June 9, 1969
Page 15113
THE SANTA BARBARA SOLUTION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, an editorial entitled "Oil Pollution Dilemma," published in the Washington Post of June 7, discussed the recent report of the Special Panel on the Future of the Union Oil Lease. The editors noted:
There is not much point in rendering snap judgments until all the facts plus informed opinions are available.
There could be no greater indication that the recommendation of the Panel that Union Oil drill more wells on its lease and pump out the remaining oil in the reservoir is a "snap judgment" than the Panel's issuance of a two-page "report." Charged with a public responsibility to examine all the evidence and alternative solutions to the problem, the Panel gave no indication in its report that it had made the thorough study which the public has a night to expect.
There was no discussion of alternative solutions in the Panel's report, no reference to its methods of procedures, no mention of its sources of evidence or ideas other than its thanks to the Union Oil Co. and the Geological Survey, and no reference to the possible negative consequences of its recommendations.
I do not dispute the possibility that the recommendation of the Panel may be the only feasible solution. But I do dispute the assumption that a cursory list of recommendations, unsubstantiated by a public record of any kind, deserves the confidence of the public or provides adequate information on which to base public policy decisions.
In the absence of information on the alternative proposals considered by the Panel it is almost impossible to tell whether they have rendered a judgment or confirmed a prejudice.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial and the report of the Panel be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, June 7, 1969]
OIL-POLLUTION DILEMMA
The report of the Special Panel on the Future of the Union Oil Lease seems to mean that there is no satisfactory solution of the oil seeps that continue to pollute the Santa Barbara Channel. The experts assembled by the President's Science Adviser, Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, believe that pumping the oil out of the "Repetto Zone" would entail the least danger. This is an understandable disappointment to the distressed people of Santa Barbara, but no other feasible solution has been offered to date.
The experts were not impressed by the proposal to "pave" up to 20 acres of the ocean floor in an effort to cut off the seepage of oil to the surface. Such a shield might be broken by earthquakes or shifting of the ocean floor, and the leaks might continue at the edges. Some remedial measures can be taken, and Interior Secretary Hickel has already approved the Panel's recommendations that "plastic tents" and similar devices be used to capture escaping oil, that precast concrete domes be lowered over identifiable leaks. and that additional precautions be taken against earthquake breakage of oil lines.
When these expedients have been taken, additional drilling and pumping to empty the leaking dome may be the only feasible long-range remedy. The proposal is complicated by the lack of information as to whether additional reservoirs of oil at greater depths beneath the ocean floor are connected with the reservoir recently tapped. If so, many years of pumping might be necessary to drain the interconnected pools. But the problem will not be solved by mere emotional reaction against the pumping-out idea because it would enable the company and the Government to profit from the operation. Unless some other feasible solution can be found, there seems to be no acceptable alternative.
Whether the Government should cancel all its off-shore oil leases to prevent other blowouts comparable to the one in the Santa Barbara Channel is another question. No automatic answer can be given on the ground that only one of the 71 leases in the Channel has created a pollution problem. Fortunately, another presidential panel is at work on this broader question. There is not much point in rendering snap judgments until all the facts plus informed opinions are available.
REPORT OF SPECIAL PANEL ON THE FUTURE OF THE UNION OIL LEASE
The Panel believes that it is less hazardous to proceed with development of the lease than to attempt to seal the structure with its oil content intact. In fact, the Panel is of the opinion that withdrawal of the oil from the Repetto Zone is a necessary part of any plan to stop the oil seep and to insure against recurrence of oil seeps on the crest of the structure. The Panel concludes that it would be hazardous to withdraw from this lease at the present time.
It would be inappropriate for this Panel to recommend a detailed program to stop the seepage and reduce the formation pressures. It would be equally inappropriate to attempt to manage such a program from this Panel. Nevertheless, a definite order of priorities should be established. The Panel recommends the following order of priorities:
1. Contain and control present oil seepage through the use of underwater receptacles or other suitable methods.
2. Seal off, or reduce as much as possible, the flow from existing seeps through a program of shallow drilling (above the "C" marker), pumping and grouting.
3. Review the possible earthquake hazards and take necessary actions.
4. Attempt, through an oil withdrawal program, to determine the degree of interconnection between levels of the Repetto formation.
5. Reduce pressures throughout the reservoir to hydrostatic or less and maintain pressures with water injection, if needed, to minimize subsidence.
6. Deplete all Repetto reservoirs as efficiently and rapidly as possible consistent with safe practices.
It may be that the first four or five priority items can be pursued simultaneously, but the Panel wishes to emphasize the order of importance. The Panel recommends that the program be carried out under close supervision of the Department of the Interior. The Union Oil Company should be asked to supply additional detailed information as necessary.
To implement the recommendation for close supervision of the lease development the Panel recommends that a smaller group of consultants be made available to the Department of the Interior on a continuing basis to assist and advise as detailed questions arise in the course of the program. We recommend further that the Department of the Interior consider whether additional supervisory personnel from the U.S. Geological Survey may need to be assigned to this particular program.
The Panel notes that this oil structure underlies the adjoining Sun Oil Company lease as well as the Union Oil Company lease. Good conservation practices require that the development of these leases be considered together. The Panel strongly recommends that unitization be practiced.
Consideration should be given to pressure reduction from operations at the western end of the Sun Oil lease.
The Panel wishes to thank the Staff of the U.S. Geological Survey and the Union Oil Company and their partners for cooperation and for the large amount of data made available to the Panel for consideration.
JOHN C. CALHOUN, Jr., Chairman.