OIL SPILLS AND U.S. ENERGY NEEDS

As oil spills go, this one didn't amount to much-660 bbl of light fuel oil, according to the last estimate made before a storm dissipated what hadn't evaporated or washed ashore. The cleanup took less than a week.

March 25, 1991

3 min read

This spill, however, occurred off California and came ashore not just anywhere in California but in Malibu, home to a number of Hollywood noteworthies who lend their names and money to environmentalist causes. It happened at a terminal operated by none other than Chevron Corp., which has battled more than 3 years to bring giant offshore Point Arguello oil field onto full production. It involved tankers and pipelines-a wayward anchor punctured a line on the seabottom-both of which Chevron wants to use to carry Point Arguello crude to refineries near Los Angeles.

What's an environmentally conscious citizenry to make of all this?

ANOTHER SPILL

The part of the environmentally conscious citizenry that produces, refines, and transports oil shouldn't try to pretend this spill never happened. It happened the evening of Mar. 23. It smeared a small but pricy stretch of beach for a few days. It killed birds. It proved that accidents happen. It proved that companies must do still more to prevent them.

The part of the environmentally conscious citizenry that wants to block drilling and production off California shouldn't try to make more of this incident than it deserves. It was not a major spill. And no one, least of all Chevron, ever claimed that petroleum operations can be conducted without mishap. The spill broke no promises.

And the part of the environmentally conscious citizenry that uses petroleum products should remember its energy needs. The spill's effects were slight. Energy needs are and will remain great. Petroleum must be found, produced, refined, and moved from place to place. Accidents happen. Most accidents cause little permanent damage.

The U.S. needs the 100,000 b/d of crude oil that Chevron and partners can produce from Point Arguello field. Nothing about the Mar. 23 spill changes that. Chevron can produce and transport Port Arguello crude safely. Nothing about the spill changes that, either.

What the Mar. 23 spill might change are Chevron's chances of winning approval to handle Point Arguello production the way it wants to. Chevron wants to carry the oil by tanker to Los Angeles until a heated pipeline can be built. Santa Barbara County, following the Exxon Valdez spill, rescinded the permit. Chevron appealed to the California Coastal Commission, then launched a plan to produce just 20,000 b/d, moving crude through existing pipelines to destinations other than Los Angeles. The issue has become a contest of second guesses about safety and economics, while $2.5 billion worth of platforms and other facilities prepare to produce at a fraction of their potential.

ACCIDENTS AND EFFECTS

The Mar. 23 spill won't help Chevron in its appeal to the coastal commission. It certainly enables Chevron's opponents to disprove promises the company never made about risk-free pipeline and tanker transportation. It gives them their best chance ever to shut Chevron out altogether. But to what purpose?

The spill doesn't diminish the U.S. need for Point Arguello crude. It doesn't even say much about pipeline and tanker safety except that accidents happen and that the effects of most accidents can be held to tolerable minimums. Those are not good reasons to deny U.S. consumers secure access to 100,000 b/d of petroleum.

What Point Arguello doesn't produce, the U.S. will import. In tankers. With anchors. To places laced with seabottom pipelines.