Spill in Santa Barbara Channel Should Cause us to Revisit Issue of Increased Offshore Drilling
Assemblymember Pedro Nava
January 04, 2009
Last weekīs nearly 2,000 gallon spill five miles off of the coast of Carpinteria from Platform A is a grim reminder of the risks associated with offshore oil drilling and should cause us to reexamine the issue of increased petroleum exploration off of our shores.
We havenīt heard much lately from the "drill here, drill now, pay less" crowd. Just last summer they were screaming the loudest when oil prices had reached historic highs of $145 a barrel. They even managed to persuade some folks to adopt their rhetoric and encourage more off shore oil drilling as the answer to our energy woes. As reflected in the Assembly Resolution I authored (Assembly Joint Resolution 51), and in my public statements, risking Californiaīs coastline for domestic offshore drilling is not the answer.
Letīs dismiss the argument that increased drilling will lower gas prices right now. At the same time that oil was spewing from Platform A, the price of a barrel of oil had dropped to a four year low of $43 per barrel. This reduction in price has occurred without any new drilling off the coast of the United States. In many communities in California, gasoline now costs less than $2.00 a gallon. The low price is a result of reduced domestic and international demand. The lesson here is that for an immediate reduction in oil prices we need to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn. Increasing miles per gallon and other conservation and efficiency measures are better for the environment and result in reduced energy prices.
Those who support offshore oil drilling claim that new and improved technology has reduced the risk of spills. That assertion is questionable. The recent spill, which came from the exact same platform that ruptured nearly forty years ago resulting in the now infamous Santa Barbara Oil Spill, indicates that the same dangers exist today as they did decades ago. In fact, of the 40 offshore oil spills exceeding 42,000 gallons since 1964, 13 have occurred within the last 10 years. From 1998 through 2007, offshore producers released an average of 6,555 barrels of oil per year, according to the Minerals Management Service. That was 64% more than the annual average during the previous 10-year period despite supposed improvements in drilling technology. This is risky business and regardless of the safety mechanisms in place, there is always a chance for human error and equipment failure. Risks aside, there is also the daily operational pollution associated with the oil extraction process in the form of "drilling muds," which have been found to contain lead, mercury, and cadmium among other materials.
Another commonly used justification for increased offshore drilling is that it will free us from our nationīs dependence on foreign oil. This argument is critically flawed. The math simply doesnīt add up. Depending on the source, all of the United Statesī proven oil reserves (onshore and offshore, including Alaska) are between 2 and 3% of the worldīs oil reserves. Americans consume nearly 25% of the worldīs currently available oil supply our net imports of petroleum are 12 million barrels a day. Aside from the fact that it would be impossible to sustain our current oil demand, our government leases oil to companies who sell their oil on an international market, so there is no guarantee or requirement that oil produced in America will be refined or sold on American soil. It will be sold in the world market to the highest bidder. The truth is, drilling in our coastal waters cannot and will not result in energy independence.
This most recent spill in the Santa Barbara channel should serve to remind us that calls for increased drilling are short-sighted, irresponsible, and based on misconceptions about the world oil market. The risk to our coastal ecosystems and wildlife, our quality of life, as well as our tourism and fishing industries are too great. Increased offshore drilling is not the answer to our energy problems.
We havenīt heard much lately from the "drill here, drill now, pay less" crowd. Just last summer they were screaming the loudest when oil prices had reached historic highs of $145 a barrel. They even managed to persuade some folks to adopt their rhetoric and encourage more off shore oil drilling as the answer to our energy woes. As reflected in the Assembly Resolution I authored (Assembly Joint Resolution 51), and in my public statements, risking Californiaīs coastline for domestic offshore drilling is not the answer.
Letīs dismiss the argument that increased drilling will lower gas prices right now. At the same time that oil was spewing from Platform A, the price of a barrel of oil had dropped to a four year low of $43 per barrel. This reduction in price has occurred without any new drilling off the coast of the United States. In many communities in California, gasoline now costs less than $2.00 a gallon. The low price is a result of reduced domestic and international demand. The lesson here is that for an immediate reduction in oil prices we need to increase efficiency and reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn. Increasing miles per gallon and other conservation and efficiency measures are better for the environment and result in reduced energy prices.
Those who support offshore oil drilling claim that new and improved technology has reduced the risk of spills. That assertion is questionable. The recent spill, which came from the exact same platform that ruptured nearly forty years ago resulting in the now infamous Santa Barbara Oil Spill, indicates that the same dangers exist today as they did decades ago. In fact, of the 40 offshore oil spills exceeding 42,000 gallons since 1964, 13 have occurred within the last 10 years. From 1998 through 2007, offshore producers released an average of 6,555 barrels of oil per year, according to the Minerals Management Service. That was 64% more than the annual average during the previous 10-year period despite supposed improvements in drilling technology. This is risky business and regardless of the safety mechanisms in place, there is always a chance for human error and equipment failure. Risks aside, there is also the daily operational pollution associated with the oil extraction process in the form of "drilling muds," which have been found to contain lead, mercury, and cadmium among other materials.
Another commonly used justification for increased offshore drilling is that it will free us from our nationīs dependence on foreign oil. This argument is critically flawed. The math simply doesnīt add up. Depending on the source, all of the United Statesī proven oil reserves (onshore and offshore, including Alaska) are between 2 and 3% of the worldīs oil reserves. Americans consume nearly 25% of the worldīs currently available oil supply our net imports of petroleum are 12 million barrels a day. Aside from the fact that it would be impossible to sustain our current oil demand, our government leases oil to companies who sell their oil on an international market, so there is no guarantee or requirement that oil produced in America will be refined or sold on American soil. It will be sold in the world market to the highest bidder. The truth is, drilling in our coastal waters cannot and will not result in energy independence.
This most recent spill in the Santa Barbara channel should serve to remind us that calls for increased drilling are short-sighted, irresponsible, and based on misconceptions about the world oil market. The risk to our coastal ecosystems and wildlife, our quality of life, as well as our tourism and fishing industries are too great. Increased offshore drilling is not the answer to our energy problems.