« Prev Page

’69 Flashback

Newsweek Web Exclusive

From the Editors (2)
Energy: America’s Untapped Oil Reserves
Fackcheck.org: A False Charge About Energy

See All

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

After the spill, Santa Barbara became the epicenter of the modern environmental movement. How important was, and is, environmentalism for people in this city?
It's just a way of life for people here. In the year following the spill, we had an Earth Day festival, everyone including me came on bicycles. That was really the first Earth Day event, and ever since we've stayed connected to the natural environment and have remained dedicated to protecting it.

But those who support the lifting of the offshore drilling ban say the country needs this oil, and that regulations are stricter and technology is much better than it was in 1969. They insist there is much less chance of a major spill now. Do you agree?
Technology may have improved, but it hasn't made human error go away. Human error caused the 1969 spill. You can still push the wrong button. Humans do awful things sometimes. I do have the sense that you can do more slant drilling now and go deeper and pull up oil better than they used to, but the bigger point is that the amount of oil in our channel will not solve this crisis, and everyone knows it will take close to 20 years for oil to be pumped out of the ocean floor and make it to the gas pump.

Even most pro-business conservatives in Santa Barbara have supported the ban on oil drilling. But with rising fuel costs, is that still the case?
Yes. I still don't know anyone here who wants more platforms in the [Santa Barbara] channel. Just about everyone who lives here is an environmentalist. I used to think in the early '70s that it was a fight between business owners and environmentalists, but business owners here have an environmental streak in them, and environmentalists here are also businesspeople. It's all one.

Will we ever see such a peaceful co-existence of business and environmental interests across the country?
I don't know, it's such a fine balance, and with creeping oil prices it's unlikely. The situation is unique here. We pay so much for our houses, the cost of homes is ridiculous here. We are buying the whole idea of living in this city. When they do something to one of our parks, for example, if they try to take out one tree, you see 100 people out there opposing it. Or, they call the mayor.

The rest of the country apparently doesn't share Santa Barbara's view. In a recent Los Angeles Times-Bloomberg poll, 55 percent said they favor drilling in "environmentally important" areas with "proper controls." How much higher do you think gas prices will have to go before Santa Barbarans reach a tipping point and change their minds about offshore drilling?
Every person has thought about that here. Every tipping point is different. Mine is about 10 dollars a gallon. [Laughs.] Lots of people are on bikes. We are fourth in the nation in terms of the number of residents per capita who own a Prius. It's going to take a lot to convince the people here that more oil platforms in our channel is a good thing.

But there are still oil drills pumping as we speak in that channel, there are some 26 oil and gas drilling platforms off the Southern California coast, and 1,500 active wells, and we haven't heard about any catastrophic spills, have we?
We have little oil spills a lot out there, actually. They don't make it to the papers because they aren't huge, but they still occur. Those oil platforms also give off air emissions that are an additional environmental problem. The point is, additional platforms in our channel will be a terrible thing for the environment and could lead to another disaster.

« Prev Page

Member Comments

Posted By: Cashew @ 08/28/2008 6:12:45 AM

Listen to this message. The Big oil companies want to drill off shore because it will make it much easier to ship the crude overseas in large tankers. The oil companies would have to move it across land, which would cost so much more, if they drilled inland. Bush, Chaney, and McCain are bought and paid for by these oil companies. Ofcourse they want to help big oil business and are boosting this propaganda and expecting us to swollow it hook, line, and sinker. McCain is a followier, not a leader.
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 08/08/2008 9:20:22 PM

The best way to effectively exploit our offshore resources and really help the average American is to divide up the 4.4 million square miles of US offshore economic zone among the 218 million Americans adults who are 18 years and older according to the 2003 US census. Because a square mile equals 640 acres and you multiply 4.4 million square miles times 640 acres, there would be 2.816 billion offshore acres to be divided among the 218 million American adults. The current federally leased acreage of roughly 100 million acres both onshore and offshore represents roughly only three and a half percent of the total 2.8 billion offshore exclusive economic zone acreage of land that could be leased and divided up by all Americans. Subtract out that acreage and you still have 2.7 billion unleased acreage. Granted this remaining acreage may not be the best prospects but we won???t know for sure until there is actual drilling. The Democrats say that there is 80 million acres leased and the oil companies are sitting on it. Well here are 2.7 billion new acres that new and older drilling companies can bid on.
Under this proposal, every adult in the US would be entitled to 12.8 acres of mineral rights to offshore production. A lottery could be set up to randomly assign 12.8 acres to every American. You may end up with mineral rights to acreage south of Canada???s Hibernia offshore project 300 miles south of Newfoundland that is producing 50,000 barrels a day from only one well. The resulting lottery would create ten of thousands of instant American millionaires whose acreage abuts known contiguous offshore oil fields. A market to buy and sell acreage rights could be created which would put money into the pockets of those who acreage contains unknown oil potential. Turning over the acreage to ordinary Americans to collect leasing revenues and royalty rights will empower Americans and stimulate the economy. We do not need the Minerals Management Service of the Department of Interior and Nancy Pelosi to argue over the next four years which tracts of land should be leased and have that money end up going into the General Treasury. Its your money and you can get it now when you sell the rights to drill for oil and collect your royalties for the next twenty years.
Posted By: mccainsupporter @ 08/08/2008 9:18:30 PM

Democrats under the leadership of Barack Obama want to effectively give away in trust our offshore exclusive economic zone by standing in the way of any current offshore development. Under the 1982 United Nations Law of the Seas Convention the US has an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles and mineral seabed rights up to 350 nautical miles extending along the Continental shelf. A nautical mile is 6080 feet so our exclusive economic zone extends about 240 miles and mineral seabed rights extend 420 miles. The US has the world's largest offshore exclusive economic zone totaling 4.4 million square miles. In comparison, the total land area of the United States is only 3.4 million square miles.
On the East coast alone, if you drive from Key West Florida to Bangor Maine it is 2000 miles. Multiply the 2000 miles by mineral seabed rights extending out 420 miles results in a total of 840,000 square miles of ocean acreage. Because we have the world's largest offshore coastline which is twenty-five percent greater than our land area, it only makes common sense that we exploit our offshore resources to achieve our energy independence.