As three area oil companies prepare to submit their plans to upgrade oil production in the East Cat Canyon oilfield, a growing chorus of familiar voices has appeared in local media with dire predictions of future disasters should those projects gain approval. One writer, a principal architect of the failed Measure P anti-oil campaign, wrote to warn of impending impacts on water, air, and roads. Another writer, a consistent supporter of nuclear power, wrote to warn of climate change and recommended a “switch to a strong, carbon-free energy source.” One cold-hearted writer even chose to disparage the generous support of many local nonprofits by the petroleum industry as somehow tainted (page 13). Perhaps the writers have forgotten the fact that those same arguments were promoted to county voters in 2014 and were overwhelmingly rejected.
The real facts are simple. Oil production has been conducted in this area for well over 100 years, with East Cat Canyon production nearing the century mark. The many disasters predicted by the naysayers have simply not materialized, even considering the fact that older production methods were not nearly as sophisticated as those used today, which are the most closely monitored and controlled in the world. Another fact is that California’s energy-thirsty economy consumes more than 50 million gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel each day. California production satisfies about one third of the state’s petroleum needs, with the remaining two thirds most often coming from crude oil delivered by ocean tankers from Alaska or distant countries, some of which support regimes hostile to the U.S. In 2017, California also received 1.8 million barrels of Canadian crude, mostly via oil trains. Every barrel of oil produced by these proposed projects will reduce the need for foreign payments as well as reducing the need for oil tanker and oil train traffic.
The choice is clear, then�”approve these valuable projects, which will use time-proven and safe production methods to support our local economy, jobs, and families, and will produce badly-needed tax revenue for our cash-strapped county. The alternative is to deny the projects, lose well-paying jobs and local revenue, continue to support questionable foreign governments, and contribute to increased tanker and oil train traffic.
This article appears in May 24-31, 2018.