Posted on 09/17/2008 9:41:42 AM PDT by markomalley
It took 4.2 million gallons of oil spewing from a blowout at a rig in the Santa Barbara Channel 40 years ago to ignite the modern conservation movement, trigger new environmental protections and lead to a moratorium on new offshore oil drilling.
But the high price of a gallon of gasoline is fueling a change in attitude.
Recent national polls indicate that seven out of 10 people support new drilling offshore along the federal outer continental shelf, which extends from three to 200 miles beyond the shore.
If costly new exploration in those areas is allowed, oil from those fields would not be available for 20 years, according to Department of Energy estimates. The amount of oil extracted would add a tiny percentage to meet global demand, with little promise of lowering pump prices.
Still, consumers' outcry about the soaring cost of gas might alter the country's energy policy.
Leaders in both parties have expressed willingness to allow new offshore drilling. The Republicans even punctuated their convention earlier this month with the chant: "Drill, baby, drill!"
Two weeks ago, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to approve sending a letter to the governor, encouraging him to change a policy to allow more oil drilling off the shores of Santa Barbara County.
The letter is merely symbolic, and two candidates running to replace Supervisor Brooks Firestone, the pivotal third vote, have said they will vote to rescind the letter.
But coming from the county that incubated opposition to offshore drilling, the letter of support might be emblematic of the national shift.
In fact, the House on Tuesday approved a measure that would allow drilling 50 miles off a state's shore as long as the state went along. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required.
"I think we're seeing oil company opportunism," said John Abraham Powell, president of Get Oil Out, a Santa Barbara-based group formed after the spill four decades ago. "They're trying to get more oil and sell more oil, but this idea that somehow this is going to reduce the cost of fuel or our dependence on foreign oil is patently false."
'Petroleum plus'
Bob Poole, a senior coordinator for the industry advocacy group Western States Petroleum Association, argues that drilling offshore and pursuing alternative forms of energy are not mutually exclusive.
"Our approach is petroleum plus," said Poole.
The group has had representatives speak to several local government boards, including the Ventura City Council last month as well as the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors.
"Petroleum plus means that we clearly have to do everything we can in terms of conservation, operating efficiency and sustainable alternatives, but we also need to prudently develop our petroleum reserves," Poole said.
At least at the moment, it appears both the public and politicians are more amenable to drilling in areas that for years many considered off limits.
"Opinions about drilling offshore have shifted," said Mike Edwards, vice president of Venoco. The company operates three rigs — Grace, Gail and Holly — offshore in the Santa Barbara Channel, plus a handful of onshore facilities in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. The company is also using new "directional drilling" from existing rigs to tap into reserves many miles away, Edwards said.
Every barrel pumped out domestically is one fewer barrel that has to be imported, Edwards said. And although the price people pay at the pump may have contributed to changing attitudes, what is more significant is the offshore safety record companies have had since the 1969 spill.
"We've shown you can operate in one of the most sensitive areas in the world and do it safely," Edwards said.
Since the disaster, rigs in federal waters — from two to 200 miles offshore — have spilled just 852 barrels, according to Minerals Management Services.
"That's less than a week's worth of 100 to 150 barrels of oil that seep naturally into the water," said John Romero, a spokesman for Minerals Management Services in Camarillo, which regulates drilling in federal waters off the California coast.
Environmentalists counter that offshore oil development is still risky, pointing to an oil spill off Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1997; a hydrogen sulfide leak from a Gaviota processing plant that same year; and gas leaks and PCB (polychlorinated biphenyls) spills from other platforms, not to mention numerous onshore spills during that time.
43 active offshore leases
There are 79 federal leases off the California coast, but oil is being pumped out of just 43. The 36 other leases are tied up in a sort of limbo because of litigation between California and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
Oil from the active leases is sucked up by 23 rigs that dot the coast from the waters south of Long Beach to north of Point Conception. Together, they pump about 26 million barrels of oil a year — a little more than the 20 million barrels of oil consumed in a single day in the United States — according to the Energy Information Administration.
Although estimates on the proven reserves off California's shores are pegged at about 455 million barrels, the amount of recoverable oil off the state's coast could be as much as 10 billion barrels, with as much as 2 billion barrels in areas off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, according to Romero of Minerals Management Services.
