A UCSB-affiliated study purportedly estimates the economic impact on our county of Aera’s proposed oil project in Cat Canyon, between Santa Maria and Los Alamos. The study was paid for by the oil company’s public realtions firm.
The report admits that it relied primarily on information provided by Aera itself. In the report, by UCSB’s Economic Forecast Project, a limited set of unverified data was simply entered into an economic model, which then churned out results. Sound like the old computer concept known as “GIGO”? Garbage in, garbage out.
Aera is also a paying advisory sponsor of the Economic Forecast Project. So, we have self-serving and unreliable input data that is used by a “research” organization that is biased by its financial ties to the very company it claims to study. You can’t make this stuff up.
Consider also that it only looks at positive economic impacts. It chooses to ignore all the very significant risks and negative effects of hundreds of new oil wells drilled through our drinking water aquifer.
There will inevitably be well-casing breaches, spills, and leaks from pipelines, and often we taxpayers are left with huge cleanup bills. Contamination of agricultural and ranching lands can also be devastating and has been well documented nearby.
The costs we all pay if Aera’s proposed oil project is permitted should be part of any responsible study. Regrettably, this report by professor Peter Rupert’s forecast totally ignores the negative economic consequences of the project.
The study injects distortions and half-truths into the public discourse that Aera and its boosters repeatedly use as ammunition for their cause. And Dr. Rupert has chosen not to clarify this or to set the record straight.
Bottom line: Whenever we’re told how oil company projects are good for us, consider the source. Is it based on honest scholarship and fact or just well-compensated flackery?
This article appears in Jan 17-24, 2019.
