Santa Barbara's offshore oil problem isn't man-made and therein lies a unique environmental and economic opportunity
Open Access Article Originally Published: June 30, 2008
Wealthy, seriously-upscale Santa Barbara -- where homes average a million dollars -- sits at the epicenter of the second largest natural offshore oil seep on the planet. Only the Caspian Sea surpasses it.
In the national debate about opening up more of America's offshore regions to oil and gas drilling -- and setting aside the problem of carbon dioxide-induced climate change -- a sixty mile long stretch of coastline that reaches roughly from Ventura Country west north west to San Luis Obispo Country, well south of the Big Sur coast, has some 2,000 active sea floor oil seeps. According to former JPL physicist Bruce Allen, the tectonically active zone is estimated to have leaked some 800 million barrels of oil over the last 10,000 years.
Now a resident of Santa Barbara and a member of the air quality board, Allen -- who is writing a book on energy policy -- discovered during the course of his research that in the 38 years since the moratorium on oil drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel and off-shore California, an estimated 900 barrels of crude oil have leaked from the production platforms visible off the the coast. In contrast, he points out, the seeps have leaked an estimated two million barrels.
This not only represents an economic loss of some $280 million dollars at today's prices, but more importantly, it represents a serious environmental and public health problem.
Besides fouling Santa Barbara's beaches, Allen discovered a serious hydrocarbon air pollution problem. His wife works at the UC Santa Barbara campus, so he asked for air quality data for the campus and discovered that the level of airborne hydrocarbon contaminates can be as high as 10-times that of Los Angeles. He said that most Santa Barbara residents are surprised to learn that their oil problem -- and gasoline is now selling for more than $5 a gallon around town -- is a natural one, not man-made.
He also points out that when the seas in the channel are calm, it's possible to see a 50 square mile oil slick from the air as you fly into and out of the Santa Barbara airport; all of it the result of being located on an active major geological fault line that releases trapped petroleum, which has been estimated at 13 billion recoverable barrels for the Pacific Coast region back when oil was $55 a barrel.
Allen stresses that he views the crude oil fields off of Santa Barbara as a special case distinct from other fields off Florida and Alaska, and have unique issues compared to other offshore oil resources. As his book, which is currently in manuscript and nearing completion , will show, he believes that ultimately solar thermal electricity is the most promising clean, renewable energy source on the near horizon. He sees vast fields of solar collectors in the desert bringing down the cost of electric power generation to $2.50-2.75 a watt. Some of the excess solar-generated heat would be stored in molten salt that can then be used to create steam to generate electricity at night. Such plants located in the American desert southwest would then transmit their power through high voltage direct current (HVDC) power lines similar to the 800-mile long line that carries 6,500 megawatts -- equal to the output of six nuclear power plants -- from hydro dams deep in Brazil's interior to its major urban centers.
With up to an estimated $350 billion in oil royalties (at $138/barrel) at stake, Allen and his supporters are calling for an end to the California moratorium. Given the offshore oil industry's safety record over the last 38 years, his group believes the oil can be extracted safely, which will reduce in natural oil and gas seepage, resulting in environmental benefits. Gradually depleting the oil over 25 years will not only reduce the amount of seepage that is polluting the water and air off Santa Barbara and Ventura counties, but will provide the funds needed to develop the state's solar economy. Allen notes that the state is presently running a deficit and its much-touted million solar roofs and other renewable energy programs are underfunded . Potential royalties of up to 18% from the Santa Barbara fields could generate enough funds to allow the state to go largely solar electric by 2035, Allen estimates.
It is, clearly, a nuanced position for an avowed environmentalist to take at a time when the public has little patience for such subtle arguments, not when they're paying $4-5 a gallon for gasoline. Still, it certainly seems to make sense in a highly pragmatic way.
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 6435 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
18 comments so far...
02-Jul-2008
62502
| |
About time! This is the first article I have read that refers to the economic cost of not drilling in the US. At $140/barrel we are shipping billions overseas instead of putting the money into our own economy. It is an incomprehensible waste that dwarfs the ongoing costs of the Iraq war. I predict that we will soon be drilling in ANWR, off Santa Barbara, off Florida, and wherever else we can find economically extractable oil. With gasoline well over $4/gallon, the people will simply demand it and dubious environmental arguments will go by the board.
