only generate a fraction of the power society demands; but at least tidal current patterns are practically constant and regular.

Whatever your internal politics in the US, oil companies don't choose deep-water well-sites lightly. Such installations are horrendously complex and costly, with serious hazards and risks of their own, but it's where many oil-fields lie. There is a big patch of oil and gas production platforms in the North Sea, and another field is thought to lie in the Atlantic, but I assume on the continental shelf, somewhere off Scotland.

Wells have been drilled into off-shore but shallow coastal reserves, from sites on land in very sensitive areas of Southern England; and once the drilling has stopped and the wells are in production, they are not especially noticeable because they don't take up much space and are screened by trees. (One small well, drilled in the 1950s I think, and still being "nodding donkey" pumped long after expected depletion has become something of a tourist curiosity!)

A proposal to plant a rig off the same Dorset / Hampshire coast, perhaps on a small, artificial island, was turned down on environmental grounds. Hence the offset drilling from on land. Ironically there's now (2013-14) a big debate on whether to allow a French State + Dutch consortium to build a gigantic wind-farm in pretty much the same area! (France forbids coastal wind-farms anywhere near her own seaside resorts - which are strung along most of the French coast.)

We will still need crude oil even if don't use so much petrol & diesel fuel. It is the raw material for a vast range of products, including many parts of the computer in front of you... and materials, paint, lubricating oils and hydraulic fluids for wind-powered turbo-alternators. Not to mention vast amounts of heavy fuel oil used in erecting them, especially off-shore.