We the People

To drill or not to drill...

By Ron Meyer

Published in the Santa Barbara News-Press

Finding tar on your feet after a scenic beach walk is something Santa Barbarans are used to, but I was a bit shocked when it first happened to me a couple of weeks ago. I frantically asked the people I was with if it was because of a leak from a platform or the result of a spill. I was surprised to find out it was natural oil seeps.

In fact, this natural seepage is the most abundant source of pollution on the Santa Barbara coast. The Santa Barbara County Energy Division reported that Coal Oil Point’s seepage rate is between 150 and 200 barrels per day. The 6-mile stretch around Coal Oil point produces approximately 10,000 gallons each day.

My knee-jerk reaction was that if there’s oil just gushing out of the sea floor, we ought to drill. If there is an abundance of liquid gold out there just hurting the environment, why not remove it and boost our economy?

Unfortunately, it’s not quite that simple — but almost. While drilling doesn’t completely stop the seepage, it significantly decreases it.

A UCSB report showed a 50 percent decline in seepage when they tested the area around Platform Holly. Similar studies across the world have shown drilling removes pressure from the reservoirs that cause seepage.

Considering every year this area seeps about 86,000 barrels of oil into the ocean — the equivalent of the infamous 1969 oil spill — drilling could definitely cut pollution.

Not only are offshore seeps the largest air polluter in the county, these seeps negatively impact the sensitive wildlife in the area. Seals, sea otters, whales and birds are just some of the animals affected.

These adverse impacts have brought oil companies and environmentalists in Santa Barbara together to address this issue. While some of the more radical environmental groups refuse to drill no matter what, others have been quite willing to negotiate.

The Tranquillion Ridge (T-Ridge) Project is a great example. This project would give new leases to oil company Plains Exploration and Production Co. (PXP) in exchange for dismantling four of its platforms by 2022.

Every local environmental organization has endorsed the T-Ridge project and made statements to the state Lands Commission in support of it. They like that PXP will be using existing infrastructure because pollution would be limited. More importantly, these organizations agreed that slant drilling could be done safely from these structures.

As I’ve spoken to locals, their biggest concern is having another big spill. After looking at the pictures and stories, I can’t blame them. But things have changed since 1969.

New and improved slant drilling technology, combined with other upgrades like spring-loaded valves that automatically shut down oil flow if a leak develops in the pipes, and caging that goes deeper into the bedrock as a protection against major blow-outs have revolutionized the drilling process.

PXP went through the proper steps locally, and while both sides have come to a deal, the T-Ridge project has been held up for now in the state’s bureaucracy. The California Legislature needs to act, but we all know how quickly things move in Sacramento.

On Monday, Carpinteria’s City Council put another project, Venoco’s Paredon Oil and Gas Development Initiative, on the ballot for next June. Venoco proposes to use 35 acres in Carpinteria, bordered by Dump Road, City Hall, the ocean and the bluffs, for the exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas from both offshore and onshore fields using slant drilling.

Paredon would bring in revenue and jobs for the city and county, while reducing seeps. However, the locals point out — and I agree — that the specifics of this plan take away too much regulatory control from Carpinteria and give it to the state.

Venoco needs to learn how to negotiate with locals and environmentalists like PXP did with T-Ridge. Folks in Carpinteria want to be able to make sure the oil companies don’t harm their city. Venoco needs to do a better job convincing these people that not only will they do no harm, they will help the local environment and the city coffers.

If more companies like Venoco follow the T-Ridge model, more drilling sites may be able to be opened in the area. If we can use new, safer technology to extract the oil polluting our waters, while making way for a transition to renewable fuels, it would be in the best interests of everyone in the county.

Some still may be resistant to drilling because they live in the illusion that the world can and should immediately switch to renewable energy. The fact is, we still need a bridge to renewable fuel. A cheap and abundant alternative to oil has yet to be completely developed. I hope one comes soon.

We still will need oil for this transitional period, and we can either get that oil from California — bringing jobs and revenues to the state and cities along the coast — or we can keep getting it from Russia and OPEC. Especially in tough economic times, we cannot afford to keep shipping money overseas to people who don’t have our best interests at heart.

All levels of government ought to consider allowing offshore and slant drilling in California. Localities know their area and environment the best, so any major decision should be allowed to be made by them. Sacramento and Washington shouldn’t be making this choice for us.

In Santa Barbara County, we should advocate for smart drilling in areas of high seepage. We should have the freedom to access this resource and gain the benefits from its removal.

We the People had a wonderful time covering the Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington, D.C.  The speeches given spanned a wide variety of issues of great importance. From the National Debt, to Health Care, to Foriegn Policy, and the Environment, speakers such as Stephen Moore, Daniel Hannan, Newt Gingrich, and Ann Coulter commented on what the conservative solutions to these problems are.

