LIFE'S A ...SON OF A BEACH!!!

What’s that black stuff on my feet? Seep Oil? Natural? Whatever – what can it do to me? 

SOS documented in our last blog how natural oil seeps can negatively impact the wild creatures who live in and around them.   What about the human creatures? 

As we stated, the first thing we notice as beachgoers is the tar on our feet – but how does that tar get from the seeps to our feet? 

State and federal agencies, as well as UCSB researchers, study this phenomenon on a regular basis.  Photos from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2013) and the California Department of Conservation can help connect the dots (or tar-balls!). 

Take this one, for instance -> 

As the caption states, “This natural oil seep, at the base of a sea cliff near Santa Barbara, covers the beach sand with an impressive build-up of black asphaltum. This tar-like substance is eroded by waves to form pesky tar-balls, which are carried by longshore currents to other beaches, miles away.” 

Our studies support the hypothesis that natural oil seepage from sea floor vents are responsible for the majority of tar-ball accumulation on Southern California beaches. Oil fingerprinting provides the crucial tool to verify of the origin of this deposited oil (USGS 2013). 

Natural crude-oil seeps are common in regions of petroleum-bearing formations. This natural contamination may result in human exposures to crude oil and subsequent associated health risks. Risks from natural contamination sources are often referred to as background risks (Sullivan 2011). 

 However, researchers on human health impacts use different terminology to refer to risks from spilled oil.  Health risks associated with exposures resulting from accidental releases of chemicals into the environment are referred to as additional or incremental risks (Sullivan 2011). Why should there be a difference in terminology if the oil itself is the same crude?

Crude oil is composed of thousands of hydrocarbons and the composition begins to change, or “weather”, as soon as it enters the environment. Contaminants of concern in crude oil are the volatile organic compounds (VOCs), especially the aromatic hydrocarbons, BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene). The other major compounds of concern are the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (White 2011).

 

The negative health effects of PAHs are well established for modern human populations but only recently have these impacts been studied in prehistoric contexts. As an example, take the early Chumash tribes, who used tar form local seeps to waterproof the canoes they used to travel from the mainland to nearby ocean islands.  PAHs are the main component of fossil bitumen, a naturally occurring material used by past societies such as the Chumash Indians in California as an adhesive, as a waterproofing agent, and for medicinal purposes. Coastal Chumash Indians were increasingly exposed to these PAHs as cultural uses of bitumen and consumption of PAH-contaminated water and marine foods intensified over time. A skeletal analysis revealed a decrease in cranial size in both male and female adults on the northern Channel Islands across a time period of roughly 7,500 years, consistent with a previously suggested decrease in population stature. These trends may be related to increased bituminous PAH exposure, as earlier research has shown that human PAH uptake can compromise fetal growth and development.

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/119/9/ehp.1103478.pdf 

We certainly share the tar-ball experience with those past inhabitants of our coast. A recent Edhat posting by Paul Costales was entitled “Tar: A Local Beach Tradition” and highlighted what surfers go through when trying to find that perfect wave. While writing about the lack of waves, he added that “… as the flat days add up to weeks, our natural tar seeps compound our frustration too. As if having a flat surf session isn't bad enough, you also have to get covered in tar and spend a lot of time getting it off. Other ocean-goers are taking some big hits too. Just last Friday a friend was swimming at Goleta Beach and was covered in more tar then he's ever been covered in from oceangoing along our local coast. Goleta Beach isn't typically considered one of the really tarry beaches around here either. The tarriest beaches, not surprisingly, have some tarry names, Tar Pits and Coal Oil Point (Sands and Deveraux) being the most popular tar prone surf beaches in these parts.” http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=2603 

So tar-balls on the beach are definitely a conversation topic for surfers. Do they also encounter oil in the water while surfing? 

As a UCSB Sophomore, Joey Krueger was interviewed for an article in the Santa Barbara News-Press (Allison 2008). The mechanical engineering student and surfer was quoted as saying “It’s pretty bad out here. When I go out surfing for 1 hour I can literally feel the tar and oil in the back of my throat. I actually get a sore throat if I’ve been surfing too long."

 

While we don’t ingest oil while we’re in the water, at least not in the quantities that marine mammals and birds do, it can get on our skin - and people who spend time in the water definitely start to feel similar impacts to those creatures. 

We also inhale the fumes.Inhalation is the primary route of exposure for the VOCs (White 2011). One of these VOCs is methane. The natural gas and oil seeps beneath the Santa Barbara Channel cause gas to escape from the ocean floor and float to the surface like carbonated soda bubbles, releasing methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. 

Santa Barbara County’s air quality has historically violated both state and federal ozone standards. According to the county’s 2007 Clean Air Plan, offshore natural gas and oil seeps is a major source of the county’s air pollution and responsible for putting more than 22 tons of reactive organic gases into Santa Barbara’s air every day. By comparison, all of the motor vehicle trips in Santa Barbara County produce 18 tons of hydrocarbons each day.  However the 2010 update of the Clean Air Plan evaluates only human-generated sources of air pollution. Is the evaluation of air quality complete without acknowledging the emissions from natural seeps? 

Mr. Costales also wrote about the impact of Venoco’s activities near Coal Oil Point.  “It is said that our local offshore drilling has reduced pressure on the oil and gas fields allowing the natural seeps to slow down. Local oil operator Venoco, has several "tents" they keep out over some of the offshore seeps. They collect oil and gas bubbling up from the ocean floor and pipe it to their onshore facility. It seems oil companies get a bad rap from a lot of folks, but in this Venoco should be thanked for collecting all of that junk that is going to end up on our beaches and turning it into something we heat our homes with.” 

Why should we continue to be impacted by the oil seeps when there is a Sole-ution? 

References

Allison, B. 2008. What About Our Oil?  Santa Barbara News-Press. August 28, 2008. 

Costales, P. 2013

http://www.edhat.com/site/tidbit.cfm?id=2603 

SBAPCD 2011

http://www.sbcapcd.org/cap/Final2010CleanAirPlan.pdf 

Sullivan, M. 1991. Evaluation of Environmental and Human Health Risk from Crude-Oil Contamination.  Journal of Petroleum Technology, Volume 43. Number 1. Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

USGS 2013.

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/environment.html

 USGS 2011

http://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Stewardship/Environmental-Studies/Pacific-Region/Studies/sir2011-5210_technical_summary.aspx

http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/119/9/ehp.1103478.pdf

White, L. 2011

http://ccrm.berkeley.edu/pdfs_papers/DHSGWorkingPapersFeb16-2011/HumanHealth-LAW_DHSG-Jan2011.pdf

 

 

 

HOT TIME, SUMMER IN THE CITY, BOTTOM OF MY FEET GETTING OILY AND STICKY

Ahh…summer! Time for relaxation…outdoor concerts, backyard barbeques… and the beach! 

 

Best thing about Santa Barbara…the beaches. But wait – what is on the bottom of my feet? It’s black, greasy: it’s oil!  Where did that come from? And will it hurt me? 

 

Keep reading - we’ve got the answers. And if you read California Oil, you know we know how to reduce the oil on the beaches and give you back your beach day. 

 

How did that oil get from the seeps to your feet? 

 

Santa Barbara offshore seeps pollute beaches from Los Angeles to Monterey.  The natural oil and gas seeps beneath the Santa Barbara Channel cause oil to drift to the ocean’s surface, producing a persistent oil slick that’s usually carried north and west by ocean currents, generally coming ashore between Santa Barbara and Gaviota. As the oil rises to the surface and floats, it coagulates and biodegrades into tar. This is the same tar that is found on the beaches along the Santa Barbara coastline – and on your feet!As a result of weather and ocean conditions, the greatest amount of tar appears on Santa Barbara beaches during the summer months.  

 

To the dismay of local beach-goers, sticky globules of tar lap up onto our coastline every day. This tar is an annoyance to many of us and is often perceived to be a man-made pollutant. In fact, the tar results from the aforementioned natural seeps that have been spewing oil and gas into the Santa Barbara Channel for centuries. Our beaches lie along the second largest natural seep area in the world – a field with 2,100 active seeps. 

 

You are right to be worried about impacts of the oil that’s on your feet. But you only come in contact with oil seeps in a peripheral way. The creatures that live in the marine environment are exposed continually, and it’s important to understand how the seeps impact these species that are so impact our lives – and are so important to our ecosystem. 

It is important to note that much of our knowledge of specific impacts of oil on marine and coastal species comes from studies on oil spill impacts. We need to emphasize that the oil that is seeping naturally is crude oil - no different from the oil that spilled in Santa Barbara’s harbor in 1969. The seep oil comes from the same oil-bearing formations. Each year the beaches of Santa Barbara County are impacted by a quantity of oil equivalent to that 1969 spill –and that quantity is released through seepage.

 

Our coastal waters are home to rich and diverse marine environments.  Point Conception is often identified as the transition point between two biogeograhic provinces: the colder Oregonian Province and the warmer California Province. Because of the confluence of these two bioregions, the areas offshore Santa Barbara support a great diversity of marine species, many of which are extremely rare and afforded special protection under federal and state law.  These include over 195 species of birds that use the open water, shore, or island habitats in the area; at least 33 species of cetaceans (whales and dolphins); 7 species of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions); and the southern sea otter.  All can be negatively impacted by encounters with oil released from seeps. 

 

Oil that has entered the water from seeps, in general, can have a smothering effect on marine life, fouling feathers and fur. It is a toxic poison that birds and mammals often ingest while trying to clean themselves. Fish absorb it through direct contact and through their gills. 

 

Even when the oil does not kill, it can have more subtle and long-lasting negative effects. For example, it can damage fish eggs, larva and young – wiping out generations. It also can bio-accumulate up through the food chain as predators (including humans) eat numbers of fish that have sub-lethal amounts of oil stored in their bodies.

 

Although seep-related fatalities are rare, low-level hydrocarbon exposure might be a significant stressor for animals living in seep areas. Systemic poisoning from chronic exposure could weaken the animals, making them more vulnerable to disease (SB County Energy Division).

 

Birds 

 

Oil can be especially harmful to our coastal birds and seabirds—particularly diving birds that must get their nourishment from the water. With birds such as common loons and western grebes, the oil interferes with the birds’ ability to maintain their body temperature, often resulting in death from hypothermia by reducing or destroying the insulation and waterproofing properties of their feathers. Oiled birds also become easy prey, as their feathers being matted by oil make them less able to fly away. They also lose body weight as their metabolism tries to combat low body temperature. 

 

Seep oil has a far greater impact on bird populations that are aggregated during breeding or migration than those that are widely dispersed at sea. It is likely that the cumulative effect of numerous “small” spills and chronic pollution, such as through constant offshore oil seepage, has had a greater effect on seabird populations than the rarer large spills (Oil in the Sea 2003). 

 

The Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network each year cleans approximately 50 birds that have been oiled by natural seeps. But higher seep flow volumes can impact much larger numbers. The International Bird Rescue Research Center, in March 2012, reported the oiling of 97 common murres – from one high flow event that was traced to the Santa Barbara seeps. As their blog stated, “Unlike the birds we hear about during high profile oil spills, these birds are being oiled by a natural oil seep along Southern California coast, so public awareness is much more limited, The danger, however, to the birds is identical."

 

Marine Mammals 

 

Recent studies on possible effects of oil on marine mammals have focused on the behavioral effects, thermal effects, and physiological effects due to contact, inhalation, and ingestion of oil. Oil slicks on the water’s surface are particularly dangerous to fur bearing marine mammals 

 

The lethargic behavior of oiled seals following the Exxon Valdez oil spill was not attributed to blanketing effects from a catastrophic spill, but rather to brain damage from inhalation of volatile fumes, since they breathe just above the water’s surface. This was suggested as being especially threatening with less weathered oil on the calm waters and on haulouts early in the spill (Parks Canada 1999).  The seeps at Coal Oil Point provide a constant supply of fresh oil and associated volatile fumes in an area frequented by harbor seal and other pinnipeds.

 

Fur-Bearing Marine Mammals

Fur-bearing marine mammals such as sea otters and fur seals are especially vulnerable to the effects of crude oil.

Fur seal pups drown if oil sticks to their flippers or to their bodies, and when it sticks to their fur it reduces or destroys the insulation of their wooly fur (called lanugo) and causes hypothermia. Adult fur seals have blubber and would not suffer from hypothermia if oiled. 

In California, the sea otter population was listed as "threatened” species. Sea otters are particularly vulnerable to oiling. Oil may compromise a sea otter’s fur coat thus hampering its ability to keep warm.  Sea otters may also groom and ingest oil trapped in their fur or inhale volatile components of freshly released oil, as from an ongoing seep.  Whether from ingestion or inhalation, otters exposed to oil may become sick and die (University of Alaska 1995). 

 

Different from whales, sea lions, and most seals, the sea otters do not have a layer of blubber to protect them from cold water. Instead, these marine mammals rely entirely on their very dense fur (300,000 hairs per square inch) for insulation. Oil compromises this protective coat and even a small oiled area of their fur can cause hypothermia and potentially death of the sea otter. 

 

Cetaceans

Twice each year, from December to May, the population of the California, or eastern North Pacific, gray whale passes through southern California on its migration between breeding and calving lagoons in Mexico and summer feeding grounds off Alaska. During this journey, most gray whales stay close to the coastline and pass through the Santa Barbara Channel and the Santa Maria Basin—areas where most of southern California’s natural oil and natural gas seeps are located. 

 

Studies have shown that cetacean skin is nearly impenetrable to even the highly volatile components in oil. However, the toxic, volatile fractions in fresh crude oils could irritate and damage cetacean soft tissues, such as the mucous membranes of the eyes and airways and the effects could be as severe as death in extreme cases. 

 

Oil could also adhere to the fringed baleen plates that gray whales use to filter their food, blocking the flow of water and interfering with feeding. Gray whales are among the most vulnerable of the baleen whales to effects of ingesting oil-contaminated prey or bottom sediments since they are mainly bottom feeders.  

 

While we don’t ingest oil, it can get on our skin - and people who spend time in the water definitely start to feel impacts that are similar to those experienced by the creatures that live in it.  Stay tuned to our next August blog to see how seeps could impact you! 

 

References

County of Santa Barbara 2002.  Natural Oil Seeps and Oil Spills. March 2002. County of Santa Barbara, Planning and Development, Energy Division.

http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/information/seepspaper/asp

 

Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin, 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals and turtles, in Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development, D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais, eds., Elsevier Applied Science, London. 

 

Hunt, G.L. Jr., 1987, Offshore oil development and seabirds: The present status of knowledge and long-term research needs, in Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development, D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rabalais, eds., Elsevier Applied Science, London. 

 

International Bird Rescue Research Center 2012.

http://blog.bird-rescue.org/index.php/2012/03/

 

Loughlin, T.R. (ed.), 1994, Marine Mammals and the Exxon Valdez, Academic Press, San Diego 

 

Minerals Management Service (MMS) 2008.

MMS.gov/omm/pacific/enviro/calseaotter.htm 

 

Straughan, D., 1976, “Sublethal effects of natural chronic exposure to petroleum in the marine environment,” American Petroleum Institute Publication No. 4280. 

 

University of Alaska 1995. Emergency Care and Rehabilitation of Sea Otters: A Guide for Oil Spills Involving Fur Bearing Animals, Williams, T. M. and Davis, R.W., editors, University of Alaska Press.

 

SHAKE-N-BAKE

And they say California doesn’t have seasons…

Johnny Carson once described the California seasons – he said they are earthquake, fire, and mudslide. That was during a particularly rainy winter, after a particularly bad fire season, when the rain washed away mud from fire-scorched hillsides, then poured it through houses in Malibu and into the Pacific Ocean.

