Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Big Oil Takes Over Marine Protection in California:

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 09:04 PM
Original message
Big Oil Takes Over Marine Protection in California:




Big Oil Takes Over Marine “Protection” in California

by Dan Bacher

Corporate greenwashing in California under Arnold Schwarzenegger, the “green governor,” has become so bizarre and egregious that no political satirist, comedian or novelist could concoct fictional schemes that rival the reality of current politics in the state.

Only in Schwarzenegger’s California would a governor appoint an oil industry lobbyist to a key administration position supposedly promoting “marine protection” at a time when oil companies are seeking to expand drilling operations off the California coast. Schwarzenegger strongly supports linking $140 million in annual funding for State Parks to approval of the Tranquillon Ridge oil-drilling project off the coast of Santa Barbara (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/22/oil-parks-plan-derided-blackmail).

With this in mind, it is not surprising that Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman in August 2009 announced the Governor’s appointment of Cathy Reheis-Boyd, the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Western States Petroleum Association, as chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force for the remainder of the MLPA South Project.

After having served on the MLPA Task Force for the North Central Coast, Chrisman and Schwarzenegger apparently thought she had done such a good job of promoting the fast-track MLPA process that he appointed her to the new position.

Under the guise of “marine protection,” Reheis-Boyd and other task force members developed a “marine protected area” plan on the North Central Coast that banned the Kashia Pomo Tribe and other American Indian Nations from harvesting seaweed, mussels and abalone as they had done for centuries from their traditional areas off Stewarts Point and Point Arena. In spite of overwhelming opposition to the plan by North Coast environmentalists, seaweed harvesters, fishermen and Indian Tribes, the Fish and Game Commission voted for the “Integrated Preferred Alternative” (IPA) adopted by the task force on August 5.

“When the first settlers came to the coast, they didn’t know how to feed themselves,” Lester Pinola, the past chairman of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria in Sonoma County, told the Commission before the vote. “Our people showed them how to eat out of the ocean. In my opinion, this was a big mistake.”

In yet another installment in this living political satire, the Board of Directors of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) on October 16, 2009 announced that Reheis-Boyd would assume the role of President of the oil and natural gas industry trade association January 1, 2010.

“No one is more capable, experienced and deserving of leading our Association into the future than Cathy Reheis-Boyd,” said Gary Yesavage, President of Global Manufacturing for Chevron Corporation and Chairman of WSPA’s Board of Directors. “Cathy is a great leader and the Board is 100 percent confident she will continue to be a forceful and successful advocate for our industry.”

The Western States Petroleum Association is the leading petroleum industry trade association in six western states – California, Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon and Washington. Its twenty-seven members include major integrated oil and natural gas companies as well as independent refiners and marketers, and independent producers. Formed in 1906, it is the oldest petroleum industry trade association in the United States.


snip

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/01/670/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-01-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. No words.
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 05:14 AM
Response to Original message
2. So true ...
> “Our people showed them how to eat out of the ocean.
> In my opinion, this was a big mistake.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 07:16 PM
Response to Original message
3. That's a nice choice of picture
Burning oil platform, very symbolic... except that it's a picture of an Australian owned and operated platform that caught fire off Timor.

I made a search for "Oil platform fire california" on google and the only relevant result was a 1991 article that said workers were trying to contain a gas leak on a platform that had the potential of causing a fire.

I made a search for "Oil platform spill california" on google, and the only major spill I could find was the '69 spill in Santa Barbara. I don't know how "up to date" you guys are on drilling and platform technology, but we've come quite a long way in 41 years.

An up-tick in drilling and platform building would be perfect for California's economy and generate thousands of well paying union jobs.

I just haven't seen evidence on how offshore drilling hurts the marine environment. Everything I've read points to the rigs as being havens for marine life, serving as artificial reefs off the coast. And as a professional mariner I can tell you that oil pollution is very heavy monitored and regulated- the Coast Guard is very good at their job, as are the professional spill responders if anything goes wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. well, "greenwashing" is a favorite
Edited on Tue Feb-02-10 07:44 PM by amborin
tactic of the oil industry and its shills....maybe you've read some of their campaign literature?

fact is, off shore oil rigs are harmful, especially in California:


"In California, any exploration and drilling would be close to shore, experts say. In contrast to the Gulf of Mexico, where drilling could occur in waters 10,000 feet deep, California's holdings lie on its narrow, shallow continental shelf, the underwater edge of land where creatures died over the millennia to produce the oil."

Oil exploration doesn't have to get to the point of drilling the well to do damage, because even the mapping of rock formations--which would probably occur prior to leasing--requires use of explosives-level seismic air guns. What's that mean? Here's a description from the Canadian group, Oil Free Coast:

This deafening noise causes fish swim bladders to explode, it kills marine larvae and disrupts the traditional migratory paths of some fish species and marine mammals, such as whales and dolphins. In some places, these disturbances have resulted in reductions in commercial fish catches up to 50 percent, and have caused whales to leave waters where they are habitually found.

As for alleviating any future oil shortage, the comparative smidgen off the California coast amounts to less than 1% of U.S. yearly usage. And think what would be left behind: every oil rig ever built.

Dozens of offshore rigs built in the 1960s and '70s are still visible off the southern coast, but are steadily shutting down. Instead of removing them--as the oil companies originally pledged--the industry is now touting them as "artificial reefs" that are good for fish and birds. The operators propose turning them over to the state and washing their hands of liability.


A glossy oil industry-funded website touts the benefits of "rigs to reefs." You can tell it's an industry shill--a "greenwash"--because nowhere on this "nonprofit" site does it ask for contributions or even accept them. The industry just wants you to sign up so it can use your name to prove public support. So go ahead and sign up--as Mickey Mouse or Iron Man or Oil Watchdog. List Chevron's headquarters as your address: 6001 Bollinger Canyon Road, San Ramon, CA 94583

A real nonprofit, the mainstream Planning and Conservation League, has a different view:

As you might imagine, when the end of offshore drilling operations eventually comes, removing the platforms will cost the oil companies a lot of money and those companies would like to avoid some or all of these clean up costs.

Now they may get their way - if the state government lets them turn their "rigs into reefs."

Here's how it's rigged: the oil companies would be "excused" from their current cleanup obligations, and may be allowed to simply cut off the drilling platforms below the water line . The understory of the drilling platforms would then remain, supposedly providing fish habitat.

For example, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations is not wild about the idea and is concerned that letting oil companies off the hook might harm, not help, fishing.

Other critical questions about the "rigs to reef" proposal have been raised by the Environmental Defense Center, based in Santa Barbara, which has actual "up close" experience with the problems associated with offshore oil production. "

snip
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merchant Marine Donating Member (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-02-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Could you provide some links?
Maybe to a scientific study of the effects of the seismic air guns mentioned?

As to the understory of platforms, that's just steel girders and pipe, no different from all the old ships we clean up and scuttle as artificial reefs. If a proper removal is made of the above water portions of the rig, there's no reason there should be any environmental damage at all.

Of course the fishermen are pissed- they're all trawlermen and the rig structure would snag nets. This would create a fish haven around the old rigs, free from the ravages of overfishing.

Heck, I was just doing another search on google and turned up this report from 1999 on the effects of the presence of platform understory on the reproduction rate of 3 crab species.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/185/m185p047.pdf

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC