Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Tells Plan to Drill Off California Coast
SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Interior Department, acting in
President Bush's final days in office, proposed on Friday opening up
130 million acres off of California's coast to drilling for oil and
natural gas, including areas off Humboldt and Mendocino counties and
from San Luis Obispo south to San Diego.
After a hands-off policy for a quarter-century, the administration
submitted plans to sell oil and gas leases for most of the U.S. coast,
from the Gulf of Maine to Chesapeake Bay and the Outer Banks of North
Carolina to the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Coast. Washington, Oregon and protected parts of Florida were excluded
along with waters off San Francisco Bay that lie within national marine
sanctuaries. On Friday, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and other business groups greeted the news with praise, saying
it is time for domestic energy supplies to be released from the
moratorium. But environmental groups and some Democratic leaders who oppose
California drilling criticized the 11th-hour move, vowing to work with
the Obama administration to promote energy independence based on clean,
renewable technologies. "President Bush's last-ditch effort to open our coasts to new
drilling is nothing more than a parting gift to his buddies in the oil
and gas industry," said Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, a member of the
House Natural Resources Committee. On the eve of the 40th anniversary of the platform blowout that
spilled 3 million gallons of black crude oil on 35 miles of beaches
around Santa Barbara, Capps said, "New offshore drilling would not
lower gas prices, make us more energy independent or get our economy
back on track." Richard Charter, a longtime environmental lobbyist who now works for
the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, called the government's move "an
extremist act." "What we see today is the political equivalent of a rock star trashing the hotel room right before checkout," he said. The Interior Department used a lapse in the congressional moratorium
in October and a cancellation of a presidential prohibition in July to
set in motion the lease-sale program - which the incoming
administration of President-elect Barack Obama could cancel or proceed
with. Obama has said he would consider some offshore oil drilling as part
of a comprehensive energy plan. Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., Obama's pick
for interior secretary, hasn't given his views on offshore drilling in
California. He said in his confirmation hearings Thursday that he will
confer with the administration's team. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, along with the governors of Oregon and
Washington, opposes new offshore oil drilling despite the new revenue
it would offer the cash-strapped state. The federal government has failed to make a case for a new program
because energy resources are insignificant in the Atlantic, Pacific and
eastern Gulf of Mexico, already-sold leases aren't being used, and no
protections are in place to protect the environment, the governors said. In Friday's announcement, Interior Department officials proposed
three new lease sales, one in Northern California and two in Southern
California in "areas with known hydrocarbon potential." The proposals,
which were based on requests from seven oil companies that weren't
named, would include: -- As many as 44 million acres of federal waters, which start 3 miles from the shoreline, off Humboldt and Mendocino counties. -- As many as 89 million acres off of San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego counties. One
lease would require equipment operating at a diagonal to drill within
the Santa Barbara Ecological Preserve. In Southern California, there
are 79 existing leases with 43 producing and 36 undeveloped. There will be a 60-day comment period, with hearings in Ukiah, Fort
Bragg, Santa Barbara, Ventura and San Diego. Dates for the hearings
have not been announced. If sales are allowed, they could occur as soon as 2014. About 60 percent of California citizens who commented on new
oil-and-gas development were opposed to new drilling, according to the
Interior Department's oil-drilling agency, the Minerals and Management
Service.
Proposed offshore oil lease sale plan (John Blanchard / The Chronicle) New drilling also was proposed in Alaska's Bristol Bay, one of the
nation's most plentiful sources of fish, and the Arctic Ocean.
13 Comments so far
Show AllThe Santa Barbara oil spill was the first environmental disaster for me growing up. I've been mindful ever since of the need for proactive citizen involvement.
These days, it seems that corporations do what they please. They write the laws for the lawmakers that they fund. You write to your representative, and they just vote against the public interest, time and again.
As evil as Bush is, I can't help thinking that this move is a setup for the Obama administration, which, like the Republicans and Pelosi, want to drill, drill, drill.
Obama's energy plans are quite bad. He wants to drill. He wants to rev up nuclear energy with its toxic waste lasting millions of years. He adopts the "clean coal" phrase, without irony.
There are worthy alternatives to the status quo, but you've got mulimillion-dollar corporations to fight first.
-TIA
FINAL SELLOUTS BT A DANGEROUS LAME DUCK
Still not satisfied with his unprecedented sellouts to special interests, this arrogant zealot is now concluding the final chapter of his destructive presidency by surging his war against our planet. Sadly, our congress has defaulted their duties by tolerating these abuses, as an apathetic populace stood by and watched.
These final environmental crimes can be checked by expedient and persistent action from a concerned and motivated citizenry. This can be done--remember the 9/11 investigation that Bush so vehemently opposed while an intiminated congress balked. This happened only because of the perservence of the victim's relatives, albeit the inquiries were impaired by resistance from the Bush team.
The returning legislators, who had been complacent during these outrages, should be denied re-election.
Politicians and Profit Machines. Bush is a TOXIC TERRORIST, it's a sin what he's done to gut and gouge America all for the love of money. http://www.wisecountyissues.com The Bush Legacy will last thousands of years in Appalachia. Hannity's America sure ain't My America.
Excellent post Mr mullins.
Shrub really has the un-Midas touch, doesn't he?
