That said, if we vote "Yes, it's too much risk", we need to be prepared to step up and live differently in an oil-independent culture. That is a different question.  I'd like to say YES I'm prepared, but what I really mean is that I'm prepared to learn how to do it.  I have no clue yet how it would really work out.

 This question is posed in an overly absolutist way.  One offshore rig blew up - that doesn't mean the ENTIRE NOTION of offshore drilling - and there are like, tons of rigs that didn't blow up - is suddenly unviable.  The question is, why were there no backup safety procedures for this?  This reminds me of people talking about how capitalism had failed as soon as the recession hit.  The recession is huge, but not so huge it undermines the entire economic system by which our society has sustained itself for at least a century (depending on where you say mercantilism ended and capitalism began).  All it did was go to show, we need to regulate this.

One?

Since the 1960s there have been about 20 oil spills of more than 20 million gallons: off the coast of Mexico, the Middle East, off South Africa, in the North Pacific, and in Alaska, as well as in the pipeline in Usink, Russia. The second largest oil spill until the current one (and we don't know how big that will be yet) was from the Ixtox-1 well off Mexico: a blowout of 140 million gallons.

The Piper Alpha oil rig explosion and fire on July 6, 1988, killed 167 men (there were 59 survivors). The total insured loss was about £1.7 billion (US$ 3.4 billion). 

The largest spills do not necessarily receive the most media coverage, either because of their location, the lack of human health or ecological effects, the lack of documentation of these effects, or a lack of media interest.

For example the 1980 Nowruz field spill in Arabia (80 million gallons) and the 1992 Fergana Valley spill in Uzbekistan (80 million gallons) barely received any attention. In contrast, two smaller spills received enormous media attention: the oil tanker Amoco Cadiz released 68.7 million gallons off the coast of France in 1978, and the tanker Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons into Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989.

Short-term public health impacts from oil spills include accidents suffered by those on damaged tankers or those involved in the cleanup, and illnesses caused by toxic fumes or by eating contaminated fish or shellfish.

There are other less obvious public health impacts, including losses and disruptions of commercial and recreational fisheries, seaweed harvesting, boating, and a variety of other uses of affected water. There are also emotional, aesthetic, and economic losses, such as when Native Americans and others are denied subsistence or recreational uses. In both the case of the Exxon Valdez and the Amoco Cadiz there were permanent changes to the social and cultural communities residing in the region, which had permanent public health consequences, including economic decline, chronic psychological stress and suicides.

Here's a list of spills from "factmonster":

 Safe, eh?

It only took one off-shore oil rig disaster to wreck the fishing industry of Louisiana for who knows how long.

But of course that leads to a question of whether we can rightly fish as an industry.  What has happened to the Cod beds can also happen to the shrimp beds one would assume.  Do we really have a right to fish in the open ocean or should we only be able to eat food that we grow/raise ourselves?  Fish farms have their own environmental issues but perhaps they need to be in self contained spring fed but salt lakes, not in areas that connect with the open ocean or something.

Ocean drilling feels way too risky to me and it feels like a land spill is easier to contain and clean but that is just a gut feeling.  I have no knowledge of that.

It does worry me though I am not sure what the alternatives are.  Realistically even if mankind throughout the world ceased to drive cars and all rode bikes , horses or walked; we would still need tons of oil for farming, heating, industy.  We are long past the population where we all live on farms and grow what we need.  We need heavy industrial farming to feed the world.

 all oil extraction comes with risks and pollution as part of the process. Land drilling, water drilling, tar sands....

But it worries me when we think of artic oil drilling.  all the same risks plus add extreme weather.  We all know how clumsy and ackward it can be to do anything outside in the extreme cold.  How just getting something out of your pocket with mitts on is impossible.  these folks will handle complex, heavy, brittle with cold machinery.

It worries me, in that uneducated way that many things i dont' know alot about worry me.

I am puzzled why it's hard to cap the well.  One would think that the ability to do that is a given for each and every well there is.  And I dont' totally get why they can't figure out how to contain the slick.  I understand weather is an issue but weather is always an issue so aren't they prepared?  I thought burning it off was working only to see it hasn't.  I don't know, why don't they put a row of ships infront of it and turn the propellors so they push it backwards.  Simplistic i know but surely they can think of some thing.

The risk of environment destruction is only going to increase as resources decline and as long as we allow our dependence to continue to grow these accidents are only going to become more frequent.

Renewable energy sources are looking better every day, if only there was the political will to make a serious commitment to facing the reality we need to change now.