Santa Barbara Oil Spill

[Drin]

When you drill in ANY area the risk to the environment is real. I don't dispute that at all.

My only point is that to blame the Santa Barbara spill on drilling (as Sea Save did) is conflating two separate issues. Correlation doesn't imply causation.

-Adrian

 

[cool_hardware52]

There is creditable evidence to suggest that off shore drill reduces the rate of natural seeps, by reducing the pressure in some petroleum deposits.

Hydrocarbons have always been part of the oceans.

Tobin

 

[Darnold9999]

Seems to me that the "don't worry be happy - we can drill and pollute lobby" here is just as biased as the "don't drill anywhere" lobby.

If you are having trouble figuring out the connection between a broken oil pipeline used to transport bulk oil in a particularly benign environment like Santa Barbara and drilling for oil (which will ultimately require storing and transporting oil) in one of the harshest (and fragile) environments on the planet then any argument you might bring up to support drilling in the arctic is suspect for lack of perspective.

 

[Steve_C]

There are lots of wells onshore in California. My brother used to work in LA and lived on Redondo beach. His work place looked like any other low level warehouse until you drove in and looking down on a large dug out area with several wells going down and out for several miles in all directions.

 

[Key Lime Diver]

We definitely need domestic oil production for energy independence as long as there are strict safeguards in place. The oil producers need to be held responsible for environmental cleanup and treatment of all wildlife effected by the spill.

I paddle board off the Santa Barbara coast on a regular basis and there seems to be a fair amount of "seepage" coming from the ocean floor. My board seems to get messed up each time I go out. Admittedly, I don't recall ever having a problem while diving though.

 

[Drin]

If you are having trouble figuring out the connection between a broken oil pipeline used to transport bulk oil in a particularly benign environment like Santa Barbara and drilling for oil (which will ultimately require storing and transporting oil) in one of the harshest (and fragile) environments on the planet then any argument you might bring up to support drilling in the arctic is suspect for lack of perspective.

I don't support drilling in the Arctic and I think it's s necessary evil anywhere else given our dependence on hydrocarbons. My ONLY point is that making a direct causative link between oil drilling and the Santa Barbara spill is logically flawed and designed to inflame public opinion based on junk evidence.

A gas pump is a transportation system designed to transfer fuel from one holding tank to another. If a gas pump hose breaks and leaks into the water table at the USA Gasoline station on West Carrillo St in Santa Barbara do we say it's the fault of nearby offshore oil drilling? That's the exact same facts as this one, just pushed further downstream. The scale is smaller but the fact pattern is the same.

Flawed logic is flawed logic, regardless of the subject matter involved. I'm not talking
about oil drilling or the pros and cons of drilling, simply invalid logic being used to further a viewpoint.



-Adrian

 

[Allison Finch]

We definitely need domestic oil production for energy independence as long as there are strict safeguards in place. The oil producers need to be held responsible for environmental cleanup and treatment of all wildlife effected by the spill.

I paddle board off the Santa Barbara coast on a regular basis and there seems to be a fair amount of "seepage" coming from the ocean floor. My board seems to get messed up each time I go out. Admittedly, I don't recall ever having a problem while diving though.

I'm not saying that there are no offshore seeps. What I WILL say is that those tar balls and slicks are as often discharge from shipping bilges that any seep. We don't have seeps off of Florida but these same conditions can be seen on our beaches, too.

You are being fed the myth that all of that comes from seeps to keep you quiet and ignoring the more likely cause, IMO.

As for the OP.....forgetting your specious comparison, I am still against the arctic drilling. Why? so far they have been unable to set anchors to hold it in place. The first platform broke loose from it's tow ship and washed up on shore, where it had to be scrapped. This platform is still in port because they STILL can't fix the anchors. Sounds like they don't have their act together enough to trust!

 

[cool_hardware52]

y

What I WILL say is that those tar balls and slicks are as often discharge from shipping bilges that any seep.

No doubt some hydrocarbons are discharged from ship bilges, but do you have any evidence to support your claim that ship bilges are an equal source to seeps?

My understanding is natural sources are estimated to be 1/2 the total. All of mankind's use, exploitation, transportation and accidental discharges etc. making up the other 1/2.



Sources please.

Tobin

 

[drrich2]

We are dependent on fossil fuels, probably going to stay so a long, long time, they're are expensive, non-renewable and in short supply. So, if there's oil somewhere, sooner or later, we're probably going to go get it.

Wherever you get it, somebody gripes. It might upset the caribou. What if the pipeline has a problem? What are the dangers of fracking? The Arabs have us by the short hairs. Etc...

But how many people get in gas-powered auto.s. & otherwise use fossil fuels?

So, I suggest we get past 'if,' and consider 'how' it should be done.

I believe in protecting the environment. I am not willing to give up my car, home heating, etc…, to do it. Practical reality is, that's true for a lot of people.

Richard.