I'll betcha yer hero al gore never tole ya dis, huh?

here you go tin foilers, from an article in EV World in June

Wealthy, seriously-upscale Santa Barbara -- where homes average a million dollars -- sits at the epicenter of the second largest natural offshore oil seep on the planet. Only the Caspian Sea surpasses it.

In the national debate about opening up more of America's offshore regions to oil and gas drilling -- and setting aside the problem of carbon dioxide-induced climate change -- a sixty mile long stretch of coastline that reaches roughly from Ventura Country west north west to San Luis Obispo Country, well south of the Big Sur coast, has some 2,000 active sea floor oil seeps. According to former JPL physicist Bruce Allen, the tectonically active zone is estimated to have leaked some 800 million barrels of oil over the last 10,000 years.

Now a resident of Santa Barbara and a member of the air quality board, Allen -- who is writing a book on energy policy -- discovered during the course of his research that in the 38 years since the moratorium on oil drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel and off-shore California, an estimated 900 barrels of crude oil have leaked from the production platforms visible off the the coast. In contrast, he points out, the seeps have leaked an estimated two million barrels.

This not only represents an economic loss of some $280 million dollars at today's prices, but more importantly, it represents a serious environmental and public health problem.

Besides fouling Santa Barbara's beaches, Allen discovered a serious hydrocarbon air pollution problem. His wife works at the UC Santa Barbara campus, so he asked for air quality data for the campus and discovered that the level of airborne hydrocarbon contaminates can be as high as 10-times that of Los Angeles. He said that most Santa Barbara residents are surprised to learn that their oil problem -- and gasoline is now selling for more than $5 a gallon around town -- is a natural one, not man-made.

He also points out that when the seas in the channel are calm, it's possible to see a 50 square mile oil slick from the air as you fly into and out of the Santa Barbara airport; all of it the result of being located on an active major geological fault line that releases trapped petroleum, which has been estimated at 13 billion recoverable barrels for the Pacific Coast region back when oil was $55 a barrel

carry on losers

oh, and trish, i guess i gave you too much credit. you're concerned that windmills will kill a bunch of little birdies? how stupid do you think birdies are? are birds dumbocrats?

It seems not everyone agrees:

"then a new pro-oil group — SOS (Stop Oil Seeps) California — quickly responded, challenging Carbajal and the enviro community to a rhetorical face-off. Offshore oil drilling was good, SOS California argued. By pumping out the oil below the ocean floor, we can alleviate the subsurface pressure that gives rise to natural oil seeps, which SOS decries as the most invidious threat to the environment since the invention of Wonder Bread. And with the revenues generated by all this new drilling, it contends we can fund the development of solar and other alternative energies that will carry us all into a cleaner and greener future....SOS experienced many of the problems typical of a new group publicly engaging in rhetorical combat for the first time. The $300 million a year it claims the county could get from new oil drilling, it turns out, is based on generous revenue-sharing agreements — between feds and the state and between the state and the county — that do not currently exist outside of its members’ own imaginations. And yes, oil seeps do contribute to air pollution, but they are nowhere near the Number One source that SOS director Judy Rossiter claims. That distinction belongs to all the tankers in the channel, followed by all the cars and trucks on the road. As to whether increased drilling alleviates natural seepage, that all depends. Throughout much of the channel, the offshore oil deposits are located far below the natural seep deposits. By drilling for oil, you do little to affect many seeps.

At Venoco’s Platform Holly — located off the coast of UCSB — however, the seep formation is directly above the oil reservoir. In addition, there are cracks and channels connecting the Holly reserves to the seeps. UCSB scientists have found that drilling at Holly does, in fact, reduce the volume of seepage. Many geologists suspect this is a temporary phenomenon. But even if it’s not, what happens at Holly does not necessarily happen elsewhere throughout the channel. Scientists studying seeps say it’s nearly impossible to track down the source of many of the tar balls that wash up onshore. So even if drilling helps, it’s not clear where you should drill. Venoco, Inc., it turns out, is currently trying to expand operations at Platform Holly. Venoco has also made a big deal about natural seepage and what it’s been doing to curb its emissions. And finally, Venoco also gave SOS $40,000 to help get the new group off the ground. Might there be a connection between the money and the message? You tell me...SOS also points out how substantially offshore drilling technology has advanced since 1969 and that we need not wet our pants quite so profusely when offshore oil is mentioned. And it’s true that the technology is better. But it’s also true that the technology to prevent the 1969 oil spill existed all the way back in 1969. But human error, being infallible and irresistible, prevailed over technology. Human error overrode the safety technology again in 1997 when there was a much smaller spill at Platform Irene. And I’m not sure what technology exists to keep a drunk from captaining an oil tanker, as happened with the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska." - http://www.independent.com/news/2008...og-days-begin/