In Santa Barbara during the last week of May 2013, we experienced a combination of seasons: fire and earthquake.

·         The White Fire started Memorial Day in the Santa Ynez Mountains, and burned nearly 2,000 acres – and ruined my summer camping plans!

·         The following Thursday, a 4.8-magnitude earthquake rocked the coast – epicenter was offshore, about 3 miles west of Isla Vista, near University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) (2013).

We call this Shake-N-Bake – people have even been heard, during really hot weather and those famous Santa Barbara sundowners – saying “Uh Oh – earthquake weather.”

These people are JOKING – or expressing an oddness in the air.

THERE IS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN WEATHER AND EARTHQUAKES.

BUT… we at SOS said “Uh Oh!” – for another reason. Because there IS a connection between earthquakes and seep flow. And this quake occurred in an area where the seeps are most apparent.

Venoco Inc., received an inquiry regarding the most recent earthquake off Isla Vista. Their staff geologist responded by saying that the 4.8 magnitude event that occurred on May 29 at 07:38 PDT was a normal tectonic event (Venoco 2013). 

His comments covered a number of issues regarding seeps, seismic activity, and oil production that we want to address in this blog.

1.    California is located in one of the most active tectonic regions in the world. Earthquakes are a common occurrence in California, including the Santa Barbara Channel. There is an established history of significant earthquakes that have occurred in the Santa Barbara area (e.g. 1812, 1883, 1925, 1941, 1978) (Venoco 2013). 

So what is the connection between seeps and earthquakes? 

According to Dr. Ed Keller, professor in the Departments of Earth Science and Geography, and in the Environmental Studies Program at UCSB, earthquakes in the seep areas are expected to occur, and can increase seep flow, as follows:

• Earthquakes in the mid-to high-magnitude 6 range are moderate events, but we can expect larger earthquakes at some time in the future.
•  In the earthquake of August 13, 1978, which was a magnitude 5.9 event that occurred offshore off Goleta point…the acceleration, or intensity of shaking, caused the Marine Science Building to shift about one inch on its foundation.
•  Santa Barbara and the Channel are part of the so-called ‘earthquake hot zone.’
•  Frequent moderate to large earthquakes characterize this zone.
•  The most serious seismic hazard is in the Santa Barbara Channel.
•  Once an earthquake occurs in the Channel, we would soon know about it (Keller 2008).

And we did!

A 1977 State Lands Commission (SLC) staff report echoes Dr. Keller’s findings. The report stated that intense seepage frequently occurs near intersections of faults.  With respect to seismicity and seepage, SLC staff reported that:

• A band of high seismicity coincides with the southern extent of the coastal Santa Barbara oil and tar seep province.
• Active faults occur within several miles of the shoreline along better than 90% of the coast between Point Arguello and San Diego.

• Following the 1925 Santa Barbara earthquake, the Santa Barbara Channel was reportedly covered by thick patches of oil.
• It is known that a very widespread slick covered a large area of the eastern Santa Barbara Channel during early October 1974, and fouled the eastern channel beaches on October 3, 4, and 5.
• There were also reports of widespread slicks in 1975 and 1976 (SLC 1977).

James M. Galloway, a geologist with the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Region of the federal agency now called Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM), stated that “Santa Barbara County is more highly vulnerable to a marine biological mega-catastrophe than virtually any other location on the planet. No other metropolis sits adjacent to so many sea floor fractures which overlay such huge subterranean oil deposits. Local geologists agree Santa Barbara will experience larger seismic activity. Should a large quake occur offshore, even no stronger than the 1925 quake, history may repeat itself and as reported by early sea-goers, ‘the entire sea will [again] be black with oil’.”

So we have shown that the Santa Barbara Channel is naturally a seismically active area and that there is a connection between earthquakes and increased seepage.

A misconception still exists - that oil production could cause an earthquake.  To understand how unlikely this is, one must understand the forces and distances involved. Again, from Venoco’s geologist:

2.    Oil production at South Ellwood had no impact or relation to the (May 29, 2013 earthquake) event. The subject earthquake occurred at a depth of approximately 5 miles (>25,000 feet). Production at South Ellwood occurs at depths less than 1 mile. The lateral distance of separation between the platform and the epicenter (surface location) was approximately 2 miles (Venoco 2013).

Venoco’s geologist goes on to reference a targeted studied (that he called the most complete and only study to date) by Plains Exploration & Production Company (PXP) of their Inglewood Oil Field. Before-during-and-after measurements of vibration and seismicity, including analysis of data from the permanently installed California Institute of Technology accelerometer at the Baldwin Hills, indicated that their activities had no detectable effects on vibration, and did not induce seismicity (earthquakes).  The report stated that any effects of oil field operations are much shallower than the zones typically associated with earthquake epicenters along the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone (PXP 2012).

But this blog entry is called Shake-N-Bake. How do seismicity and seeps relate to our impending fire season – and seasons to come?

Venoco’s geologist makes the connection between their Ellwood Field production and seeps.

3.    One of the significant impacts from Ellwood production is the reduction of the natural seeps. A UCSB professor completed a study on that issue several years ago (Venoco 2013).

We’ve already shown in previous blog posts that an economic benefit could be realized by Santa Barbara county services from tax revenue and royalties from that production. Mark Schniepp, head of the Goleta-based California Economic Forecast, has stated that “We need a new (job) engine.” Schniepp said if California used its vast, untapped oil and natural gas deposits during the next 40 years, it would have billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of new jobs (Santa Barbara View 2012).

One of the services that could be supported is fire protection, and we would ALL benefit.

A March 2012 Santa Barbara Independent article addressed Santa Barbara County funding struggles with regard to the Fire Department.  It stated that “As Santa Barbara County heads into fire season — with high winds and hot temps passing through town this week — officials have been trying to put out their own fire that’s been burning a hole in the county’s budget.

Capital needs are growing, staffing has been reduced, and on the heels of a report that says County Fire faces a $1.8-million deficit for this coming fiscal year to keep services at their current level, a gap that will grow to almost $15 million four years from now, the Board of Supervisors decided to shift money around to aid the ailing department in the form of an increased allocation of property tax revenue. …The problem, of course, is that when money is given to one agency, it is taken from somewhere else.”

This issue was addressed more recently in a Santa Barbara News-Press article published on June 13, 2013.   The a article stated that County firefighters could take longer to respond to emergencies if staff reductions presented to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors are approved. The article quoted Michael Dyer, County Fire Chief, whose opinion is that budget cuts would reduce the department’s response and ability to address critical situations.

We all know what this fire season has brought thus far.

Why should any of our county departments be limited...as we continue to Shake-N-Bake … and seep?

REFERENCES

Galloway, J.M.   Geologist, Pacific OCS Region, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

Independent 2012. Fighting Fire with Cash.  County Reworks Money Streams to Help Underfunded Department. Thursday, May 24, 2012. By Chris Meagher.

http://www.independent.com/news/2012/may/24/fighting-fire-cash/

Keller 2008. History of Santa Barbara Earthquakes.  Dr. Ed Keller, UCSB Dr. Ed Keller Department of Earth Science, UCSB.  Santa Barbara News-Press, August 18, 2008.

PXP 2012.  Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field. Prepared for Plains Exploration & Production Company Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning. Prepared by Cardno ENTRIX (www.cardnoentrix.com)

http://www.inglewoodoilfield.com/res/docs/102012study/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Study%20Inglewood%20Field10102012.pdf

State Lands Commission. (SLC) 1977. California Offshore Gas, Oil and Tar Seeps.

Santa Barbara News Press 2013. County Fire Could See Cuts. Thursday June 13, 2013. By Emily Parker. http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/article.jsp?Section=LOCAL&ID=566722047909167136&Archive=true

Santa Barbara View 2012. Santa Barbara Business Beat, Ray Estrada. November 9, 2012.

http:// www.santabarbaraview.com/santa-barbara-business-beat-2/ 

UCSB 2013. http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=3026 

Venoco 2013. Personal communication with Lisa Rivas., Government Relations Manager.

 

STATES OF WONDER

In our most recent SOS blog, we asked Why on Earth? – wondering why, on Earth Day, some are so concerned about environmental impacts without really knowing what is impacted and how.

We are still in a State of Wonder. This time, about the economic state of two…States.

A May 6, 2013 editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) compares California and Texas – two states that are similar in having an abundance of oil and gas, but quite dissimilar in how their citizens view and, therefore, use the resource. Economic indicators show how this difference can impact our daily lives.

The editorial, entitled A Tale of Two Oil States, provides a graphic that says it all...

Texas and California have been competing for years as models of U.S. growth, but with few comparisons based on energy. The following differences were highlighted in the editorial:
--Texas has doubled its oil output since 2005. Texas Railroad (and Oil) Commissioner Barry Smitherman told the WSJ (2013) "total production could double by 2016 and triple by the early 2020s."  In contrast, California's oil production has fallen 24% from 2001 to 2012, with an average yearly decline rate of 17%. At this rate, production would fall to zero well before 2050 (Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2013, Energy & Capital 2012).
--Large investments have been made by California financiers on biofuels and alternative/renewable energy sources. (Our SOS blog entry Why on Earth discussed positive and negative aspects of the development of renewable energy sources.) Texas has invested heavily in wind power but not at the expense of oil production (WSJ 2013).
--Most Texas oil is on private lands, which owners are willing to lease at a price (WSJ 2013).  In California many oil-rich areas are state or federally owned, and a moratorium blocks new offshore leasing.
--Monterey Shale also comes into play – as discussed in the SOS blog What the Frack, this formation has the potential to provide energy resources that would provide tax and royalty income to fill the coffers of our cash-strapped state. However, the process of hydraulic fracturing, used safely for years in California, has become the dirty word “fracking” – influencing decisions on project approval.  It’s a drilling process that Texas … and other states have safely regulated for years (WSJ 2013).

These differences in production do not occur because California is running out of oil. To the contrary, California has huge reservoirs offshore.  A large part of the explanation for the Texas boom and the California bust is the culture. Despite our cars, Californians consider fossil fuels to be "dirty energy."  Texas loves being an oil-producing state while California is embarrassed by it (WSJ 2013).

In fact, not only is California not producing the energy most available within its borders – but it is increasingly reliant on foreign imports. That really makes you wonder!  According to the EIA (2013), California refiners process large volumes of Alaskan and foreign crude oil received at ports in Los Angeles, Long Beach, and the Bay Area. Crude oil production in California and Alaska is in decline and California refineries have become increasingly dependent on foreign imports. Led by Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Ecuador, foreign suppliers now provide more than two-fifths of the crude oil refined in California.

California has the natural resources and technical expertise to reap the economic benefits that Texans enjoy through their openness to oil and gas exploration and production. What it needs is the political will (WSJ 2013).

SOS is committed to educating the public on the potential benefits that California would realize by producing oil from offshore seep areas. Our second documentary, The Road2Energy Independence, places particular focus on the potential economic windfall.

SOS is featuring the WSJ editorial in our blog, California Oil, to highlight the economic consequences endured by California because of misconceptions associated with using our most abundant energy source. A few examples:
--Texas has been leading the nation in job creation since the recession ended. The energy boom is creating thousands of jobs related to drilling but also in downstream industries such as transportation, high-technology, construction and manufacturing (WSJ 2013).
--According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Unemployment Rate for States Monthly Rankings (Seasonally Adjusted, March 2013), the Texas jobless rate is 6.4% while California's is the third highest at 9.4% (BLS 2013).
--More than 400,000 Texans are employed by the oil and gas industry.  This is almost 10 times more than in California. In addition, in Texas, Mr. Smitherman has stated that the average salary is $100,000 a year (WSJ 2013).
--In Texas, the oil industry generates about $80 billion a year in economic activity.  Texans are realizing another benefit from oil production: money to fund government services. James LeBas, a fiscal consultant who also works as a lobbyist for the Texas Oil and Gas Association, estimates that oil and gas interests paid about $12 billion in taxes in Texas in fiscal 2012, up from $9.25 billion in 2011 and $7.4 billion in 2010 (State Impact 2013). This helps Texas avoid a state income tax. California's top marginal income-tax and capital-gains tax rate is 13.3% (WSJ 2013).

Since the WSJ editorial touched on issues pivotal to the mission of SOS, and on the subjects of postings in our blog thus far, our Treasurer, Jim Nelson, wrote a response. The WSJ hopped on it, and Jim’s comments were published May 11, 2013.

Jim knows whereof he speaks. Prior to joining SOS, Jim was Chief Financial Officer, Vice Chairman and a Director of Cal Dive International, Inc., a marine contractor and operator of offshore oil and gas properties and production facilities. Jim currently serves on the boards of 5 publicly traded and privately owned energy companies.  He was asked to join our board by SOS co-founder, Lad Handelman.  Lad was an abalone diver in the 1960s who formed the original California Divers and pioneered the first use of mixed gas diving when oil exploration in the Santa Barbara Channel went beyond 250 feet.  It is hard to recall but just four decades ago California was at the leading edge of offshore technology.

Jim’s extensive experience analyzing the economics associated with all aspects of oil and gas exploration and production is what drew him to SOS. He is able to see the potential that California’s vast resources offer.  Jim’s response to the WSJ editorial states, in part:
--An estimated 2-4 billion barrels of oil are thought to be in the Santa Barbara Channel with a total of 14-19 billion barrels in waters offshore California
--Development of those reserves not only would generate the economic benefits (the editorial) discuss(es) but would also clean up the environment.
--There are 2,100 natural oil and gas seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel, second largest in the world, which each year emit oil into the ocean that is the equivalent of the 1969 California oil disaster and every four years the equivalent of the Valdez oil spill.
--Hydrocarbon offshore seeps are the largest source of air pollution in Santa Barbara County.
--Producing the underlying oil reserves has been documented to clean up our beaches and our air.
--(Californians) pay $1.00 a gallon more for gasoline than in Texas.

A Santa Barbara County economic boom could mirror or surpass that of the State of California’s if oil and gas were to be developed locally.  Mark Schniepp, head of the Goleta-based California Economic Forecast, spoke before a November 8, 2012 gathering of the Santa Barbara Technology & Industry Association. Regarding the economy, he stated “I don’t see any change in the next four years….But people will continue to mistakenly hope more green industry jobs will bail us out.”  Schniepp said that won’t begin to happen until after the year 2030, but “will cost us a lot.” (Santa Barbara View 2012).

Dr. Schniepp added that some 230,000 California jobs will be created in 2013 (in construction due the need for houses, and in school hiring due to Proposition 30) , but the unemployment rate won’t begin to decline to pre-recession levels until 2015.  He added, “We need a new (job) engine.” Schniepp said if California used its vast, untapped oil and natural gas deposits during the next 40 years, it would have billions of dollars in revenue and hundreds of thousands of new jobs.  He admitted state and federal moratoriums on new oil leases make increased petroleum exploration in California unlikely for the moment (Santa Barbara View 2012).

Given our crumbling roads and an education system that is ranked 49th out of 50 states in per-pupil spending (EdSource 2013), it’s a wonder California is not following Texas’ lead. AND with the potential for a healthier environment from offshore oil production, we could do them one better.

Now we wonder…who’s ready for a little state competition?
____________________________________________________________

REFERENCES
BLS 2013. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

EdSource 2013. California drops to 49th in school spending in annual Ed Week report. John Fensterwald, January 14, 2013. In EdSource, Highlighting Strategies for Student Success.
http://www.edsource.org/today/2013/california-drops-to-49th-in-school-spending-in-annual-ed-week-report/25379#.UZSBrO3n9jo

Energy & Capital 2012. California Oil Production, Is This a Fool’s Oil Rush? Keith Kohl, November 20, 2012 http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/california-oil-production/2819

EIA 2013. U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.gov/state/print.cfm?sid=CA

Santa Barbara View 2012. Santa Barbara Business Beat, Ray Estrada. November 9, 2012.
http://www.santabarbaraview.com/santa-barbara-business-beat-2/

State Impact 2013. Shale Boom Has Major Impact on Texas’ Budget. Kate Galbraith, Texas Tribune. In State Impact, A reporting Project of NPR Member Stations/ Texas, Reporting on Power, Policy and the Planet.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/04/30/shale-boom-has-major-impact-on-texas-budget/

Wall Street Journal (WSJ) 2013.  A Tale of Two Oil States.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324695104578416871045535226.html?

WHY ON EARTH?

April is the month our nation celebrates Earth Day. As we Santa Barbara locals know, the first Earth Day was in 1970, mere months after the event that inspired it - the Santa Barbara Oil Spill of 1969.

Uh oh – why on earth would a non-profit that supports ongoing oil and gas exploration and production want to highlight the first polluting incident that made the country look negatively at that very industry?

 

Why on earth, indeed…

Exactly!!!  It’s because of the earth – and the fact that we care about its health and sustenance as much as any other Santa Barbara-based environmental non-profit – that we started our organization six years ago and, more recently, this blog.

 

Earth Day started a movement that galvanized a nation, and rightly so. The reaction to the 1969 spill was also the impetus behind the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258, § 4(b), Sept. 13, 1982) (CEQ 2013). NEPA requires the formal evaluation of the environmental impact of any federal action. California was one of the first states to follow suit, and passed the parallel California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for state project review (California Public Resources Code [Sections 21000 et.al.]) (State of California 2013). For California, this meant that every state or federal oil and gas project planned in California would be evaluated for impacts on air, water, geology, biological resources, cultural resources, and economics. It also required that alternatives to the proposed action (including no action) be created and evaluated, and that the public would have input. Mitigations could be proposed, but would likely not win approval in the process unless they reduced impacts to minimal.

 

Why on earth  bring up legislation that reviews oil industry projects? Because it’s important to evaluate the impact to the earth from human activities.

 

AND because, in California, NEPA and CEQA review applies to ALL projects – not just oil and gas.

 

The fact that seems to get lost in any discussion of oil versus renewables is that every project has impacts. The challenge is to find the project that provides the desired outcome with the least environmental impact.

 

SO – how on earth  do we get the energy we need to support the US economy and our lives without negatively impacting the planet?

 

Well, we all know that, with the risk of spills, drilling for oil is bad – right? Especially in Santa Barbara, since we already had that big spill – right?  Why on earth  would we want oil drilling in Santa Barbara?

 

An important part of NEPA and CEQA is siting – the right project for the right location. Santa Barbara has the second largest natural oil seeps in the world. No one wants an oil spill, because it is bad for the environment. But, in Santa Barbara, oil is constantly spilling into the environment. It is estimated that oil seepage for a single 6-mile stretch, including Coal Oil Point, averages 10,000 gallons (240 barrels) of oil each day. Every 12 months, about 86,000 barrels of oil seep into the ocean – the equivalent of the quantity released during the 1969 spill (soscalifornia.org).  In addition, hydrocarbon offshore seeps are the largest source on air pollution in Santa Barbara County (APCD 2007).   

 

Studies have shown that oil exploration reduces the rate of seepage. Hornafius et al. (1999) studied marine hydrocarbon seeps in the Santa Barbara Channel, and stated, “The decrease in hydrocarbon seepage rate near platform Holly, possibly due to the reduction in subsurface reservoir pressure, suggests that oil production here has resulted in unexpected benefit to the atmosphere and the marine environment….On a local level a reduction in seepage due to oil production can have a profound effect on the air and water quality.”

 

An accidental spill would be just that – a possible outcome of a project but not the intention of the project. In fact, a blowout such as that which occurred in 1969 is now a remote possibility given the significant improvements in technology over the last four decades.

 

But why on earth  would anyone support oil drilling when renewables are so much less polluting overall?

 

Californians have high expectations for their state’s renewable energy programs. California Energy Commission’s (CEC’s) 2004 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update recommends a goal of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020.  Santa Barbara’s local Community Environmental Council’s initiative is “Fossil Free by ’33.”  However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts U.S. energy demand will grow by 14 percent between 2008 and 2035, with more than half of the energy demand expected to be met by oil and natural gas, as is the case today. Renewables are expected to grow rapidly between now and 2035 with EIA forecasts showing biomass and other renewables increasing by 110 percent. Despite the rapid growth and because they are starting from such a small base, renewables are expected to supply just about 14 percent of the nation’s energy needs by 2035 (API 2010).

 

Let’s take a look at what’s available…

 

Wind Energy - Californians have equally high expectations for protection of the state’s diverse bird and bat populations. The Altamont Pass wind project is iconic in the state and was the subject of an article in Wired magazine in 2005, at a time when the potential impacts were coming to light. It seems that, even though Altamont Pass is known for its strong winds, it also lies on an important bird migration route, and its grass-covered hills provide food for several types of raptors. The article quotes Jeff Miller, a wildlife advocate at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity (www.biologicaldiversity.org) who states "It's the worst possible place to put a wind farm… It's responsible for an astronomical level of bird kills." As an environmental organization, the Center for Biological Diversity ‘supports the development of alternative energy sources as a way to reduce our impact on the environment, including reducing greenhouse emissions and protecting wildlife habitat. However, some wind power facilities, such as the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA) in eastern Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, are causing severe environmental impacts to raptor populations due to bird kills from collisions with turbines and electrocution on power lines.’ The CEC, along with the California Department of Fish and Game, has since developed California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development to address the coexisting and sometimes conflicting objectives: to encourage the development of wind energy in the state while minimizing and mitigating harm to birds and bats.

 

Wave Energy - Hydrokinetic energy from tidal, current, and wave sources represents immense potential for electrical energy generation. Lagging behind the development of technology and movements to identify the location of coastal wave energy facilities, however, has been the assessment of potential impacts. Any renewable ocean energy project will have associated environmental effects. Construction processes and site preparation, deployment, operation, power transmission, servicing, decommissioning, and the physical structures of the wave energy devices and the mooring systems all may have an uncertain level of impact on the marine environment (Boehlert et al. 2008).

 

Solar Energy - Development of large tracts of land up to several thousand acres for solar energy facilities and related infrastructure could result in impacts. These could include modification of surface and groundwater flow systems, water contamination resulting from chemical leaks or spills, and water quality degradation by runoff or excessive withdrawals of groundwater. Total removal of vegetation is possible at most facilities, and could result in significant direct impacts in terms of increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, as well as habitat loss.  Numerous wildlife species would be adversely affected by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability (BLM and USDOI 2012). Impacts on special-status species, including species of desert tortoise, are of particular concern. From a conservation standpoint, one of the most important species in the desert Southwest is Agassiz’s desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) listed as threatened under the US Endangered Species Act in 1990. The flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mcalli) is a species of special concern on the Coachella Valley because of solar energy development. The federally protected Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inorata) also occurs in this area (Lovich and Ennen 2011). Solar thermal projects with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts (BLM and USDOI 2012).

 

Even organizations that view oil & gas use negatively report that even renewable energy development and use can impact the environment. The Union of Concerned Scientists provides information on their website on the Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies. The group states that all energy sources have some impact on our environment. The exact type and intensity of environmental impacts varies depending on the specific technology used, the geographic location, and a number of other factors. By understanding the current and potential environmental issues associated with each renewable energy source, we can takes steps to effectively avoid or minimize these impacts as they become a larger portion of our electric supply.

 

The situation offshore Santa Barbara provides an interesting example of environmental impact associated with energy development. Here, the environmental impact occurs when the energy source is NOT developed.

 

A recent Wall Street Journal article entitled “Rise in US gas production fuels unexpected plunge in omissions" states that energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen 12% between 2005 and 2012 and are at their lowest level since 1994. The significant increase in natural gas production is resulting in less coal being utilized for electricity generation.  And that increase in gas production is the result of new technology -- fracking/horizontal drilling -- over the last five years.

 

Also, the technologies associated with renewable energy have not necessarily reached a high enough level of development to be economically feasible.  At ECO:nomics, the Wall Street Journal’s annual business and environment conference, held at the Bacara, Tony Posawatz, President and CEO of electric car company Fisker Automotive, stated “Just because it’s a good idea doesn’t make it a good investment…This has been a noble way to lose money.” Current renewables are not cost-effective – producing existing resources such as those offshore Santa Barbara buys us time for these new technologies to be developed and introduced.

 

No one is saying we don’t need energy, and in every form that’s feasible.  We have many options – the challenge for each location is to determine the source that provides the most energy for the least environmental impact. In Santa Barbara, right now, that is oil. In other areas, it may be renewables.

 

If we can afford them. Oil and gas exploration off Santa Barbara could help with that part, too.

 ___________________________________________________________________

References

Air Pollution Control District (APCD) 2007. 2007 Clean Air Plan. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. Final. August.
 

Boehlert, G. W, G. R. McMurray, and C. E. Tortorici (editors). 2008. Ecological effects of wave energy in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-92, 174 p. http://spo.nmfs.noaa.gov/tm/

 

Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Energy 2012. Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States. Executive Summary, July 2012. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Energy,  FES 12-24 • DOE/EIS-0403.

 

California Energy Commission’s 2004.  Integrated Energy Policy Report Update

 

California Energy Commission and California Department of Fish and Game. 2007.

California Guidelines for Reducing Impacts to Birds and Bats from Wind Energy Development. Commission Final Report. California Energy Commission, Renewables Committee, and
Energy Facilities Siting Division, and California Department of Fish and Game,
Resources Management and Policy Division. CEC‐700‐2007‐008‐CMF.
 

Center for Biological Diversity http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/protecting_birds_of_prey_at_altamont_pass/pdfs/factsheet.pdf

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 2013. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/index.html.

Hornafius, S., Quigley, D., and Luyendyk, ZB.P. 1999. The world’s most spectacular marine hydrocarbon seeps (Coal Oil Point, Santa Barbara Channel, California): Quantification of emissions. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 104, No. C9, Pages 20,703 – 20,711.eptember 15, 1999. Institute for Crustal Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Lovieh, J. and Ennen, J. Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience, Vol 61, No.12 (December 2011), pp. 982-992

State of California 2013. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.

http://opr.ca.gov/m_ceqa.php

Union of Concerned Scientists

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy.environmental-impacts-of.html

Wired 2005.  "Unexpected Downside of Wind Power" Will Wade. October 14, 200