But the benefit from tapping those reserves could be minor. According to an analysis done last year by the Energy Information Administration, opening up the new offshore oil leases in the lower 48 states would not boost total supply until after 2020. And it may only increase the estimated 2.2 million barrels of oil produced daily by about 250,000 barrels, the report said.
Reserves here seen as valuable
But with oil prices having reached $146 a barrel this year, the offshore reserves here are very valuable to oil companies.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne already has directed Minerals Management Service to start a five-year program for developing new leasing and exploration offshore.
"Clearly, today's escalating energy prices and the widening gap between U.S. energy consumption and supply have changed the fundamental assumptions on which many of our decisions were based," Kempthorne said this summer.
Up until this week, the agency was taking public comments on the plan and had solicited input from the governors of all 50 states. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said he continues to oppose more drilling offshore.
Many veterans of the fight over oil development offshore have said the argument is being unfairly framed.
"It's a big mistake to think this will have any effect on prices we pay at the pump," said Linda Krop, chief counsel for Environmental Defense Center in Santa Barbara, an environmental advocacy group set up in the wake of the 1969 spill.
This push to drill has more to do with politics and oil companies' "trying to capitalize on people's frustration to the price at the pump" than energy policy, Krop said.
The amount of supply offshore is a drop in the bucket in the total amount consumed by the world and won't even be accessible for two more decades, Krop said.
She pointed to the risks of a catastrophic spill that would hurt fishing and tourism and says the current debate diverts attention from a more forward thinking energy policy that includes alternatives to oil.
"We'd be creating a lot of impacts locally — 30 years or more of impacts — in exchange for a few months' supply of oil," Krop said. "It's just not worth it."
I contacted the author of the piece and told him he should try including some actual facts in articles.
For instance, the “6 months supply” canard assumes we can pump 18 billion barrels of oil out of the ground in that amount of time.
Sheesh.
Have these idiots in D.C. given any thought what would happen to them personally should we have an economic collapse due to high oil prices. The hippies in ‘68 are now in charge of our country and look where we are headed.
We won’t have to be worried about outsourcing of jobs b/c even the chicoms are experiencing a financial meltdown. Their stock market is down 60% since Nov07. If/when our Wall Street goes to 6,000, the idiots in D.C. will be forcibly removed.
Do you know what the bill number is? I can’t find one article where the author trusts the reader to read to actual bill.
H.R.6899
Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/dailydigest
Because of anticipated legal actions taken by watermelon (green outside, red inside) groups.
>>If costly new exploration in those areas is allowed, oil from those fields would not be available for 20 years,
Because of anticipated legal actions taken by watermelon (green outside, red inside) groups.<<
And political complications from leftist and RINO state politicians (and vetos from Obama if he is elected).
Do the people have enough understanding and political will to stop the idiots from delaying oil and gas development? Since we already have too many rogue judges, is it too late?
SEC. 166. BAN ON EXPORT OF ALASKAN OIL
(a) Repeal of Provision Authorizing Exports- Section 28(s) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185(s)) is repealed.
(b) Reimposition of Prohibition on Crude Oil Exports- Upon the effective date of this Act, subsection (d) of section 7 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406(d)), shall be effective, and any other provision of that Act (including sections 11 and 12) shall be effective to the extent necessary to carry out such section 7(d), notwithstanding section 20 of that Act or any other provision of law that would otherwise allow exports of oil to which such section 7(d) applies.
Brilliant, ban something that isn’t happening.
For decades that ban existed. In 1996 it was finally (thankfully) removed. For a few years about 5.5% of the Alaskan North Slope oil was exported due to a glut on the West Coast. But that has happened since 2001.
When the ban existed, the Alaskan North Slope price sometimes crashed due to oversupply on the West Coast. It resulted in lower oil production because the oil companies were not willing to invest during those periods and lowered investments in fear of repeating events.
Alaska North Slope Wellhead Acquisition Price by First Purchasers
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/f005071__3m.htm
Look at the prices during 1986, 1988 and 1994 for example.
That bad policy resulted in less American Oil Produced, less jobs, less investment in America. We are already the closest, largest importing market to Alaska; it needs no law for the oil to come here as long as we need it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.