, the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act, and the inaugural Earth Day observance--all in 1970.)
SANTA BARBARA BLOWOUT: The January 1969 blowout at Union Oil's Platform A in the Santa Barbara Channel's Dos Cuadras Offshore Oil Field spewed between 80,000 and 100,000 barrels of crude into the water. It was considered catastrophic at the time in terms of the amount of oil spilled and the environmental damage caused, opening the door for the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act, and the inaugural Earth Day observance--all in 1970.
Image: © UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA, DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The disastrous deluge of BP oil spilling into the Gulf of Mexico evokes the memory of a blowout more than 40 years ago that, although not a carbon copy of the Deepwater Horizon incident, remains hauntingly similar in several important ways. The 1969 Dos Cuadras Offshore Oil Field spill in the Santa Barbara Channel was an unprecedented ecological disaster at the time caused by a natural gas-induced offshore rig blowout that caught the oil and gas industry off guard and required a tremendous effort to fix.
What remains to be seen, in addition to just how long the Deepwater Horizon leaks goes unplugged, is whether its legacy leads to the kind of profound changes brought on by the Santa Barbara spill, which amounted to an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 barrels of oil in the sea and covered hundreds of square kilometers. Santa Barbara's misfortunes were influential in the formation of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, and the inaugural Earth Day observance—all in 1970.
BP's woes are, of course, on a much grander scale, given that estimates put the leakage at between 12,000 and 19,000 barrels per day, and counting. And, thanks in part to the Dos Cuadras, Exxon Valdez and other infamous spills, there are a lot more regulations that BP may have violated (the Obama administration announced a criminal investigation into Deepwater last week).
Just like the fallout 40 years ago, changes may be on the horizon. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) last week notified BP of its intent to file suit under the Clean Water Act over the ongoing Gulf oil spill. This came one day after the CBD notified the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard that it was suing them for authorizing the use of toxic dispersants without ensuring that these chemicals would not harm endangered species and their habitats. And last week, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar called for new operating standards and requirements for offshore energy companies as well as ordered a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling.
In 1969, as an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Harvey Molotch had a front-row seat to the Dos Cuadras disaster and its subsequent ramifications. His article, "Oil in Santa Barbara and Power in America," based on the incident would go on to become a founding document in the then-fledgling field of environmental sociology. Scientific American caught up with Molotch, now a sociology professor at New York University, to get his thoughts on Deepwater, its causes and its likely legacy.
What was the Santa Barbara community's initial reaction to the oil leak in the Santa Barbara Channel?
Offshore oil drilling was for most people a new phenomenon in 1969, even though the Summerland Offshore Oil Field had been discovered there in 1957. [Oil was drilled from that location, a little more than a kilometer into the Santa Barbara Channel and under 30 meters of water, until 1996.] Although the area had hosted terrestrial drilling sites for decades, most residents initially protested the new offshore rigs for aesthetic rather than ecological reasons. People never imagined an underwater blowout. On land, you could have control and more direct access to what you're doing. This was not so in the ocean.
Do you see parallels between the current situation unfolding in the Gulf region and the events that took place in Santa Barbara County in 1969?
There are several stark differences between Santa Barbara in the late 1960s and the Gulf region of today. For one, the residents of Santa Barbara and its surrounding area had a different social and economic relationship with the oil industry. At least in the city of Santa Barbara, but also to significant degree in the surrounding communities of Santa Barbara County there was less dependence on the oil industry than in the current Gulf situation. Indeed, the Santa Barbara vision was one of tourism, higher education and, as it was termed at the time "clean industry". There was also well in place a strong presence of major affluence, including a good number of people who were politically, culturally and economically well connected to power centers in the country.
Another difference with the Gulf situation is topographical. The oil in the Santa Barbara Channel was immediately visible to almost anyone with decent eyesight because the city is built almost as an amphitheater to the sea. In contrast the "coastline" of the Gulf is not really a line at all. Instead there are bayous, inlets and wetlands that stretch for miles from the open waters of the Gulf toward higher lands farther in. So you do not experience the open water unless you make a deliberate effort to do so. The major population centers are thus removed from direct exposure (at least in the currently affected zones).
Despite these various regional and topological differences, and despite all the changes in drilling technology that have occurred over the decades, the scenario is in some ways eerily similar. Just like BP, Union Oil at the time was caught unawares, and it took them some time to shut down the leak. And it certainly took them awhile to get their stories straight. As a result, in part [because] of the continuous suspicion of the industry, controversy persisted for years in Santa Barbara about whether or not the leak had actually been altogether stopped or diverted into seats elsewhere in the Santa Barbara Channel (although at greatly reduced volume).
Did government, not to mention the oil industry, fail to learn an important lesson from the Dos Cuadras spill?
Neither Union Oil nor BP planned to have these accidents. But accidents, precisely because they are unanticipated, reveal underlying political realities, including the nature of the regulatory process. In both cases those processes were revealed to be inadequate. Accusations now being made that the [U.S.] Minerals Management Service [MMS] is "in the oil industry's pocket" haven't changed; they're still the same as they were after the Santa Barbara spill.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentThere is little doubt that the oil industry will change after this, likely only by legislation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is how much?
The worse this gets, the more things will change, and if the entire ocean doesn't end up polluted and dead, at least something good will come out of it: positive environmental change.
It is shocking and it makes a person, whither you are environmentally friendly or environmentally destructive, angry as hell that BP was not more prepared for disasters like this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore I was allowed to started my business, digital publishing, I had to submit an environmental impact statement and set money aside for any environmental disaster my business may cause to the environment. Since I own a digital publishing company where everything is handled electronically...I got off easy. At that time the only thing that was available to me to lessen the impact of my business on the environment was solar panels.
I can't help wondering how America allowed a British based company like BP off so easy and did not closely monitor their activities and why BP was allowed such great slack in preparing for disasters like the one they are now causing in the Gulf. Didn't America learn anything from the disastrous and neglectful Bush administration?
@JamesDavis: this is a legacy of the Bush administration where he appointed oil people to manage the MMS, the group that oversees the operations of oil companies. In all fairness to George W. Dimwit, Obama hasn't changed anything in that group yet. It's still the inmates running the asylum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas he tried to? From what I hear, a lot of his appointments have been stalled somehow by the repubs in congress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would do well for the coastal nations of the world to create an "Oceans EPA" to regulate all offshore ocean drilling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOil is the drug that runs the world. Nothing will change our need for oil. Until we run out. Greed and Need has allowed humans to justify anything, -as history shows, -and our need for Oil is stronger than an addict's need for a fix.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do you know when BP is lying?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHayward's lips are moving.
This peer reviewed author explains what is really happening, possibly Armageddon. I am not qualified to judge the article, but its logic hangs together internally.
What is really interesting here is the analysis of abiotic oil which I have never seen before. The earth is swimming in oil - and it is now coming to the surface.
What this all proves is that we must have big government to regulate big capitalists. Libertarianism has been proven to be the hogwash it is.
http://tinyurl.com/25lx4zz
This blog cites published main stream media reports confirm the beginning parts of the Armageddon article.
http://tinyurl.com/33vhzcg
I found this sign posted on the doghouse wall .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is never enough time to get thins done --- but always time to do things over!
As in the case of many jobs I have been on as a oil well service person on both land and offshore, I am satisfied that more time and money is wasted because of this very thing. On the locations I have been on there seems to be two bosses, the company man or a consultant representing the oil producer (often with a sheepskin hanging somewhere in a office) and the tool pusher employed by the drilling contractor (a graduate of the school of hard knocks). One would think the objective of both these individuals would be the same but the loyalty is very different. For example procedure says to test the BOP weekly, but if you skip one you gain a day of drilling and get a attaboy from the guys back at the office. Procedure are to test the casing seat after setting pipe, this requires drilling out of the cement, tripping out of the hole, picking up a packer and pressuring up on the casing seat. If it holds you trip out of the hole, pick up a drill bit & drill collars, trip back in the hole and continue drilling. Now if a company man (who has the final say) bypasses enough of these procedures, he might save the oil company a week of rig time saving a bunch. On the other hand he may buy a drilling rig and the price of cleaning up the Gulf of Mexico and who knows how much shoreline.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=102&uid=135913836425253#!/group.php?gid=135913836425253
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama and the rest of Congress are too quick to criticise BP when they need time for due dillegence/root cause analysis to take place and also acknowledge that atleast BP have put forward substantial funding (c. £14m) without waiting for any court room battles etc and I am outraged that the administartions paint a 'whiter than white' potrait , taking the morale high ground, on the way BP have/are handling the whole situation. America should not forget its history and hand in many environmental and man made disasters/catastrophies which they i) never made funding availabe in advance of any outcomes (e.g. court judgements, investigations etc) and ii) took an extra-ordinary amount of time to conslude their investigations despite the suffering and harm caused. Some of the aftereffects of such disasters are still causes harm, devistation today and it will be years before the environments revover let alone human suffering. So, stop the political gamesmanship, point scoring etc..BP will undertake its Duty of Care honourably and will in due course be able to publish the answers (post investigation conslusion)that we are all seeking to learn and prevent recuurence of similar incidents. In addition to China , the USA is probably one of the worst polluters in the world but lets not go there. Let them focus on stopping the oil leak, and the recovery operations....they will still be their to acount for their part in this environmental distaster and cost of human lifes but please take a good look at your own values and behaviours and how you conducted yourselfs (very poorly) in past events. This is a debate about the costs of lifes or the ensuing environmental distaster as I fully condone this but it is a stance against the 'ignorant attitude' of the 'people in charge' who appear have short term memories and 'have no skeletons' in their cupboards'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this