SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Santa Barbara Oil Spill Underscores Why We Can't Allow Arctic Drilling
May 27, 2015
Last week, a major oil spill in Santa Barbara County made headlines after a ruptured pipeline dumped as much as 105,000 gallons of crude oil on the California coastline. The spill stretches across roughly nine miles of state beach with tens of thousands of gallons entering marine protected areas in the Pacific Ocean.
The spill took place just days after activists gathered in Seattle to oppose Shell's plans to begin drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic this summer.
The Santa Barbara spill underscores what environmental leaders have been saying for decades, and the core of the message delivered to President Obama on Arctic drilling. When we drill, we spill.
So, what can we learn from this latest oil disaster? And what does it mean for the Arctic? As bad as the spill in Santa Barbara is--and it is--a spill in the Arctic would be much, much worse.
Here are three of the biggest reasons why.
An Arctic Spill Would Be Larger
The Santa Barbara spill was by no means small, but research indicates that an Arctic spill would likely be just as large, at least for the portion entering ocean waters.
According to the US Coast Guard classification system, 105,000 gallons ranks Santa Barbara as a "major" spill. Counting only the 20,000 gallons that made their way into the ocean would qualify it as a "medium" spill.
But the Department of the Interior released findings earlier this year stating that--if Shell finds oil and can produce it--there's a 75 percent chance of a spill greater than 42,000 gallons. Hundreds of smaller spills are virtually guaranteed.
Even barring an actual spill, Shell's current drilling plan allows for the discharge of thousands of gallons of toxic drilling fluids and waste into the ocean.
Response Would Be More Difficult
Even for a relatively small spill, how to negotiate a cleanup in tricky Arctic conditions is a question neither Shell nor the Obama administration have been able to answer.
Cleanup in Santa Barbara--where local responders and coast guard officials were onsite within minutes--will take months. CNN reported that less than 10 percent of the oil had been cleaned up as of last Thursday. Coast Guard Captain Jennifer Williams emphasized that currents and wind patterns make the ocean-borne oil slick a "moving target." The disaster is already hurting the region's $1.2 billion tourism industry.
Pretty bad, right? Now consider that the nearest Coast Guard station to Shell's proposed drilling site in Alaska is more than 1,000 miles away. Icy waters with waves reaching 50 feet make rapid response in the likely event of a spill even more challenging. Shell estimates it could take about six days for responders just to reach the site of a spill, while oil would likely reach land within three days.
This Is Shell We're Talking About
Plains All American Pipeline--the company responsible for the Santa Barbara spill--has a long track record of spills. It's spilled more than 600,000 gallons and caused $23 million in property damages since 2006 even before last week's mishap.
That's bad, but Shell is on another level. Shell's disastrous 2012 foray into the Alaskan Arctic resulted in eight felony convictions, a $12 million fine, the wreck of its prized new Kulluk oil rig, and countless safety and environmental violations. Shell's new plan--based on optimistic assumptions untested in the unique Arctic environment--does nothing to quell these doubts.
When We Drill, We Spill
Last week's catastrophe in Santa Barbara makes it clear why we cannot drill in the Arctic--or anywhere, really. It's not a matter of if a spill takes place, it's when. If it's happened in the calm waters of Santa Barbara (twice), why would we expect it to be any different in the Arctic?
It's time for Shell and the Obama administration to face reality: when we drill, we spill. So let's take a cue from the thousands of activists who came out strong in Seattle last week and say #sHellNo to Arctic drilling.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Greenpeace
Ryan Schleeter
Ryan Schleeter is an online content producer for Greenpeace USA interested in cities and sustainability. Follow him on Twitter: @ryschlee
Last week, a major oil spill in Santa Barbara County made headlines after a ruptured pipeline dumped as much as 105,000 gallons of crude oil on the California coastline. The spill stretches across roughly nine miles of state beach with tens of thousands of gallons entering marine protected areas in the Pacific Ocean.
The spill took place just days after activists gathered in Seattle to oppose Shell's plans to begin drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic this summer.
The Santa Barbara spill underscores what environmental leaders have been saying for decades, and the core of the message delivered to President Obama on Arctic drilling. When we drill, we spill.
So, what can we learn from this latest oil disaster? And what does it mean for the Arctic? As bad as the spill in Santa Barbara is--and it is--a spill in the Arctic would be much, much worse.
Here are three of the biggest reasons why.
An Arctic Spill Would Be Larger
The Santa Barbara spill was by no means small, but research indicates that an Arctic spill would likely be just as large, at least for the portion entering ocean waters.
According to the US Coast Guard classification system, 105,000 gallons ranks Santa Barbara as a "major" spill. Counting only the 20,000 gallons that made their way into the ocean would qualify it as a "medium" spill.
But the Department of the Interior released findings earlier this year stating that--if Shell finds oil and can produce it--there's a 75 percent chance of a spill greater than 42,000 gallons. Hundreds of smaller spills are virtually guaranteed.
Even barring an actual spill, Shell's current drilling plan allows for the discharge of thousands of gallons of toxic drilling fluids and waste into the ocean.
Response Would Be More Difficult
Even for a relatively small spill, how to negotiate a cleanup in tricky Arctic conditions is a question neither Shell nor the Obama administration have been able to answer.
Cleanup in Santa Barbara--where local responders and coast guard officials were onsite within minutes--will take months. CNN reported that less than 10 percent of the oil had been cleaned up as of last Thursday. Coast Guard Captain Jennifer Williams emphasized that currents and wind patterns make the ocean-borne oil slick a "moving target." The disaster is already hurting the region's $1.2 billion tourism industry.
Pretty bad, right? Now consider that the nearest Coast Guard station to Shell's proposed drilling site in Alaska is more than 1,000 miles away. Icy waters with waves reaching 50 feet make rapid response in the likely event of a spill even more challenging. Shell estimates it could take about six days for responders just to reach the site of a spill, while oil would likely reach land within three days.
This Is Shell We're Talking About
Plains All American Pipeline--the company responsible for the Santa Barbara spill--has a long track record of spills. It's spilled more than 600,000 gallons and caused $23 million in property damages since 2006 even before last week's mishap.
That's bad, but Shell is on another level. Shell's disastrous 2012 foray into the Alaskan Arctic resulted in eight felony convictions, a $12 million fine, the wreck of its prized new Kulluk oil rig, and countless safety and environmental violations. Shell's new plan--based on optimistic assumptions untested in the unique Arctic environment--does nothing to quell these doubts.
When We Drill, We Spill
Last week's catastrophe in Santa Barbara makes it clear why we cannot drill in the Arctic--or anywhere, really. It's not a matter of if a spill takes place, it's when. If it's happened in the calm waters of Santa Barbara (twice), why would we expect it to be any different in the Arctic?
It's time for Shell and the Obama administration to face reality: when we drill, we spill. So let's take a cue from the thousands of activists who came out strong in Seattle last week and say #sHellNo to Arctic drilling.
Ryan Schleeter
Ryan Schleeter is an online content producer for Greenpeace USA interested in cities and sustainability. Follow him on Twitter: @ryschlee
Last week, a major oil spill in Santa Barbara County made headlines after a ruptured pipeline dumped as much as 105,000 gallons of crude oil on the California coastline. The spill stretches across roughly nine miles of state beach with tens of thousands of gallons entering marine protected areas in the Pacific Ocean.
The spill took place just days after activists gathered in Seattle to oppose Shell's plans to begin drilling for oil in the Alaskan Arctic this summer.
The Santa Barbara spill underscores what environmental leaders have been saying for decades, and the core of the message delivered to President Obama on Arctic drilling. When we drill, we spill.
So, what can we learn from this latest oil disaster? And what does it mean for the Arctic? As bad as the spill in Santa Barbara is--and it is--a spill in the Arctic would be much, much worse.
Here are three of the biggest reasons why.
An Arctic Spill Would Be Larger
The Santa Barbara spill was by no means small, but research indicates that an Arctic spill would likely be just as large, at least for the portion entering ocean waters.
According to the US Coast Guard classification system, 105,000 gallons ranks Santa Barbara as a "major" spill. Counting only the 20,000 gallons that made their way into the ocean would qualify it as a "medium" spill.
But the Department of the Interior released findings earlier this year stating that--if Shell finds oil and can produce it--there's a 75 percent chance of a spill greater than 42,000 gallons. Hundreds of smaller spills are virtually guaranteed.
Even barring an actual spill, Shell's current drilling plan allows for the discharge of thousands of gallons of toxic drilling fluids and waste into the ocean.
Response Would Be More Difficult
Even for a relatively small spill, how to negotiate a cleanup in tricky Arctic conditions is a question neither Shell nor the Obama administration have been able to answer.
Cleanup in Santa Barbara--where local responders and coast guard officials were onsite within minutes--will take months. CNN reported that less than 10 percent of the oil had been cleaned up as of last Thursday. Coast Guard Captain Jennifer Williams emphasized that currents and wind patterns make the ocean-borne oil slick a "moving target." The disaster is already hurting the region's $1.2 billion tourism industry.
Pretty bad, right? Now consider that the nearest Coast Guard station to Shell's proposed drilling site in Alaska is more than 1,000 miles away. Icy waters with waves reaching 50 feet make rapid response in the likely event of a spill even more challenging. Shell estimates it could take about six days for responders just to reach the site of a spill, while oil would likely reach land within three days.
This Is Shell We're Talking About
Plains All American Pipeline--the company responsible for the Santa Barbara spill--has a long track record of spills. It's spilled more than 600,000 gallons and caused $23 million in property damages since 2006 even before last week's mishap.
That's bad, but Shell is on another level. Shell's disastrous 2012 foray into the Alaskan Arctic resulted in eight felony convictions, a $12 million fine, the wreck of its prized new Kulluk oil rig, and countless safety and environmental violations. Shell's new plan--based on optimistic assumptions untested in the unique Arctic environment--does nothing to quell these doubts.
When We Drill, We Spill
Last week's catastrophe in Santa Barbara makes it clear why we cannot drill in the Arctic--or anywhere, really. It's not a matter of if a spill takes place, it's when. If it's happened in the calm waters of Santa Barbara (twice), why would we expect it to be any different in the Arctic?
It's time for Shell and the Obama administration to face reality: when we drill, we spill. So let's take a cue from the thousands of activists who came out strong in Seattle last week and say #sHellNo to Arctic drilling.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.