Alabama's congressional delegation has underscored a dilemma at the core of US energy politics.
Americans across the country demand energy in steadily growing amounts. Yet in some places they won't stand for the minor surface disturbance that comes with development of energy resources.
Florida is one of those places. The state's citizenry needs increasing volumes of natural gas for the generation of electrical power. But its politicians want the gas to come from elsewhere.
Alabama's politicians have declared that "elsewhere" has had its fill of the hypocrisy.
Late last month, lawmakers from the state won House approval of an appropriations bill amendment blocking construction of a 753-mile pipeline that would carry gas from near Mobile, Ala., across the Gulf of Mexico to central and southern Florida (OGJ Online, June 28, 2001).
They acted after Florida's lawmakers coaxed the House into denying funds for Gulf of Mexico Sale 181 of federal tracts off their state, tentatively planned for December.
"If Florida deems it does not need the resources that the lease sale would bring, then it doesn't need a pipeline, either," said a spokesman for Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Ala.), who introduced the pipeline measure.
Necessary point
Placing resource development against consumption in that fashion makes a necessary point, which is nevertheless doomed to obscurity.
The current US political mood makes rational attention to energy-which would of course balance requirements for supply against the intensity of need-scarcer than electricity in California.
Besides, who needs humdrum like that on a stage so lavishly set for political drama? There's the sibling tension between Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and US President George W. Bush, whom Democrats need to discredit in every imaginable way. There are Florida's festering wounds from the president's election controversy. There are the approaching congressional elections.
Under these conditions, a nasty spat between states might attract some measure of notice. But the national implications of Florida's phobia about energy development won't make it into the spotlight.
That's too bad. The resource potential of federal land off western Florida is great (OGJ, June 11, 2001, p. 41). The Sale 181 area lies south of an undeveloped gas discovery extending the Mobile Bay deep gas trend 40 miles eastward. Florida and the rest of the US need natural gas. The US Treasury needs the revenues that would result from leasing and production.
Because Floridians don't like the mere thought of oil and gas drilling, however, the House voted against the sale, and the Department of Interior last week cut the sale area's size by 75% to 1.5 million acres (see Newsletter, p. 7).
Alabama's pipeline gambit, an amendment to an energy and water appropriations bill, won't fare so well. It's unlikely to survive action by the Senate and House-Senate conference.
Nor should it. Gulfstream Natural Gas System LLC has begun construction of the $1.6 billion pipeline project, which includes 452 miles of 36-in. marine pipeline. The project shouldn't stall at this point because of what is, after all, a political stunt.
But the Alabama lawmakers' message about Floridian obstinacy shouldn't wither for lack of media spice, either. They have reason to be outraged.
Florida's politicians-and apparently a major share of the state's voters-have frightened themselves silly over offshore drilling. They are certain that the activity would spoil their shores and wreck tourism. No recitation of the offshore drilling industry's safety record or description of modern technology will change their minds.
They're wrong, of course. But the rest of the country should examine their position within the framework of their flawed assumptions. What if drilling actually threatened coastlines to the extent Floridians imagine?
In that case, their opposition to Sale 181 and to drilling in general would be more than hypocritical. It would be altogether uncivil.
It would imply that Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi should sully their shores with resource development beneficial to all Americans and tidily pipe hydrocarbons to Florida so beaches there can remain safe for miniature golf courses and go-cart tracks.
Candlelight
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) interprets the Florida position that way.
"Florida rivals California as a prime example of the not-in-my-backyard syndrome," he said during discussion of the House pipeline move. "Let Florida take the lead in conservation. Let them make do with half the natural gas they are projected to need.
"If Florida is going to lead America to greater dependence on foreign sources of energy, let them do it with candlelight."
DeLay's tirade will remind industry veterans of a battle cry that emerged decades ago when East Coast states pressed their successful resistance to federal oil and gas leasing in the Atlantic: Let the Yankees freeze in the dark.
Of course, nobody in the oil and gas industry says that anymore. Everybody knows it's uncivil.