Doesn't exactly look like a 'gotcha' moment to me. Drilling for oil that we won't see for 7 - 10 years hardly seems like a solution. Clean energy is the solution to global warming and high gas prices. Screw the oil companies and their motto of "more profit at the expense of the consumer and the environment". Oh, that's right - I forgot that SOME people still deny that Global Warming is a problem that may actually kill us all.

cuchulain

there are platforms perched over the particular deposit cited, with rigs in place and holes sunk. how does that translate to 7-10 years? it would take the time it takes to say 'yes' and chopper a crew to the rig.
the exploration of the outer shelf in the gulf and the build-up to extraction would take years, correct, and every day congress wiggles and waffles adds ANOTHER day on top of the decades they have delayed it so far.

on your most salient point we are in agreement. the modern economy and the emerging economies are built on energy, the main source is carbon-based and in decline, and we need lots of big solutions and millions of little solutions or we are in for a world of hurt. there have been dems AND repubs in the white house and the congress in the last 50 years and NONE of them have done anything about the problem. the main initiative in the US is the conversion of 30% of the US corn crop to produce 3% of the US gasoline demand, now does THAT seem like a useful program to you....tripling the price of chicken and beef and corn flakes to reduce the cost of a gallon of gas by a nickel. harharhar.

blaming the oil companies is about as stupid as blaming GM for all of the suvs on the road. the oil companies provide a commodity for a price and if the demand is there they will provide, and if the demand is high they will make money on it. if people want to buy guns smith and wesson will make them, is it the gun manufacturers' fault that people shoot each other?

wind, solar, geothermal, fuel cell, nuclear and other technologies are the long term solution, but as far as i am aware there are only three mechanisms that will bring them to fruition.....popular demand, governmental mandate or economic. people demand suvs with full gas tanks, democratic governments are not or should not be empowered to mandate the solution, and until we reach the economic squeal point even the economic solution is impotent. oil/gas/natgas prices are in an upward death spiral, but people simply ratchet up their expectations....ten years ago people would have been horrified at pump prices of $2.50 (in the US), NOW people would WELCOME them. THAT is the real problem.

here's what I do...
1- i use environementally friendly methods to maintain my landscape and catch barrels to capture rain water for irrigation
2- i walk or use public transportation whenever possible.
3- i ride a motorcycle, my car is 12 years old and has 37,000 miles on it
4- i bought my home 3 miles from the place i worked for 13 years, whereas the average atlantan commutes 40 minutes to work
5- my light bulbs are all mini-fluorescent
6- i filter tap water to drink rather than paying pepsi $5/gallon for filtered tap water in PLASTIC (oil) bottles
7- i recycle
8- at home my thermostat is set at 58 degrees in winter and 78 degrees in summer
9- for 6 years my career involved the development of ceramic crucibles for the efficient manufacture of silicon wafers used in solar panels.
10- i educate myself enough to know that bush-cheney-big oil are NOT the problem despite the prevalent conspiracy theories of the tin foil crowd.

tsafficianado - Your first post suggested that natural oil seeps were an environmental hazard that could be alleviated by drilling. The article I cited showed differing opinions on that. More drilling will not solve the increasing worldwide demand for fuel, nor lower the cost. It will only provide more profit for oil companies, more chances for spills, more environmental damage and it may interfere with the sense of urgency needed in developing safe alternative fuels.

I agree that politicians have dropped the ball on this issue. Pres. Carter started us on the road to alternative fuels. Reagen, at the behest of his big oil buddies, crushed that and nobody in our government has done much since. Btw, I'm not a fan of corn-based ethanol. It seems to cause more trouble than it solves.

Oil companies share the blame for the current crisis. There was profit to be made in alternatives all along. They just didn't want to impede their main cash cow, regardless of the enviro or social cost. And yes, GM and friends share the blame for the number of gas guzzlers on the road today. They HAD to see this coming, yet they fought tooth and nail against higher fuel efficiency standards. They went for short term profit over long term vision and , as a result, they've screwed themselves and their employees.

Regarding your points 1-9: GOOD ON YA. You're an inspiration to us all.

Point 10: bush-cheney-big oil are a BIG part of the problem and the policies they've promoted or blocked. No tinfoil hat needed, just open eyes.