To hear in depth coverage and analysis of these speeches, take a listen to the 3 podcasts posted below. These podcasts are short radio pieces with young journalists from the National Journalism Center, and the hosts of We the People, Matt Donatelli and Ron Meyer.

We hope you enjoy our content, and be sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter. You can also subscribe to e-mail updates (in the form to the right), quickly register for an account on our site (join the WTP Militia), and contact us with news stories and commentary of your own to be posted on We the People!

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

We the People cover the speeches of Frank Donatelli and Newt Gingrich.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Matt Donatelli and Alyssa Farrah discuss Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and his speech.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Brian Hawkins co-hosts with Matt Donatelli and discusses Daniel Hannan, Rep. Mike Pence, and possible 2012 presidential candidates.

We The People – Day 1 Coverage of the Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington DC

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Ron Meyer and Matt Donatelli bring you coverage of the Young America’s Foundation Conference in Washington DC. In this Day 1 edition, we bring you highlights from speakers such as Frank Donatelli and Newt Gingrich. Listen to this podcast to inform yourself on young conservatives and the ideas and principles that attract them.

We The People – 7/23/09

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This week’s hour long podcast covers Obama’s health care push, cap and trade, the national debt, and social conservatism in the Republican Party. We also have contributions from Sketchpolitics.com and Barelypolitical.com. Check it out!

by Ron Meyer
Conservative Columnist
Published May 29th, 2009

Pollution is bad. Yes, despite popular belief, Republicans and skeptics of global warming agree that carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and any of the harmful pollutants people emit can be hurtful to our earth and its people. Action can and should be taken in Washington to help curtail these emissions. However, the most recent bill, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act, will unnecessarily bankrupt American consumers, kill jobs, and further damage our already injured economy.

The original Waxman-Markey bill was designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions by introducing a government-run “cap and trade” system into our economy. Cap and trade, a supposed alternate to a carbon tax, forces companies that emit carbon dioxide to buy permits to do so. The government would auction a fixed number of these permits into the market each year. Businesses would be able to trade these permits. By putting a price on CO2 emissions and making them tradable, these businesses would have an incentive to use less CO2. However, this incentive only comes through the penalty of having to buy carbon permits; practically, it is a tax.

Most of our energy comes from CO2-emitting methods. Therefore, whether or not a certain business emits CO2, its costs will go up because the price of energy will skyrocket. Extra costs for businesses translate into laid-off workers and higher prices to make up for these additional costs.

When businesses raise prices, consumers take the heat. According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, the average family would have incurred more than $3,900 dollars in extra expenses if the original bill had passed. While Obama has proposed a mild tax credit to low income families to balance these costs, there is no doubt that all family budgets, especially of families in areas powered by coal, will take a serious hit.

For this reason, some Democratic congressmen who are afraid of their constituents have pushed to modify the bill. Instead of doing one big government auction, the new Waxman-Markey bill would give out 85 percent of the permits, and auction off the remaining 15 percent. The 85 percent would be handed out to the people of Congress’s choosing. Certain energy distributors, automakers, natural gas distributors, and states with renewable energy programs would receive permits at the government’s discretion.

Even though this new plan may be marginally easier on consumers, the government should not be able to pick winners and losers. When congressmen select the recipients of the unauctioned permits, they are likely to pick businesses in their own district or companies that give money to their campaigns. Maybe this is why GE’s CEO Jeffery Immelt is excited about the bill’s possible passage.

Both the new and old Waxman-Markey bills have a problem with enforceability as well. How can the government ensure that companies are only using the carbon they purchased? The government would have to create a new measuring system and a new bureaucracy to make sure businesses are only using their permitted CO2. Watching over every business in America is neither a small nor an inexpensive endeavor, and may in fact be impractical.

Washington should still take action. However, instead of making the government bigger by creating a new bureaucracy, inhibiting our economy, or allowing D.C. to become even more corrupt, the government should step out of the way.

There is a solution, apart from cap and trade, that will save consumers and businesses money while still getting rid of pollution (not just CO2). This solution has been around for decades, and every other developed and developing country in the world is investing in this energy source. China has planned or is building 92 plants of this kind. France gets over 80 percent of its power from this source. This energy is four times cheaper than solar energy, and it is the second lowest in price only to coal. America’s best way to reduce pollution is to remove the ban on building nuclear power plants.

Nuclear power — or “nucular” power if you’re former president George W. Bush — is a cheap source of power with zero pollution, and the arguments to keep it banned are getting slimmer. New nuclear plants can provide America with cheap and pollution-free energy that is ready to produce right now. Wind, solar, hydrogen, and other clean sources are not nearly as developed as nuclear. Since electric cars have a good chance of becoming the next generation of automobiles, nuclear electricity could actually be the complete solution to our energy independence and pollution problems.

More nuclear power would help our economy and our environment. Cap and trade may help our environment, but it will certainly hurt our economy. The choice is easy for the American people, even if Washington runs on a different frequency.