Comments on: Why Has Oil and Gas Boom Skipped CA?

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:12:58 +0000

BTW, PetroRock, the well-known seismic threats in California would provide another strong argument against fracking, particularly since the Monterey Shale area is in close proximity to many large fault systems, including the infamous San Andreas.

http://dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2012-02-14-does-fracking-cause-earthquakes

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 02:08:06 +0000

You’re correct, PetroRock, but the relevance to this article concerns the strict environmental laws in California. I was merely describing the circumstances that led to their enactment and the political hurdles that would need to be overcome in order to gain the necessary authorization to engage in fracking activities, even in that hell-hole area south of Fresno in our Central Valley.

By: PetroRock

PetroRock — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:05:12 +0000

SkipDog–the article has nothing to do with offshore oil drilling. How much offshore drilling is being done in North Dakota? The article is about the benefits of onshore drilling, which even Obama says he wants. We shouldn’t use the offshore spill from 43 years ago as an excuse for everything.

By the way, it is worth noting that most of CA’s offshore platforms were installed AFTER the ’69 spill and we drill offshore CA EVERYDAY, without incident for 43 years. Sounds like a pretty good record to me.

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:15:26 +0000

Oh, I certainly agree we should update CEQA and the Coastal Protection Act to prevent anyone gaming the system, DA. But when you suggest that the full costs were covered by Union Oil the facts just don’t back you up. That spill was also one of the primary reasons we have a strong federal environmental intrusion now, since it was the federal government and a Republican administration that provided waivers to Union Oil that allowed it to shortcut the casing and normal safety requirements.

I’ve attached a couple of articles for your interest, but memories are long and you won’t see a groundswell of support in California to make our coast look like the Gulf as long as there are still a lot of people who remember the Santa Barbara spill and its aftermath.

http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/PEG_SantaBarbaraSpill_May2010.pdf

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~kclarke/Papers/SBOilSpill1969.pdf

By: Mechanic

Mechanic — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:04:48 +0000

I agree with The DA most times when regulatory laws take effect after disaster like the 1969 oils spill of Santa Barbra it is worse for the economy of that state than just to enforce heavy fines. Look at the southern states like Louisiana there are natural gas and oil wells that we’re pumped dry back in the ’70s but were resurveyed and contain their respective energy resource now. Yes it is bad when an oil spill happens but without those resources we have no leading alternative fuel right now so I suggest the people in California speak up and be heard if they wish that they need more jobs and industry. And one last thing on the job booms and reindustrialization of those states. The reason why California has not seen the benefits of the natural gas and oil jobs is because the companies that are set up to provide the people of the USA with the necessary resources to live comfortably can not and refuse to deal with such strict regulation and high taxes of California where they cannot make a profit. Where there is no profit there will not be capitalism.

By: The DA

The DA — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:41:16 +0000

The problem with SkippingDog’s initial comment is that he doesn’t consider that the regulatory cure often wreaks more havoc than the problem it intends to rectify. As bad as it was, the 1969 Santa Barbara spill did not kill the California coastline, and was paid for out of the pockets of the oil companies responsible. It was a disaster, yes, but it wasn’t the apocalypse. To my knowledge, not one human being lost their life. Unfortunately the alleged cure via legislation treated it like the apocalypse.

How many billions of dollars have been lost since 1969, and will continue to be lost because people like SkippingDog think that the environment should not be subject to any risk? We’re not talking about risk to actual human life, but rather to the esthetic value of a pristine coastline etc. Evidently no price is too big to pay to avoid the mere potentiality of another oil spill. This is ridiculous. Life is choices that make sense for our overall well-being. We don’t ban automobiles even though thousands of people lose their lives in a car accident each and every year.

At present, California is billions of dollars in debt without any light at the end of the tunnel. We’re broke, and haven’t even begun to see the darker days. Most sane Californians do recognize the need to reasonably avoid the practices that may cause damage to our coastline. The keyword here is reasonable. The real question is, at what price?

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:40:08 +0000

One man’s gaming is another’s necessity in politics, Wayne. You know that as well as anyone.

By: Wayne Lusvardi

Wayne Lusvardi — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:34:09 +0000

Skippy Dog
For clarification the article said that environmental laws could be “gamed” – not that they were unnecessary.

By: queeg

queeg — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:13:27 +0000

Your worst fear….no gas for your car….your second fear…forced out your housing due to regulations and taxes.
Your least fear…I can still walk out of California!!!

By: SkippingDog

SkippingDog — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:43:47 +0000

The 1969 oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel when one of the Union Oil rigs blew out was the largest oil spill in U.S. history until the Exxon Valdez and the recent BP spill in the Gulf. That was the primary reason we passed the California Environmental Quality Act, the Coastal Protection Act, and why most sane people recognize the need to avoid the kind of practices that caused such damage to a hundred miles of our coastline.

When industries or people can’t or won’t properly regulate themselves to prevent harm to others, it’s entirely appropriate for the people or their government to step in and do so. Most of the environmental laws with which you so disagree were passed by initiative, so you can hardly say they were implemented without the full support of the people affected.