Posted by: Dan Rivers
|
|
18-Jul-2008
62798
| |
Oil is not "polluting" the ocean or the ground. Oil has been seeping up from the ocean bed and onto the coast line for hundreds, maybe thousands of years, long before there were any environmentalists around to complain. I refer anyone to this link: http://www.mms.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/seeps1.htm
It is a scientific article about how the Chumash indians used it and how it is still seeping up onto our coastline as it is naturally released from deposits below the sea. It's a part of nature and and completely organic. It is not "heroin", it is fuel right from the earth! Even after the disaster of Katrina not a drop spilled! And if it spills the brine in the ocean will scrub it clean, as it has for thousands of years. It is a completely natural phenomena.
Many countries are energy independent because they are drilling in their coastal waters. Our oil rigs cannot even be seen by the naked eye; being about 200 miles out to sea. And anyway, I think they are a beautiful sight! It's a picture of an energy independent country. We have to stop our ridiculous whining and DRILL. Our technology today is helping us produce oil cleaner and cheaper, if we will only invest in it. Solar and Wind are not the answer. If it were profitable (i.e. feasible) to convert we'd be converted already but it doesn't work, no one wants it and so, there you have it. Oil is the engine of freedom! The answer is in front of us but we would rather save some fish; the same reason California is in a "drought" because some circuit judge in San Francisco has closed off a supply of water that supplies water to 33 million people to save the smelt fish! Ridiculous! Let's get drilling!!
Posted by: Deane Pradzinski
|
|
20-Jul-2008
62855
| |
Ummmm John, When you state your assumptions of the evils of oil exploration and then remind us 'Our drinking water is still polluted by fuel additives in California', are you talking about MTBE? The additive that the California Air Resources Board forced down our throats before it ever fully tested it? The additive that had full support of the Sierra Club up to the very day it was outlawed? The additive that to this day is still in our drinking water? MTBE, that additive? Just wondering.
Posted by: Jeff Miller
|
|
15-Jul-2008
62740
| |
You Californians and extreme environmentalists wonder why you are the laughing stock of the entire country. Morons!
Posted by: R. W.
|
|
29-Jul-2008
63020
| |
I'm trying to understand why people are having such a knee jerk reaction to this article.
The oil is 'naturally' leaking into the environment. How hard is that to understand.
Wouldn't it be better to "produce" the oil than see it fouling the beaches?
California is sinking into financial insolvency, oil production could 'save' California's financial bacon.
These fields have the potential to produce oil that will help California and the nation.
Oil seeps suggest the amount of oil is large and is under high pressure.
Oil Is Mastery is a website devoted to oil and its sources.
Posted by: jim Evans
|
|
12-Nov-2008
64869
| |
This just seems common sense. I mean drilling in ANWR is sort of debatable, but here you have an example of oil thats damaging the environment. You'd have less damage if you harvested it.I always say the country needs increase gas mileage realists. We have plenty of idealists and some selfish cynics, but there's a real need for more realism in dealing with environmental challenges. I don't agree with you on a lot of topics, but I think we both can agree on this.
Posted by: wreck chord
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62467
| |
This is like saying "lets continue to let heroin dealers continue to sell so we can finance clean needles!"
Posted by: John Hurt
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62471
| |
And the alternative is what? John. The stuff is leaking... millions of barrels of it. It's polluting the water, the beaches and the air. I hardly think your analogy fits this situation, but as I wrote, this is a nuanced debate and most people -- including many EV supporters -- aren't into such subtle distinctions.
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62472
| |
Mr. Hurt does not drive a car?
I think a more accurate analogy than Mr. Hurt's ranting is-
let's grow pot here instead of importing it from Mexico or China, because we have too much sun contributing to global warming; Caltrans could plant marijuana instead of Russian thistle, thus allowing local governments to tax and waste even more money, since Mr. Hurt and other druggies will smoke whatever is sold at the street corner anyway. Or- we could just keep it illegal and elect politicians to righteously enforce it (haha.)
This is a fascinating article, and I see why greenwashed, misinformed, so-called "environmentalists" do not want to hear it. Just go to Santa Barbara and on a clam day, smell the putrid seeps if you doubt it. Also I believe that "$2.50-2.75 a watt" should be KW?
Posted by: p s
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62477
| |
Bruce Allen is not on the SBAPCD board. Did evworld check the following "facts" with the SBAPCD? With ANY authority?
1. that seepage is the same as oil shipped to refineries?
2. that 2 million gal of an oil-equivalent have seeped in the last 38 years?
3. That seepage is worth what light sweet crude is worth (that's what's fetching $140/barrel)?
4. That seepage is worth anything after the cost of harvesting it?
5. That a seep-induced oil slick 50 miles long has been recorded in SB waters since Carter left office?
The royalty revenue and the seep reductionclaims are based on faulty assumptions.
Posted by: Donna Lewis
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62478
| |
Hello Bill,
I don't mean to come off sounding so dead against this but everytime we seem to have good intensions about helping mother nature we tend to muck it up that much more.The cure can be worse than the disease.What if we have multiple oil platforms,hundreds of tanks on land and tankers off-shore and we have a huge quake centered in the drilling area.This could be the Valdez of California.My company is in the solar industry and we always want more development but has anything come from the oil industry besides greed and global warming?Their long history of pollution speaks for itself and when they are sued by the people of the world the government steps in with kid gloves and lets them get away with murdering the ecosystems of the land and sea.Our drinking water is still polluted by fuel additives in California.Not just we Americans are paying the price of destruction but the whole planet.
Posted by: John Hurt
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62479
| |
Dear Mr.PS,
On a clam day in Santa Barbara you can see for ever and ever......Where is Robert Goulet when we need him?I guess this is why California has a medical marijuana law!LOL!!!!
Posted by: John Hurt
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62480
| |
The seep pollute the ocean. Pump it out and pollute the air. Which is the lesser of two evils?
Posted by: John Spradley
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62481
| |
I agree with Mr. Hurt. We should not let greedy capitalists "harvest" the sludge on the beach with thousands of supertankers, "murdering the ecosystems of the land and sea". Instead we should use the tar to build tomol canoes and go harpoon some whales and sea lions. ...and if you can see for miles, then the (methane) air must be ok- the newspaper told me so. I think that Lois Capps said that the Chumash Elder said that the stench is medicinal. mmmm aaaah. The natural life!
Posted by: p s
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62482
| |
Oh my! I did not know that Jimmy Carter and Robert Goulet caused the oil seeps?
Posted by: Jim Pain
|
|
30-Jun-2008
62484
| |
Donna- (1)As you know I serve as a Council Member of the Community Advisory Council(CAC) for the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, (2)Seepage oil is chemically the same as drilled oil with minor chemical species variations, (3)there are numerous published studies estimating SB oil seepage at between 40,000 and 90,000 barrels per year( see Quigley, D.C. 1997 for example)
Posted by: Bruce Allen
|
|
01-Jul-2008
62488
| |
Go with the science. Leave out the politically and religiously hyperinflated opinionizing.
Posted by: David Park
|
|
04-Jul-2008
62540
| |
Desperation never produces the results wanted. Push polling is creating this alleged change in public attitude regarding drilling off the coasts and in ANWR. Why are Americans so easily manipulated? We have known about peak oil for thirty years and have dithered around until now when it is probably too late and our goose is being cooked. Since we are screwed anyway, why not act proactively for a change? It may be a cliché to say that we cannot drill our way out of this mess, but it is true. ANWR contains at the most a year of gas. Nevertheless, regarding the subject of this article, I agree--go with the science! If the science can prove this seepage can be reduced with additional drilling, then why not do it? ANWR has no seepage, so leave it the hell alone. It will make a fine savings account for future generations who might just want us to leave them a little crude to manufacture wonderful things not yet discovered. By then, if anyone is still around, perhaps it can be recovered through directional drilling or other more benign strategy. It is just incomprehensible that our highest and best use for this miraculous stuff is infernal combustion. Yumm, smell that goose cooking?
Posted by: E K
|
|
