Now, the metastasizing oil spill* in the Gulf of Mexico, and the apparent loss of the lives of at least 11 oil workers that followed a blow-out on a rig on Tuesday night - Earth Day - provide a sudden and grim reminder of the high stakes of offshore drilling. ... Many backers of the governor's proposal have argued that oil drilling operations have undergone huge technological advancements in the past 40 years, making unlikely a massive spill like that poisoned the Santa Barbara Channel in 1969.
Among those who have embraced the technology-makes-it-safe argument are Republican wannabe governor Steve Poizner and his front-running rival, Meg Whitman.
"When I started this process, I was against offshore oil drilling," Whitman told reporters in Santa Barbara last year, "and then I began to understand deeply the new technology that is available to extract oil from existing wells."
First, let's acknowledge that this was a disaster of horrific scope and consequences. 11 workers on the rig have apparently lost their lives. And in environmental terms, this could end up being a massive oil spill if rescue workers cannot control the leakage. To the families of those who were lost, my sincere condolences.
Of course, this argument is happening in every coastal state right now, it's playing out in Virginia for all the world to see. Those on the right accuse environmentalists of using the disaster to score political points. But, this isn't political points, this goes directly to the question at hand.
Meg Whitman claims that oil drilling is a good thing for the state, because as she learned about the technology, she was simply overwhelmed with its safety and efficiency. She's hardly the only one, either. The issue rarely comes up these days without an indication of how safe these new oil rigs really are. Well, the lie has been put to that, hasn't it? After all, it doesn't really matter that such cases are rare, it really only takes one such disaster to spoil our coast line.
The Santa Barbara spill was 40 years ago now, but the lesson seems to be fading. Here in California we have such a faith in technology, we seem to feel that it will be our savior. But, technology alone will not answer our problems. Just take a look at the San Francisco Bay. In the 50s and 60s, we were on our way to filling the whole thing up with landfill and building on top of it. Technology made that possible, but it was only the human spirit and a love of the environment that brought us back from the brink of an ecological tragedy.
Whatever your feelings about the governor's race, we should consider just what Meg Whitman is suggesting with oil drilling off the Pacific. She would like to see more drilling off our coast, more rigs, more gambling with our environmental future. Jerry Brown opposed the T-Ridge project, and opposes future drilling. We simply can't let Whitman gamble with our coast.
Not all oil is created equal. It isn't just a matter of buring it and getting so many particulates, and so much CO2 dispersed in the air. Oil of different provenances give off different levels of crap. So, CARB is attempting to regulate. Shockingly, the National Petrochemical Assoc. is suing:
A lobby group that includes BP and Shell in its membership has launched a legal challenge against low-carbon legislation in California that in effect rules out the use of oil from Canadian tar sands. The action by the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA) comes amid growing political, investor and consumer pressure on US oil companies not to participate in the carbon-intensive tar sands of Alberta. (Guardian UK)
It's a pretty standard interstate commerce lawsuit. It's something of a longshot case, as California has successfully regulated other products coming into the state. Like, um, say gasoline. We have our own mix here, toxic and pricey as it might be, and that has been allowed to stand for a while now. That profited the oil companies, so no rush to sue on that one. But this one is annoying to them, so they're standing up for their corporate rights.
Of course, the two big oil shale producers, BP and Shell, are hiding behind NPRA on the lawsuit. They each claim that they weren't in on the process to sue on this regulation. Convenient, that.
The case will be handled by the AG, Jerry Brown, we'll be sure to update if there is any news.
So what would Abel Maldonado do on oil drilling? During the budget process, Maldo voted against the Tranquillion Ridge project, despite voting for much of the rest of the package. However, Schwarzenegger, who also once opposed offshore drilling, moved to support it over the last year.
If Maldonado is confirmed, he would have a vote on the important state lands commission. That would make his position on the issue quite important.
Jim Boren of the Fresno Bee asked Sen. Maldonado precisely that question, and got some political speak in response:
"As you know, I have voted No several times. So my record speaks for itself. I always look at things in a case by case basis. . . And I have not looked at the state lands analysis. I will soon. I'm going to request it."
He's definitely maybe going to look into the issue to review the analysis of the question. That Maldo...sure does love his ambiguity.
CalBuzz points out some correspondence between Bush Ranger Parsky and the rest of the Parsky Commission:
As we first reported late Wednesday, tax reform commission Chairman Gerald Parsky sucker-punched at least some members of his panel by sending them an unexpected, last-minute recommendation to generate "tens of billions of dollars" of new revenue by vastly expanding offshore oil drilling in state waters.
***
The recommendation came as a shock, not only because the offshore issue was only casually discussed during the commission's months of hearings, but also because it deepened the atmosphere of secrecy and sleight-of-hand in which Parsky assembled the agenda for the panel's final, crucial meeting. As a political matter, such an expansion of offshore drilling would also directly conflict with decades of state policy, in which environmental protection of coastal waters and beaches have trumped economic issues, resulting in a long-held moratorium on new leases.
The proposal for more offshore drilling seems to have worked its way onto the commission's plate at least in part at the request of conservative Hoover Institution economist Michael Boskin, who also sits on the board of Exxon Mobil.
How oil drilling got into a so-called tax commission shouldn't be a surprise when there was a faux transparency. The website laid out a slew of emails and written conversations, but apparently Parsky and his cronies were working on something else entirely.
This is not the process that gets to determine whether we will set up oil rigs off of the entirety of our coast line. That is an entirely seperate conversation, and frankly Mr. Parsky, I don't care one iota what you think about that. Not that I really much cared about what you thought about our revenue system either at this point, but this was not your assigned task and frankly none of your business.
It's nice to see that ExxonMobil has its dirty hooves in just about political conversation where it can possibly make a buck. But if ever anybody thought that the Parsky Plan had any credibility as any sort of unbiased scheme, well, that can just about be written off right about now.
The PXP Tranquillion Ridge Oil Project is far from over. While the first new drilling project since the spill was voted down during the budget fight, Assembly Minority Leader Blakeslee has brought it back through the oh so amazing gut and amend process. AB 1536, which used to be a bill pertaining to the Public Utilities Commission has been morphed into an oil drilling bill authorizing the Tranquillion Ridge Project.
Now, PXP, the company that wants to explore the ridge, has been doing a bunch of polling showing some level of support for the bill. Pedro Nava, he of the sentencing commission flip-flop, has been on something of a quixotic quest for PXP's polling data
While we already have oil drilling off our coast (it's true, drive down the 101 some time), the idea of new drilling isn't all that popular amongst many environmentalists. But, support for oil drilling off our coast, whether we like it or not has been growing. PXP actually has a poll out on it right now. They aren't releasing all of their data, and this is causing Asm. Pedro Nava much angst. For some reason he has chosen the question of polling to pursue as his quixotic quest, instead of the underlying issue. I kind of think selective release of polling data stinks, but it is not like his campaign for AG has released all of their polling. (Speaking of, Asm. Nava, did you poll the sentencing commission?) But the real question is how we manage the growth of the oil rigs and how we actually protect our coast.
The Tranquillion Ridge Project actually originally had the support of many of the Santa Barbara environmental groups, so it is hardly out of the realm of possibility that support could re-emerge. But if this gets done, it needs to be a) ensured that there are the strictest safety & environmental standards and b) that we get something really good for this.
I'm thinking oil severance. I know the idea of new drilling won't be popular, and I get that, but if it is going to be shoved down our throats anyway when Garamendi is replaced on the State Lands Commission, how about we take advantage of the situation. I kind of doubt that we'll be able to get oil severance for all drilling, but how about we get it for at least this drilling project and set a precedent for the future.
I haven't really thought this all the way through, so feel free to ridicule the idea. But it is worth some consideration.
"[In late January,] the Lands Commission rightly rejected the plan on a 2-1 vote, and that should have been the end of it. [...]
Admittedly, the state could use the money. But that's not a good enough reason to subvert the authority of the Lands Commission, sell California's coastline in exchange for empty promises, ignore the wishes of Santa Barbara residents and dismiss the outcome of a long process of analysis and public hearings. The Lands Commission, in fact, was created in 1938 to bring more transparency to the awarding of oil leases after a scandal involving the Department of Finance."
When you drive along Highway 101 near Santa Barbara, or Highway 1 in Huntington Beach, it's hard to miss the many oil rigs on the ocean's horizon. They are relics of a bygone age - not just the 1960s, when they were constructed, but an age in which California believed that cheap oil would always be plentiful and available. We built an entire infrastructure around that and neglected trains, walkable neighborhoods, and lagged behind the rest of the world in developing solar and wind power.
Now the consequences of that misguided belief in the permanence of cheap oil have become clear. Gas prices are nearing $5, causing economic distress and sending Californians flocking to mass transit. For his part Barack Obama is proposing massive new investments in sustainable energy and rail infrastructure.
It's obvious that Republicans see opportunity in high gas prices to roll back sound environmental policies, such as the offshore ban. But for what gain? Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would take 10 years to deliver oil to American pumps and would only meet about 4-6 months of US domestic demand. California's offshore oil pools would probably not produce much more than that.
Like McCain's gas tax holiday, offshore drilling is a gimmick designed to avoid the necessary fixes. Americans need to understand that gas prices will never come back down, and that cheap oil is a thing of the past. It's not something we have a right to - it's something we had for a few decades, but now it is over.
Republicans don't have a solution to high oil prices. Drilling in ANWR and off our coast would not ameliorate prices now, and wouldn't do so in 10 years - the rate of decline in North Sea and Mexican oil exports will far outweigh the new drills and rising global demand will continue to drive up prices.
Democrats would do well to follow Obama's lead and firmly reject McCain's drilling plan. It's time we accepted the fact that cheap oil is a thing of the past, instead of looking for more sources like a junkie desperately seeking another fix. We need to build a sustainable transportation infrastructure that will provide green jobs and economic development for the 21st century - instead of trying to string out the obsolete 20th century any longer.