Everything he touches turns to toxic waste. Even our food was gutted with his appointment of oily Crawford to the FDA. Chemical companies like Monsanto and DuPont who now own most of the seed stock patents have plyed our stores with GMO (genetically modified organisms) to preserve shelf life and splice in pesticide precipitaing bacterial dna so that bugs cannot eat crops. Now all the bees are dead in the northwest and all the samon have died in the rivers. Gee, I wonder why?
FDA fired most of the Meat inspectors, so don't even think about consuming any bovine products. Lukemia is up now to what? 5000% highter than before the chimp took office? Diabetes is now 50% among children?
You just can't get away from Bush poison, even if you move off to an oceanic island. Fine mecury coal-dust fallout is everywhere (Because there is no such thing as clean coal.)
I think you said it right: Bush is a TOXIC TERRORIST
Oil and gas = shock absorbers and with the probobility of eartquakes here way over 75% and not a question of will it happen but when and if they start drilling the the chances get higher for an earthquake.Not no but hell no to drilling!!!Tony
mustbefree,
Excellent point about seismic effects of removing oil from the Earth's crust.
Get ready for the most active century in recorded human history for earthquakes and volcanoes worldwide. Not only due to the removal of oil from the crust that you cite, but also due to the pumping out of giant aquifers.
And perhaps most importantly, the melting of ice and release of liquid water that had been frozen at the poles for millions of years, moving vast weight from the poles into the sea, changing the pressure on the crust at different points.
As Snydly keeps pointing out, the anticipated increased seismic activity would release massive volcanic plumes and alter the atmosphere, twisting our already destabilized climate in new directions...
These activities so obviously open the door for huge risk in future years, a calm and wise species with our purported intelligence would hesitate to disturb such complex and partly understood systems as the Earth's crust, atmosphere, or climate.
But we want the underground water, we want the stored energy in the fossil fuels, we want the money and power that come from controlling these "resources", and we want to believe our own myths about what a smart and powerful species we are...
We can't do controlled experiments on identical Earths to see what happens, so we're left with computer models, and interested parties are free to obscure the risks by endless argument... until the forces we release are in our midst...
And destabilization of the crust, atmosphere and climate are not isolated problems, but part of an interconnected web of synergistic cataclysms the over-populated humans and our immature technological hubris foolishly unleash on our own planet...
webwalk;thank you for the kind words.Was thinking about this again today and of all the oil and gas that has been pumped out in the middle east and thought about what is in Revelation in the Bible at the endtimes when Christ is supposed to come back and they have all those earthquakes and other upheavals.A truth maybe?Doesn't matter if a person is religious or not the setup is going on there.Tony
Obama will undo the weasel's last minute dirty tricks.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
HA!
wanna bet?
What's your evidence that he won't? Either show some evidence or shut up and wait.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Here is the problem with drilling off of the California coast. (1) There is no compelling evidence that there is enough oil, or the type of easy to refine oil to make drilling cost effective. That is precisely why the oil industry has not been complaining or fully using the leases they already have. (2) At best, we are talking about lowering the cost of gas a few cents in a decade or more. (3) California like other Pacific rim countries is at risk for earthquakes. Oil rigs would be located on or near earthquake faults. (4) In Southern California, a multi billion dollar tourist industry at the beaches would be at risk. (5) The Northern California beach and coastal areas are among the most scenic of any areas on earth. (6) the beach areas are estuaries where many species of plants and animals born. (7) The bottom line is that sooner or later world demand will outpace decreasing supply of oil. We are headed fast toward an impasse with very high priced oil without alternatives developed to take oil's place. (8) A majority of Californians DO NOT support offshore drilling.
We have the breakthroughs to follow through on, but we don't have the "venture capital" in hard times to jump start in alternative fuels. Here is one good example. They are producing biofuel from algae bloom. Greenhouses are set up adjacent to traditional electricity power plants. The emissions from the plants are rich in carbon dioxide. This stimulates algae growth as the emissions are pumped into the greenhouses.
But why build greenhouses when there is algae bloom where the Mississippi River meets the Gulf of Mexico the size of Massachusetts. Fresh water algae moves into salt water and dies. The composting process underwater draws oxygen out of the sea to the point of creating dead zones where no sea life can survive. The result is mile after mile of water that stinks like rotten eggs. Algae bloom is now a huge and growing problem due to the run off of fertilizer from agricultural areas along the Mississippi River stimulating its growth.
So why not skim the river water to harvest the algae bloom for use in producing biofuel. This type of biofuel has the potential of outproducing all other forms of biofuel production because algae is harvested daily in contrast to corn, switchgrass or other crops being harvested once per year.
OK. So we don't want to drill for oil. We don't want to mine for coal. We don't want nuclear power plants. Wind turbines are great as long as they can't be seen from anywhere near where we live or anywhere where birds might fly into them (meaning everywhere). Solar is great but would require a huge area of land and environmental impact statements...what does covering an area the size of Arizona do to the plants and animals?
Maybe the only suitable renewable energy source is the gas we all produce from our intestinal tracts each and every day. But how to capture it?
You forgot to mention biocrude from algae or even hemp. Stop listening to Big Oil propaganda and do your homework.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota