Print 67 comment(s) - last by paul1149.. on Sep 14 at 8:50 PM

A natural oil seep in Ventura County, CA
California environmental group advocates drilling to reduce oil pollution on local beaches

In 1969, a Union Oil rig off the coast of Santa Barbara experienced a blowout. Pipes burst, and oil spilled into the sea -- as much as 100,000 barrels worth. The resultant oil slick so horrified local residents that Earth Day was born.  Soon thereafter, the first of a series of laws banning offshore drilling was enacted.

The chance of another spill, locals reasoned, just wasn't worth drilling. And despite four decades of progress in eliminating such accidents, the ban has stood. Yet, local beaches still see oil slicks and its resultant damage. Where's the oil coming from?


A seep occurs when oil escapes naturally from the ground, due to pressure in the underground reservoir.  Off the California coast, seeps release an incredibly large amount of oil. In fact, since the 1969 accident, the amount of such seepage in the Santa Barbara Channel alone has been over 30 times as large as the amount from the spill itself. 

We can't stop such seeps, but we can reduce them. How? By drilling.

Earlier this year, University of California geophysics professor Bruce Luyendyk spoke to a citizens’ town hall forum at Santa Barbara. He told citizens that the oil mucking up Santa Barbara beaches was due to seeps, not spills. According to Luyendyk, the amount of oil escaping naturally from just one set of seeps in the Santa Barbara channel is equal to about 42 thousand gallons a day -- equal to an Exxon Valdez-size oil spill every 5 or 6 years.

Oil isn't the only thing seeping either. About 3 million cubic feet of natural gas escape each day from the ocean floor off the California Coast. By comparison, your average home uses between 200 and 300 cubic feet per day.

This is oil and gas we could be capturing and using. Instead, it's going to waste and polluting beaches in the process.

The sheer size of the seepage has led to the formation of a new environmental group, called SOS California -- which stands for Stop Oil Seeps. The group wants to lift the offshore drilling ban not to generate oil, but to reduce oil pollution from seepage. They point to university studies which demonstrate that extracting oil through drilling reduces reservoir pressure. That, in turn, reduces seepage. SOS advocates lifting the drilling ban for just that reason -- to reduce oil pollution on local beaches.

The Outer Continental Shelf is rich in oil. According to the US DOE, areas now off limits to drilling hold around 18 billion barrels. Other estimates are higher. Alaska's ANWR holds an additional 10 billion barrels. Together, that's enough to cut our foreign oil imports by 20% for the next 32 years, and generate $3.5 trillion in revenue. That's trillion, with a "T".

Polls show overwhelming support among Americans to lift the drilling ban. But is Washington listening? At the Democratic convention this week in Denver, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped to tell a group protesting the drilling ban, "can we drill your heads"? At the national level, the message doesn't seem to be getting through.

The Santa Barbara City Council recently voted to lift their local ban on drilling, a largely symbolic act since state and federal laws still prohibit it.   It's a start.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By JasonMick on 8/29/2008 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 5
The sheer size of the seepage has led to the formation of a new environmental group, called SOS California -- which stands for Stop Oil Seeps.

See, I told you there are plenty of vocal rational environmental groups. Its just the extreme ones like Greenpeace that steal the press attention. Next time you mention Greenpeace I'm gonna mention SOS ;)

This just seems common sense. I mean drilling in ANWR is sort of debatable, but here you have an example of oil thats damaging the environment. You'd have less damage if you harvested it.

I always say the country needs more realists. We have plenty of idealists and some selfish cynics, but there's a real need for more realism in dealing with environmental challenges. I don't agree with you on a lot of topics, but I think we both can agree on this.

Nice article, BTW.

RE: Interesting...
By arazok on 8/29/2008 11:58:41 AM , Rating: 5
The hidden message in all of this should be that oil spills don’t necessarily need to be viewed as environmental calamities. They are events which pass, and don’t really cause any long term impact.

So what’s all the fuss about with drilling? Be it in ANWR or off the coast of California?

RE: Interesting...
By masher2 on 8/30/08, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting...
By Lightning III on 9/3/2008 1:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
entirely back to normal my ass

check your facts dumbass

they could drop another billion in that bay

and it would still not be back to normal

hows the fishing

they recently revisted all that when the exon was trying to once again trying to sqirm out of paying the settlements

lets see you try to earn a living fishing in that bay and then we'll see

RE: Interesting...
By MrWho on 9/4/2008 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
I have no knowledge of the area - I've even never been to the US myself - but the way you expose your facts leaves me wondering whether you're actually right or not.

Calling someone a "dumbass" puts you in the same league of the typical teenager who seldom has any idea of what he's talking about.

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/2008 1:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
Lad is a long-time Santa Barbara resident who as a commercial fisherman/diver amassed over 10,000 hours underwater along California shorelines. He is the founder of two pioneering enterprises known for the development of subsea equipment and marine construction techniques, Cal Dive International and Oceaneering International —both now New York Stock Exchange companies.

Vice President / Treasurer
Jim retired from Cal Dive International , Inc., a marine contractor and operator of offshore oil and gas properties and production facilities , where he was, Chief Financial Officer, Vice Chairman and a Director. Mr. Nelson currently serves on the Boards of Directors of four publicly traded companies: W&T Offshore, Inc., an independent oil and natural gas company focused in the Gulf of Mexico; Oil States International, Inc., a diversified oilfield services company ; Input/Output, a seismic services provider; and Quintana Maritime Ltd., an international provider of dry bulk cargo marine transportation services based in Athens, Greece.

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/2008 2:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
I forgot one.

During her years as an undergraduate at the University of California, Peggy worked as a commercial abalone diver at the Channel Islands. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in Marine Biology, she was employed as a research diver for the University, participating in the Exxon population studies (whatever that means ...)to determine the effects of the 1969 oil spill on the abalone beds around the Channel Islands. Additionally, she worked as a salmon biologist for the Fish and Game department in Alaska, and spent several years abroad, primarily in Scotland, working in the offshore oil industry.

RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 8/29/2008 2:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Typical. Ignore the arguments and just make shady ad hominem innuendos.

Oh, you forgot to attack the geophysics professor. See if you can dig up some dirt on him too. I'm sure he gave a talk once where oil execs were present, which obviously proves he's a paid shill.

/shakes head.

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 8/29/2008 2:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
I "obviously haven't realized" you didn't attack the professor? I'm the one who told YOU that. You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills.

And you can pretend otherwise, but this is an obvious attempt to cast aspersions on the group by the old guilt by association trick.

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 8/29/2008 3:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Whatever I could say on SOS would be irrelevant to both the professor and his message.
And by that argument, irrelevant to the entire discussion. So why even bring it up?

Your comments to Masher make it clear. You were looking for some way to cast aspersions on the intentions of this group. Trying to deny it now is pretty pathetic.

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: Interesting...
By porkpie on 8/29/2008 4:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
Then congratulations, you disproved Jason's point that some environmental groups are actually sensible. This isn't a "real" environmental group at all.

RE: Interesting...
By Solandri on 9/6/2008 1:36:55 AM , Rating: 2
My graduate degree is in ocean engineering. Most of the folks working in the field love the ocean. It's why we took up careers in it instead of something more lucrative like aerospace or generally applicable like civil engineering or computer science.

Once you get your degree, you've basically got three choices. Work for the Navy, work for NOAA, or work for the oil industry. There are a handful of small companies scattered in the field (mostly manufacturers supplying equipment to the Navy, NOAA, or the oil industry), but the bulk of the jobs are by those three employers. Shipbuilding used to be big, but it's mostly outsourced to Asia now.

So if you're not working for the military / don't have a security clearance, and aren't doing research for the government, your job choice is pretty much limited to offshore oil exploration and drilling. That's just the way it is if you want an engineering career involving the ocean. Oceaneering International is the biggest ocean engineering company, and works on everything from oil platforms to research ships to oceanographic sensing equipment.

Like I said, most everyone in the field loves the ocean and would do everything we can to protect it. If we wanted to work in the oil industry and make lots of money, we would've become petroleum engineers. It pays just as well (if not better), you can get a job inland and not just on the coasts, and a mere storm doesn't drastically increase your chances of dying. If you love the ocean, you become an ocean engineer and just happen to be employed by the oil industry. We wouldn't be in the field if we didn't love the ocean.

RE: Interesting...
By JustTom on 8/30/2008 1:45:09 AM , Rating: 3
You do realize that all the information Jbartabas presented is straight from SOS' website?

RE: Interesting...
By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/3/2008 5:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
lots of that going on..."former" oil company employees manipulating facts for the good of the oil company. I wish our country could pull our collective noses from the grindstone long enough to see the corruption.

RE: Interesting...
By sigilscience on 9/3/2008 6:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
God, you conspiracy nuts are funny. If there really was any sort of connection, do you really think they'd let us know by advertising that they worked for an oil company on their website?

So someone once worked as a diver for some drilling company that once hired out to Exxon? Who else would better know that oil seeps up naturally out of the ground?

RE: Interesting...
By jskirwin on 8/29/2008 2:37:11 PM , Rating: 5
An abalone diver with a BA in Marine Biology who worked in the offshore oil industry.

So it must follow that she's wants to make a fortune off drilling off the coast and fouling CA beaches.

I work in the Banking Industry. Does that mean that if I started a non-profit that pushed for bankruptcy reform that I would be a shill for banking?

RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 8/29/2008 2:10:48 PM , Rating: 3
Pulled from the soscalifornia website. Yeah, it may seem a bit sketchy, but frequently, people who present ideas like this in such an organized manner are people who have a stake and / or a bit of experience in it.

Reality isn't pretty, but at the end of the day, what matters most is that the job gets done. I think the fact that this information is openly disclosed on their website is good.

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting...
By masher2 on 8/29/2008 2:29:38 PM , Rating: 4
A conflict of interest only applies to a person with fiduciary, managerial, or legal authority over a matter, which doesn't seem to apply in this case.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is. Do you deny that natural seeps are occurring, or that we can't reduce them via drilling?

RE: Interesting...
By jbartabas on 8/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Interesting...
By sigilscience on 8/29/2008 3:30:59 PM , Rating: 5
I don't really have one with the science as I said before. However, I don't like too much when people with possible financial interests enter scientific and political debates
Funny you never seem to mind when wind or solar advocates do just the same.

Just today DT has a story on T.Boone Pickens begging for government to fund wind power: something he has a multi-billion dollar investment in. A more clear conflict of interest couldn't possibly exist. Where's your outrage there?

You're not fooling anyone.

RE: Interesting...
By TheDoc9 on 8/29/2008 4:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
The best part about the T.Boone plan is that every resident in Texas will see an average $4 increase per month on their electric bill just to pay for the lines to connect his windfarm to the grid.

This of course is on top of the subsidies and tax breaks that he gets from the fed. Then he makes money off of selling the power itself. One story estimated that he might be able to pay the entire grid off in the first year of operation.

Capitalize on something people think they want, get them to pay for it and get even richer in the process. The guy is a genius. It's no wonder so few people are truly and royally rich. /sarcasm

RE: Interesting...
By Ringold on 8/30/2008 8:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
However, I don't like too much when people with possible financial interests enter scientific and political debates, whether they are in the business of carbon trading or the offshore oil drilling equipments.

Have you worked a day in your life, and then set aside or had set aside for you any of that money in either a self directed retirement account or a pension fund?

If no, then I'd doubt such a persons credibility as they must be all of 12 years old, and if yes, then they have financial ties to the oil industry. Oil companies make up components of both the DJIA and S&P500, and thus virtually everyone has part of their retirement coin on the line. This point has been made before, worth making it again.

Regardless of that, I don't see what the problem is with such people entering debates. Disregarding their opinion is disregarding the opinion of people who understand the business, have real-world operating knowledge of it, and perhaps best know how to change it or achieve whatever goal it is that society is looking for. I for one tend to consider such peoples word more highly than PhD's speaking from up high in their tenured academic ivory tower, who have little to no experience of whats going on in the real world. Clearly, some people from inside an industry may have bias, but to believe academics don't have their own equally strong political bias, that would be lunacy.

RE: Interesting...
By masher2 on 8/30/2008 11:00:30 PM , Rating: 4
I am perpetually astonished by how many people don't understand such a simple fact. There are only three ways to get money in this world:

1. Convince the government to take it from another and give to you.
2. Steal or beg some from someone other than you.
3. Invest in or work for a business making it themselves.

Given that doors #1 and #2 are morally degrading, dead-end, zero-sum games that involve exploiting others, it's amazing there is such hostility towards option #3.

RE: Interesting...
By Jim28 on 9/3/2008 10:52:45 AM , Rating: 2
jbart and co simply approve of or simply ignore that bias.
That bias is for our own good after all.

The hypicrosy is astounding

RE: Interesting...
By clovell on 8/29/2008 6:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
A valid point.

RE: Interesting...
By iNGEN on 9/7/2008 12:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
See, I told you there are plenty of vocal rational environmental groups.

While I actually agree with your assertion, it isn't the case here. Seeps are naturally occuring phenomena. That makes attempts to stop them anti-environmental. At least in keeping with the typical conotation of 'environmental' in 'environmental groups'.

Hey Mikey!
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 1:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
Hey again it's Micael Asher bringing us the news they just dont want to tell us :) Well I figured since you're mentioning this group as a source I might as well look into it. You use Bruce Luyendyk's name to give this group as well as yourself some credibility so why is it that when he was called upon by the LA Times to aide in clarifying their position he responded in this fashion, "in a letter to the Board of Supervisors in advance of the vote, Luyendyk warned against extrapolating the results of his group's 1999 study and said that labeling naturally seeping oil "to be pollution is not so simple."

Thanks Again Mike! You're looking out for the little guy!

RE: Hey Mikey!
By ttowntom on 9/4/2008 10:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
When I go to the beach, and see it all covered with sticky black goo and a bunch of dead oil-covered birds all over the place, I call it pollution.

What do you call it? Lovely nature doing its thing?

RE: Hey Mikey!
By masher2 on 9/4/2008 10:34:48 AM , Rating: 2
Given the LA Times long historical opposition to offshore drilling, it's not surprising they chose to ignore the bulk of Luyendyk's remarks and report only this statement.

Still, it cannot be denied that Luyendyk chose to attend this town hall meeting and was sufficiently persuasive to convince the Santa Barbara city council to lift their own local ban against drilling. The facts are sufficiently clear to stand on their own.

RE: Hey Mikey!
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 4:44:42 PM , Rating: 2
Ok given the LA times opposition to drilling:

"One of the study's authors, Bruce Luyendyk, says the group is 'extrapolating these results in ways that are not justified.'"

That's from the Wall Street Journal. That quote, just like the previous one from the LA Times do DIRECTLY refute the idea that Luyendyk has EVER supported this groups findings using HIS research as a foundation. Now what facts are you speaking of?

RE: Hey Mikey!
By masher2 on 9/4/2008 5:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
The study in question is entitled, "Decrease in natural marine hydrocarbon seepage near Coal Oil Point, California, associated with offshore oil production"

Quoting directly from the study's conclusions:

The spatial coincidence between offshore oil production at Platform Holly and the observed decrease in seepage around Holly are probably related and attributable to the impact of oil production on reservoir pressure. Oil production from the Monterey Formation oil and gas reservoirs caused subsequent declines in reservoir pressure, thus removing the primary driving mechanism of the seepage. This finding implies that worldwide oil production may lead to declines in natural emissions of hydrocarbons on a global scale .

That seems quite definitive, and doesn't leave much room for argument. You can read the actual study yourself:

RE: Hey Mikey!
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 9:43:37 PM , Rating: 3
Right again Mike except the discussion was never about the study. If it had been your article wouldn't have had the shock value you felt it needed. You see since you've now quoted the actual study, it's really not difficult to see why Bruce Luyendyk who wrote the study considered the SOS completely irresponsible in its conclusions.

1. That study makes absolutely no mention of any verifiable amount of oil seepage yet your article claims 42,000 gallons A DAY. They do happen to mention a verifiable amount of natural gas seepage but natural gas doesn't wash up on the sand so it doesn't help SOS's clean up the beaches movement.

2. Because of that lack of data, the extrapolation used to claim that seepage far exceeds the amount spilled by the oil rig in '69 is completely without foundation. This renders the claim of any environmental improvement baseless as well.

I am glad however that you finally linked to an appropriate source. It only took me half the time to find the flaws in your argument :) Now anyone who wants to can actually see the truth for what it is. It is wholly irresponsible to disregard the actual sources of your conclusions for secondhand claims. I hope you see that now.

RE: Hey Mikey!
By sigilscience on 9/4/2008 10:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
I can't tell if you're really this dense or just faking it to score pity points. That study proves drilling reduces seepage. But the total amount doesn't come from that. It comes from a direct quote from Luyundek himself at a town meeting. Point B shows the scale of the problem, Point A shows we can fix it. See it it all fits together?

The "flaws" you found are only in your head.

RE: Hey Mikey!
By whiskerwill on 9/4/2008 11:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can't tell if you're really this dense or just faking it
Read his posts on the sunspots thread and you won't wonder any more.

RE: Hey Mikey!
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 11:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
Please you are so behind the irrelevancy of your speech is still a mystery to you. While the study may discuss the idea of reducing seepage by drilling, it does not discuss or even begin to compare the environmental benefit of drilling to relieve the environmental effects of these "42,000 gallons" a day. The fact that to this point you've already read the study means you must not be illiterate. You must've also read that bruce p. LUYENDYK was never placed at that town hall meeting by any report and only addressed them in a LETTER that he sent to the board in advance of that meeting. Please step aside so the big people can talk.

RE: Hey Mikey!
By sigilscience on 9/4/2008 11:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
bruce p. LUYENDYK was never placed at that town hall meeting by any report and only addressed them in a LETTER
Wow, just when I thought you couldn't embarrass yourself any more than you have. It took me all of five minutes to find this from a Santa Barbara newspaper:
But attending last Tuesday’s hearing was one of the key authors of the very studies cited by Firestone and the board majority, UCSB marine geophysicist Bruce Luyendyk

I'd say you lost all credibility, but you never had any to begin with. Now run along, troll.

RE: Hey Mikey!
By underqualified on 9/5/2008 12:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ok only way I guess I can answer that is this:

Now if you can actually manage to read this one it's a great story! THIS is the story of how the Santa Barbara Independent, which you used as a source by the way, was used to spread misinformation as well as not report actual news of the day. There are juicy parts too!

"Newsroom employees regarded these interventions as only the latest in a long series that included McCaw's hiring of a publicist to plant articles derogatory toward her ex-boyfriend, and her requests to portray a local architect in a negative manner."

After many more scandals associated with the paper, one third of the company left or was fired. You'll find that after all the scandals readership accordingly shrank as well the "independent" that remained was left simply for people like you to search for online. And of course because you do not know the effect of putting print in bold on a web page you really believe that google has given you the ability to enter a conversation for which you were never prepared to begin with.

Who needs all this anger! Let's be friends! :) LOL

By TheDoc9 on 8/29/2008 12:29:06 PM , Rating: 3
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stopped to tell a group protesting the drilling ban, "can we drill your heads"? At the national level, the message doesn't seem to be getting through.

And we let someone like this be the speaker of the house. Can you believe it. What kind of person says something like this. She strikes me as an elitist ego maniac, this person holds a public government job, not a prestigious position on a reality show.

I guess they're just giving the job away to anyone.

RE: Bias
By kattanna on 8/29/2008 1:02:13 PM , Rating: 1
i disagree. its about time we stop coddling every little protest group.

yes.. you have the right to voice your opinion, but that doesnt make you right, nor does it mean we have to listen.

RE: Bias
By sigilscience on 8/29/2008 1:13:47 PM , Rating: 5
The difference is THIS protest group is right. The country depends on oil. Refusing to produce it is crippling our economy, and enriching our enemies.

RE: Bias
By Polynikes on 8/29/2008 3:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, that comment she made shows so much class. I'm glad we have such polite, open-minded people running our government.

RE: Bias
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 5:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
She strikes me as an elitist ego maniac

It's not that she strikes you as one. She IS one. Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi doesn't care what the American public think. She and her friends think they know what's best for us. They tell us to "go green to save the planet". Then go to Denver where they have a massive convention using tons of power and think that we're supposed to be fooled into it being green because they used biodegradable key cards and served organic foods. And to get and leave there they flew in their own private jets and drove around in limos and SUVs.

Same with Obama. He tells us that "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK". But he can fly around in a private jet for the campaign trail. And be chauffeured around in multiple "evil gas guzzlers".

And the American people did not elect Pelosi as the Speaker of the House. The Democratic party did. Same with Reid. We don't select that.

Isn't it scary that if Bush and Cheney had been assassinated that that woman would have become the President?

RE: Bias
By Polynikes on 9/1/2008 2:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
Insanely scary. Here's hoping she doesn't try to succeed where Hillary failed.

RE: Bias
By FITCamaro on 9/1/2008 4:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
Heh. That's why Obama didn't pick Hillary as his VP. She'd off him 6 months into office.

RE: Bias
By Jim28 on 9/3/2008 10:55:41 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to say it but she would be a better president then Obama. Having to choose between obama and hillary, I would choose hillary. (It really pains me to say that though.)

It occurs to me that some environmentalists...
By peldor on 8/31/2008 8:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
may well not consider this pollution. By definition, it's a natural process, just Mother Earth doing her thing. Who are we to interfere? Isn't that the mantra?

By martinrichards23 on 9/1/2008 9:18:57 AM , Rating: 3
Humans were created by nature, so everything we do is natural, and thus perfectly ok.

I'm off to burn down a forest and slap a dolphin, don't worry, I'm natural.

By CZroe on 8/31/2008 11:25:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for drilling, but is this technically "pollution" if it is natural? I mean, I'm sure that it can't be a good thing when combined with the man-made oil spills and there may be a "balancing out" effect in preventing it this way, but it's hard to argue that we are saving the environment from itself if "seepage" is natural, long-running, and on-going.

Oil is a valuable resource that is finite and I am all for recovering what would otherwise go to waste as long as the impact is minimal. They should do studies into seepage to see if any life forms or ecosystems, however small, rely on it and see if they can survive on the oil introduced to the sea by man alone.

I also believe that the bans have more to do with conserving our supply until our economy is absolutely desperate as a means of buying us time for an energy-crisis change-over and generating revenue when world-wide production runs out. By then, there will be much more head-way into alternatives. I'm all for drilling our resources... when the time is right.

By MrTeal on 9/4/2008 12:07:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think the idea you talk about come at least partially from the widely held view of the earth as some giant organism that regulates itself. It is not; it's a giant mass of elements spinning out in space. Things like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts are natural, but that doesn't mean they're good for life. Oil seepage, though natural, probably doesn't have a net positive impact on the environment.

By maverick85wd on 8/29/2008 1:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
The title for this article caught me as particularly amusing... reminded me of The Colbert Report when he makes old people a minority and then claims all minorities are black and continues on to claim John McCain is the right black man for presidency. I almost peed myself...

Other than that, I say drill on!

Oil sepage vs. drilling
By pensador on 9/1/2008 9:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe the convoluted logic I see on these blogs.
I am retired now but did work for an oil company. I know first hand how many millions of dollars were spent on safety to prevent oil spills and many more to clean up any accidental spills. Yes there were some unscrupulous people in the industry. But if there are any now they are smaller outfits and do not work for the majors. As far as all the Greenies. Most if not all are hippocrites. I have seen them driving their non-smog approved vehicles to protest the dirty oil companies. Greenpeace was even cited by the Coast Guard for pollution violations. So get a life. Unless you are living like a 12th century peasant in the country and not burning wood or coal for heating or cooking then you are just fooling yourself. Get a life and stop trying to make every one else do what you think is best for them. Live your own life. Leave mine alone. Set an example and others may follow. Try to force someone and they will fight back.

Back on Topic
By underqualified on 9/5/2008 1:38:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'd really like to continue our debate Mike but it seems I keep running into sidekicks. When you've got a response to the last post I left feel free to make another attempt.

Hey where are you? :'(
By underqualified on 9/5/2008 6:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Mike where have you gone? Your friends keep trying to defend you but you don't seem to want to help them. Is it my fault you left our last discussion? I really want you to step up and defend your sidekick sigil's honor. Seeing that he used a website that was obviously riddled with search engine optimization to help proove your point I can see why you might be afraid. WE both know that you can't defend that link because it would mean the end of your time at dailytech as the ethics code states:

"Linksharing, submarining, search engine optimization, viral marketing

Any DailyTech employee found participating in these activities, even if not on under the DailyTech banner, will result in immediate dismissal."

Don't be afraid. Your friends need help! Please PARTICIPATE! ;)

By shin0bi272 on 9/7/2008 1:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
This article is great! It shows the relatively ineptitude that environmentalists have. Oil comes from the ground whether we drill it or not so how exactly is oil evil? Why should we ban drilling for it? Just because we risk an occasional spill? The stuff comes shooting out of the ground if we dont drill for it so lets put that seepage to good use and power our country with it!

Its common sense... but I guess sense isn't common in Caulifornea.

But Bruce Luyendyk says:
By paul1149 on 9/14/2008 8:50:38 PM , Rating: 2
Although the theory here makes a lot of sense to me, I think this is a noteworthy qualification:

Bruce Luyendyk, a professor of marine geophysics at UC Santa Barbara, was one of the authors of the studies cited by the group. In a letter to the board of supervisors, Luyendyk said, “The relationship between ongoing production and decreasing seepage remains a hypothesis that is not fully tested.”

Although Luyendyk did not say that the group was misrepresenting his findings he did say in a statement to the supervisors that the group “is making a broad extrapolation of our work that is not justified.”

By porkpie on 8/29/2008 2:22:10 PM , Rating: 1
Good article. I had no idea oil still seeped out of the ground like this. Too bad the envirowhackos are making sure we can't use it.

By phxfreddy on 8/30/2008 11:21:56 AM , Rating: 1
........ and the unDemocrats negotiate a high enough skim take.

And of course you will pay the skim via your payments to the oil companies.

I'll take oil companies over governments ANY time. They actually deliver a product when I give them money.

Government delivers nothing. It removes my money and worse it corrodes my liberty.

But there's a difference
By Spivonious on 8/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: But there's a difference
By MrBlastman on 8/29/2008 11:47:54 AM , Rating: 5
So... if an oil tanker spills its oil in an area that seeps oil, what is it?

An injection of seepage? ;)

RE: But there's a difference
By Spivonious on 8/29/2008 4:27:13 PM , Rating: 1
It's the rate at which the oil comes out.

I highly doubt the seepage will dump millions of gallons in a couple hours.

RE: But there's a difference
By grenableu on 8/30/2008 2:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
Neither will a spill from drilling. The Santa Barbara spill took almost two weeks to spill 200,000 gallons.

A supertanker can spill that much fast. But those bring foreign oil here. The more we drill domestic, the less we need supertankers hauling in oil from overseas.

RE: But there's a difference
By FITCamaro on 8/29/2008 6:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
So if oil was pouring out the ground into the ocean, you'd say do nothing to stop it because its natural? The POINT is that oil is there. And it's causing oil slicks. So why not instead of wasting that valuable natural resource, drill for it so it doesn't seep out of the ground, lower oil prices, and reduce our demand for foreign oil at the same time.

RE: But there's a difference
By Reclaimer77 on 8/30/08, Rating: 0
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Latest Headlines

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Yahoo Hacked - Change Your Passwords and Security Info ASAP!
September 23, 2016, 5:45 AM
A is for Apples
September 23, 2016, 5:32 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki