TL: THE DINOSAUR'S PATH The Exon Valdez, Oil and National Security SO: Greenpeace USA (GP) DT: September, 1990 Keywords: greenpeace reports oceans oil spills alaska exxon valdez us gp tankers accidents cleanups bioremediation problems multinationals / Watching the black tides destroy the beauty of Prince William Sound brought many past the threshold of change. Inevitably, others will follow. We were brought in to see, in the words of poet Wendell Berry, "the strenuous outline of enough." INTRODUCTION THE FOULING OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND The Spill The Loss Response and Clean-up Bioremediation: No Magic Wand OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING Right Question, Wrong Answer Interior Department: The Comedy Impacts of Drilling: The Mess Tanker Transport: The Big Lie Permanent Protection: The Truth THE ALTERNATIVES National Energy Strategy: Broken Promise Soft or Hard Energy: Hope vs. Peril "Foreign Oil": The Myth THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE FOOTNOTES Commonly used acronyms: DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOI U.S. Department of Interior (or "Interior") EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GAO U.S. General Accounting Office MMS Minerals Management Service (Interior Branch that administers the offshore leasing program.) NRC National Research Council NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council OCS Outer Continental Shelf (Federally managed waters from three to 200 miles offshore) INTRODUCTION History will call the grounding of the Exxon Valdez on Bligh Reef the end of an era. That moment in time symbolized the cumulative blunderings of an energy supply industry which has long displayed a cavalier disregard of all consequences of its actions - except the continued increase of profits. Few disasters are as visually distressing as a big oil spill, particularly when it fouls a place so extraordinarily beautiful as Prince William Sound. As television satellites bounced the images from Valdez, Alaska, around the planet, the world watched: sickened, shocked, and questioning. The world watched in dismay as nightmare images of blackened beaches, dying animals, and ravaged faces of Alaskans came into our living rooms on the evening news. The world watched in disbelief as it became apparent that the best available cleanup technology consisted of paper towels and water hoses. The world watched and witnessed that the response by Exxon and the Alyeska consortium was largely limited to counting the dead, shifting the blame and responding as if the spill was just another public relations problem. The corporations, and eventually a jury, pointed the finger at the Exxon Valdez' captain. But Joseph Hazelwood was not alone responsible. Decades of arrogant resource exploitation, sloppy industry safety compliance, weakened federal and state regulations and enforcement, and an archaic national energy policy drove the Exxon Valdez aground on Bligh Reef. It was an accident waiting to happen. And it's happening again and again all around the planet as oil is being developed, produced, transported and consumed in what seems a frenetic push to get every last drop above ground and sold as quickly as the demands of technology and the marketplace dictate. The inexorable consequences of these actions include acid rain, loss of forest, death of freshwater lakes, urban smog, threatened food supplies, land and marine spills, industrial and municipal runoff of oil and petroleum wastes. Perhaps of most concern, the international scientific community is ever more united in its warning that fossil fuel use is effecting irrevocable changes in the Earth's atmosphere. As Bill McKibben chillingly described in his best-selling book, The End of Nature, we are literally changing the global climate and the very face of the Earth. According to accepted numbers, it is likely that we could produce and consume - or spill - most of the remaining global oil reserves before the next generation reaches maturity. A planet fouled by a resource we felt compelled to exhaust would be a shameful, ironic legacy to leave our children. Dire predictions and doomsaying? No. These are not predictions. Predictions preclude alternatives, and we still have many. The one prediction we can confidently offer is that the next generation will not enjoy the luxury of alternatives unless we act soon. * * * Outrage over one tanker spill is not enough to change the structure of international power and energy use patterns, but it's a powerful starting point. This report will discuss some available energy alternatives to oil and look at the political obstacles to a sustainable energy future. It will consider the consequences of continued exploitation of a finite resource that is toxic to our planet. It will also offer to dispel some worn-out myths: That oil can be transported safely; that spills can be contained and cleaned up; that "foreign" oil interests are waiting to bludgeon us into dependence. We incorporate familiar statistical arguments, but also take a hard look at what we have come to view as an Ideology of Oil. Ideologies are tough to change, but the effort, though formidable, required to do so now is nothing in comparison to the monumental task awaiting our children, who may be forced to adapt to a very different world. The world's outrage over one tanker spill is not enough to change the structure of international power and the patterns of energy use. But it is a powerful place to start - while we still have choices. Energy Facts: Total estimated undiscovered economically recoverable offshore oil is 8.2 billion barrels. Oil saved by energy efficiency improvements instituted in the U.S. since 1973 is five billion barrels every year. THE FOULING OF PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND The Spill On March 23, 1989, the tanker Exxon Valdez left the Alyeska Terminal in Valdez, Alaska, with a load of 53,094,510 gallons of North Slope crude oil. It also carried a captain working under the influence of alcohol, a skeleton crew fatigued from double duty the previous day, and only one officer on the bridge. There was virtually no clean-up equipment on board. The vessel had a single hull. Even as the tanker veered out of the channel and approached Bligh Reef, 30 Valdez residents met in the city council chamber to discuss the impact of oil on their town. Riki Ott, a steadfast critic of Alyeska's policies, who holds a master's degree in oil pollution and a doctorate in sediment pollution, participated in the meeting via telephone. As the discussion centered on what would happen if a major spill occurred, Ott declared: "Gentlemen, it's not a question of 'what if,' but when." Several hours later - just after midnight on March 24 - the tanker ran aground on Bligh Reef, tore itself open and dumped 11 million gallons of oil into the waters of Prince William Sound. The spill eventually spread over thousands of square miles of water and fouled 1,800 miles of coastline. Negligence by Exxon and Alyeska, the tendency of the U.S. Coast Guard and state agencies to look the other way, and energy abuse in the lower 48 states all contributed to the disaster. But the largest factor was simple greed. Overtime, tanker safety regulations and crew requirements had deteriorated steadily, driven by the rush to get the oil to market. According to a report by the Alaska Oil Spill Commission, "Concern for profits in the 1980's obliterated the concern for safe operation." The Loss: We will never know how many animals were killed during those first few weeks. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service counted 36,471 dead birds, 1,016 dead otters and 151 dead eagles. Several weeks after the spill, Exxon compiled a list of oil-soaked waste requiring disposal. One item on that list: twenty tons of dead birds. But those numbers are a small percentage of the actual carnage. Biologists estimate only one in ten dead birds were actually found and counted. Some studies estimate the number of dead sea otters at closer to 2,000. An unknown number of seals, sea lions and deer have been found dead in pools of oil. It is far too soon to assess long-term impacts to rockfish, shrimp, herring and salmon populations, even if study results were available for public scrutiny. The "gag order" imposed by litigants in the flood of lawsuits against Exxon has stifled the flow of information on the spill's impacts. However, initial reports released by the State of Alaska in April revealed that salmon streams were found this year to contain few, if any, eggs and fry; herring larvae were found with unusually high incidences of abnormalities; and rock fish were found with oil contamination in their bile - a sign that contamination may have extended to deepwater species that previously were thought unlikely to be affected. And long-term assessments of the consequences for the entire ecosystem have been shelved in favor of limited studies on the loss of commercial species. The gag order also restricts information about impacts to marine mammal populations, but early reports indicate orca (killer whale) mortality is up by 10 times the expected rate in the past year: Of three pods of orcas studied, seven individuals were missing from one, two from another, and 22 from the third. After the spill, five different pods were observed swimming directly through the oil. Twenty-six gray whales stranded themselves in the year after the spill - more than four times the number of previous years. More than a year after the spill, oil still remained buried along mile after mile of beach - up to two feet deep in places. This March, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that state and federal researchers were still finding oil under the surface of most beaches in Prince William Sound. (Responded an Exxon spokesman: "There's very little oil out there.") In the meantime, the U.S. Department of Interior, to Exxon's delight, recommended that spill assessment be limited to one year. Fortunately, Interior was convinced that the impacts would continue well beyond a year - well beyond a decade, for that matter. While frustration mounts over the gag order, those most able to judge the effects of the spill are largely unheard. Native Alaskans who have been an integral part of the ecology of Prince William Sound for many generations are quietly struggling to rebuild their lives in a world utterly changed by oil. Subsistence life for the Alaskan Native means far more than food on the table. It is the pattern of life, a profound and respectful relationship with the land, the Sound and the tides. "Before, when it was good weather, we'd say the table was set," one Native Alaskan, Paul Kompkoff, told the Post- Intelligencer. But after the spill, he said, "There's nothing swimming around like there used to be. It is a different world altogether." People like Paul Kompkoff, who live intimately with the Sound and the seasons, have a depth of knowledge scientists and academics should heed. They not only know their world, but they live in it and by it. Those of us watching newscasts of the spill's aftermath may have been outraged, but the fishermen and subsistence hunters who woke each morning to the smell of oil lived the nightmare we watched. People who had subsisted on seal and fish for centuries were asked to eat hamburger and other chemically treated foods packaged in petrochemical products. Strangers invaded their communities. In Kodiak, drug and alcohol abuse escalated, domestic violence tripled and eight young people committed suicide. "Ever since it happened," said Kompkoff, "I've been feeling homeless, like I'm in a strange country. I don't know where I'm at." It seems that the only way Exxon can be sure the Valdez will not foul Prince William Sound again is to change its name and move it halfway around the world. In San Diego, where the Valdez is being repaired, the new Exxon Shipping President, Gus Elmer, has announced that the ship will be given a "fresh start" with a new name - the Exxon Mediterranean - and redeployed in the Mediterranean Sea. But there can be no fresh start for Prince William Sound. Arrogant resource exploitation, sloppy safety compliance, weakened regulations and enforcement, and an archaic energy policy drove the Exxon Valdez aground on Bligh Reef. Energy Fact: If fuel economy standards were raised to only 40 mpg for cars and 30 mpg for light trucks by the year 2000, 14.8 billion barrels of oil would be saved by the year 2020. Response and Cleanup After 18 months, nature is doing its best to weather the oil in spite of the feeble and sometimes destructive efforts at cleanup, certainly not because of them. According to a report by the federal Office of Technology Assessment, "Many scientists and oil spill professionals have concluded that except for the benefit gamed by appearing to be doing something useful, the human effort spent (on the spill) was largely wasted. " Accounts of those first few hours and days of frantic blundering read like tragic comedy: -- The barge designated by Alyeska for spill response was unavailable. It had been damaged and was not loaded with cleanup equipment. -- Reloading the barge was difficult because only one Alyeska crew member was qualified to run a forklift or crane. He had to do both. -- Heavy snow covered much of the response equipment. Crews floundered through the snow trying to find it. -- No containment booms were available until mid-afternoon when the backup barge finally arrived. The Valdez was not boomed off until 11 a.m. the following day. -- By 6 p.m. of the first day, only two of the seven skimmers on the scene were operating. The situation did not improve as the initial debacle gave away to the long-term, tedious effort of washing by hand hundreds of miles of rocky shoreline. There were examples of extraordinary human effort to minimize the tragedy. People like Dan Lawn of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), in Valdez worked without sleep under incalculable pressure to achieve some sort of order during the first few days. Fishermen acted with bravery and ingenuity to boom off vital estuaries that Exxon had either not gotten to or not thought about. People from around the world joined residents of Homer, Alaska, to form Alaska VICE, the Volunteer Independent Cleanup Effort. Help came, belatedly, from other countries. Oil spill equipment and experts converged on Valdez, as the spill continued to spread throughout the Alaskan spring. Valiant efforts from volunteers did help clean and rehabilitate wildlife, but even their efforts could not stem the major devastation. As it became clear that clean-up was a euphemism, Exxon coined some new phrases. As Seattle Times reporter Bill Dietrich, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his coverage, wrote: "Exxon's semantics of success changed as the spilled oil hardened into tar, abandoning 'clean' beaches for 'environmentally stable,' and then abandoning that phrase for 'treated'." There were two tragedies in Prince William Sound, Dietrich said: The first was the spill- the second, "the ignorance, hesitation, grandstanding, role-playing and rump-protecting that made the frenzied cleanup - with truly heroic effort by thousands of well-meaning people - a disappointment. " High pressure hot water treatment, inadequate and improperly used booms, intrusion of humans and equipment on fragile beaches, and discarded waste and cleanup materials all left behind their own disaster. The blunt reality is that state- of-the-art spill cleanup technology was wholly useless against a disaster that had itself been created by inappropriate technology. More than a year after the spill, oil still remained buried on miles of beach - up to two feet deep in places. Tanker Safety, Double Hulls and Global Warming: -- Newly enacted federal legislation mandates double hulls on tankers, but not until 2005. Until then, single-hulled tankers will continue to ply U.S. waters. -- A double hull would not have prevented the Norwegian tanker Mega Borg from exploding and dumping four million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico south of Galvaston Texas in June, 1990. -- Contrary to industry assertions, drilling proposals show offshore oil will be transported by barge and tanker, greatly increasing the amount of near-shore traffic and spill probability. Even had the last voyage of the Exxon Valdez terminated at the refinery rather than Bligh Reef, the cargo from this "successful" transport would have pumped, after combustion, an additional 221,110 tons of carbon dioxide into an already choking atmosphere. Bioremediation: No Magic Wand A year and a half after the Valdez spill, Alaska state officials, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the oil industry and academia are still laboring to produce an oil spill "cure." The new game in town is called bioremediation. This process involves application of nitrogen-phosphorus fertilizer to oiled beaches to enhance degradation of the hydrocarbons by oil-consuming microbes. Alaska DEC, Exxon and the EPA recently released an interim report on a study to test the effectiveness and toxicity of bioremediation products on oiled Prince William Sound beaches. The report states, "Fertilizer application is an effective means to remove oil from surface and subsurface sediments with minimal environmental impact." Based on data from only one site, the report suggests that the rate of degradation was two to three times that of normally occurring microbes without fertilization. But in one of the glaring contradictions we have come to expect in claims of oil spill technology, the same report described the toxicity of Inipol, the fertilizer in question: "Butoxyethanol [a key component of Inipol] poses a potential threat to wildlife if the chemical is inhaled, absorbed across the skin upon direct contact, or ingested from licking, chewing, ingesting treated substrates (e.g., rocks, sticks, gravel, etc.) or as a result of chewing or preening activities after animals have had direct contacts with an Inipol-treated area." It is then suggested that the acute toxicity will last only 24 hours and that during that time, "wildlife deterrent devices" should be employed. These devices consist of large Mylar balloons positioned on and around the oiled beaches of Prince William Sound - in essence, inflatable scarecrows. The study, which is ongoing, examines only three sites. The information available thus far is loaded with uncertainties, yet Alaska DEC has agreed to allow Exxon to proceed with bioremediation as a secondary treatment where oil has been removed down to a concentration of five grams per kilogram or less. Concerns with bioremediation abound: -- Depletion of oxygen levels in interstitial waters. -- The possibility that fertilizers will induce algae blooms in near-shore waters. -- The probability that butoxyethanol will be washed into the Sound by waves and tides. -- The fact that concentrations of ammonia released by the fertilizer concentrations will peak at 57 hours after application. Maybe they should keep those balloons around a few extra days. A routine assessment of one of the fertilizers by the U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, contains ominous language. For example, it states that disposal should be accomplished by "transport to an appropriate hazardous waste disposal facility." The stuff is classed as both an "acute" and "chronic" hazard. Workers spreading the fertilizer are instructed to wear chemical-resistant gloves, apron or slicker suit and boots, goggles, and, if used with questionable ventilation, a respirator. The warning label reads: "Material may be absorbed through the skin. Prolonged and repeated exposure may cause skin and eye irritation and may cause blood and kidney damage." There have been reports, as yet undocumented, of blinded seals observed in the vicinity of beaches treated with bioremediation in the fall of 1989, and of blood in the urine of humans who spread the fertilizer. Here is the Alaska DEC's assessment of bioremediation: "The state is willing to accept the short-term toxicity in return for the expected environmental gain resulting from the removal of crude oil from the shoreline. Our goal is long-term recovery of all the areas and resources affected by the spill." The DEC's reluctant acceptance of this toxic product and unproved process is almost understandable. The need to find something to help degrade the oil is urgent, and DEC has outlined a cautious approach. But this is an acutely toxic substance which may or may not speed the degradation of weathered oil on rocks and beaches - and which probably is of little use on water-borne spills. It is worrisome, therefore, to read the comments of EPA head William Reilly: "I would very much hope that bioremediation comes on in a big way throughout the United States. " It may eventually be determined that limited use of bioremediation poses less risk than the oil it is intended to dissipate, but for now it is premature to embrace this unknown as a panacea for spilled oil. As deeply as we might wish otherwise, it is time to face the reality that no shortcuts will clean up our toxic messes. The wiser course is to avoid their recurrence. Richard Nelson, Alaskan anthropologist and nature writer, said it more eloquently: " An environmental officer for the Exxon Corp. asserted that the Alaskan oil spill is 'the price of civilization'. What we have lost may never be regained. As a society, we must agree that we will no longer accept this price. Never again." We could produce and consume - or spill - most of the remaining global oil reserves before the next generation reaches maturity. Right Question, Wrong Answer How do we decrease foreign oil imports, stop oil spills, lower the trade deficit and reduce urban smog, acid rain and global warming? We reduce our dependence on oil. We do not feed our addiction by drilling for the nation's last few remaining oil resources in vulnerable offshore areas. Interior Department: The Comedy In the late 1970's, the U.S. was progressing well with its goals for reduction of energy use. But when the Reagan-Bush Administration took charge in 1981, the Interior Department was directed to expedite development of all domestic oil and gas resources as quickly as possible. This determination was aptly dubbed the "Drain America First" policy. Interior did its best to implement this directive by means of the "Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program. " The current Five-Year Program (1987-1992) scheduled virtually the entire OCS (federal waters from three to two hundred miles offshore) for lease sale to the oil industry. When immediate and powerful opposition rose from coastal states, the answering justification was the need to reduce imports of foreign oil. But at the same time, the Reagan Administration was systematically dismantling a highly promising program of energy conservation and renewable energy development. As vast offshore areas were offered to the oil industry at $25 an acre, the Department of Energy was stripped of funding for energy conservation and renewable energy resources. In other words, the Reagan energy policy was designed to increase both the supply of and the demand for a finite, dwindling resource - a policy clearly designed to benefit the oil industry, not energy consumers. When the Five-Year Program was approved in 1986, the entire OCS was thought to hold only 12.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil - barely enough to supply just two years of the nation's consumption. On the other hand, there were sizable corporate profits to be made from the increased drilling activity. State government, coastal counties, citizen groups, environmental organizations and many others set their jaws, rolled up their sleeves, and took on Interior and Big Oil. After nearly a decade of lawsuits, political battles, public protest, legislative attempts, and Congressional moratoria on individual lease sales, the OCS leasing program is in utter disarray: Deadlines are missed, environmental impact statements are conducted too late for lease sales, funds are squandered, and, always, public opposition grows. Interior officials have literally been laughed out of public hearings. A 1985 General Accounting Office study revealed that the Minerals Management Service, the branch of Interior that administers the leasing program, had lost $7 billion between April 1983 and September 1984 alone. In 1988, Interior proudly announced that the entire leasing program would contribute $4.4 billion to the federal treasury over the next year. By way of comparison, energy efficiency programs begun in 1973 continue to save the nation $150 billion every year, in spite of stiff resistance from the Reagan, and now the Bush, administration. As Interior officials weakly offer the same threatening rhetoric - our sons and daughters dying on the sands of the Middle East so we can drive our sedans to the market - the forces opposed to offshore drilling have become increasingly diversified, sophisticated and successful. Initiated by activists and officials from coastal states, a powerful movement is advancing into the heartland of the country. Threats to the oceans awaken a particularly protective ferocity in people, even though their visits to the coast may be few. Energy Facts: The 1990 Energy Department budget allocated $1 billion to fossil fuel research, seven times the amount directed to renewables. As vast offshore areas were offered to the oil industry at $25 per acre minimum bids, funding for conservation and renewable energy was gutted. Impacts of Drilling: The Mess Opposition to offshore drilling stems not just from a dread of spills. The cumulative effects of offshore drilling, production and transportation cause irrevocable changes in coastal communities, the marine and coastal environments, wildlife, commercial fisheries and tourism. Nowhere is this more apparent than the Gulf of Mexico. North Carolina tugboat captain Mike Egan worked for ten years in the Gulf of Mexico offshore oil industry, but had to leave for North Carolina after the oil bust once again followed the oil boom. "Sure," Egan told Greenpeace magazine, "there was lots of money to be made at first, but as soon as the price of oil dropped, the flow of cash dried up and the oil companies moved on. "We were left holding the bag. Suddenly there were no jobs, just pollution." It is, sadly, a familiar story where oil has come and gone. Even if an area is never exposed to a catastrophic spill, air, water and noise pollution are constant companions to off- shore oil development, but are seldom addressed because of the attention given to large spills. For example: -- Each time an offshore well is drilled, an average of 1,500 to 2,000 tons of mud (added during the drilling process for lubrication) and rock cuttings are generated and routinely dumped into the surrounding waters. They contain toxic substances such as cadmium, copper, arsenic, lead and mercury. -- Production operations also generate enormous quantities of "produced water" (water trapped with the oil) that are also discharged from the platform. The oil industry estimates that, every day, 1.5 million barrels of produced water are discharged into the Gulf of Mexico - water that contains biocides, coagulants, cadmium, lead, zinc, oil, grease, and other toxic pollutants. -- Daily emissions of pollutants for one drilling rig equal those of 7,000 cars driving 50 miles a day. -- Onshore support facilities. storage tanks and moorage preempt port space and land, and deplete fresh water supplies. -- Even preliminary exploratory activities involving seismic surveys are a danger to marine life and commercial fisheries. Seismic testing has been documented to reduce fish catches; it may damage fish eggs and larvae and disrupt the echo-location ability of marine mammals. In Louisiana's coastal plain and barrier islands, the rate of wetlands loss is 50 square miles a year, reports Audubon magazine. "There can be no doubt," says the report, "that the major reason for the present debacle is the Second Louisiana Purchase - by the oil companies. Commercial fishermen are hurt not only by overall degradation of the marine environment and fish population loss, but by loss of fishing grounds. Although industry proponents claim the rigs enhance fishing success with the "artificial reef effect," in reality, commercial fishing gear is prohibited from a large perimeter around the platforms. Zeke Grader, director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, sums up the fishermen's response: "No mitigation measure is likely to make up for the loss of grounds, the loss of gear, the loss of resource, the hassles fishermen are faced with from offshore oil. Interior officials and other industry proponents attempt to minimize negative impacts with a promise of jobs and economic gain. In small coastal communities where local economies are fragile, the promise of employment is a cruel manipulation. Most offshore oil jobs require highly technical skills and are filled by importing workers from the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, where the entire OCS from Oregon to the Canadian border was scheduled for a 1992 lease sale, Interior's impact statement predicted a total of just 64 permanent jobs would be provided for coastal residents of Oregon and Washington. According to a recent National Research Council report, "The environmental risks associated with OCS oil production are disproportionately borne by local residents, while benefits of OCS oil are largely national." For Mike Egan, the former Gulf Coast oil worker who is trying to make a new start on the Outer Banks of North Carolina only to discover that the industry has a foothold on offshore tracts near his new home, it is a recurring nightmare. "If anyone understands the sensitivity of the local environment," he said, "it's the people that live there. We should be the ones who say if it's right or wrong to drill, not the guys who are m bed with the oil companies." Energy Fact: Sixty three percent of U.S. oil consumption goes to transportation, where the average automobile is one-half as fuel efficient as west European and Japanese autos. Alaska's Arctic Waters For Sale Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) regions were scheduled for a nightmarish number of oil and gas lease sales in the years 1987 to 1992 - nearly one every six months. The most biologically productive, environmentally fragile waters in North America are scheduled for auction to the oil industry, including America's only Arctic seas, the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The Arctic ecosystem is rich with a dramatic diversity of life. Summer months bring returning light to nourish a spectacular array of marine mammals and migratory birds. Native Alaskan villages hug the Arctic shoreline, living from the abundant marine life. The prospect of heavy industry polluting this sparkling, serene frontier is unthinkable, yet both the Chukchi and the Beaufort Seas are scheduled to be sold to the highest Big Oil bidder in 1991. The fouling of Prudhoe Bay is ample evidence that industry will not, cannot, clean up its mess. "Pollution of air and water and major landscape impacts have resulted from oil development, which has transformed Alaska's Prudhoe Bay region into one of the world's largest industrial complexes, sprawling over several hundred square miles of the Arctic Coast.I The intense cold and limited light of Arctic regions make them extraordinarily vulnerable to disruption and pollution, but the U.S. Department of Interior is willing to inflict irreparable harm on this fragile sea and landscape for a few years worth of oil. -- Speer, Lisa and Sue Libenson, 1988. "Oil in the Arctic: The Environmental Record of Oil Development On Alaska's North Shore." Executive summary. Natural Resources Defense Council, Trustees for Alaska. January 1988. P.1. Tanker Transport: The Big lie The Minerals Management Service (MMS) launched a major public relations campaign after the Valdez and other catastrophic spills had fanned the fire of opposition to offshore drilling into a roaring blaze. MMS and the offshore oil industry scrambled to disassociate themselves from tanker spills. The message they wish to deliver is that drilling rigs and production platforms rarely cause catastrophic spills. Spills are caused by tankers, they say, and in particular, foreign tankers carrying foreign oil. Give us access to offshore fields, they say, and we will actually reduce spills by reducing tanker traffic. But there are some important things they don't say. Transportation begins the moment the oil leaves the wellhead. The majority of OCS regions scheduled for lease sales do not have a pipeline infrastructure in place, nor will they. The oil will be transported by barge and tanker, greatly increasing the amount of near-shore traffic and spill potential - a risk frankly admitted by MMS m the Five-Year Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Interior spill documentation, regulation, and prediction modelling are frankly baffling. MMS spill models do not include spills of less than 1,000 barrels, yet over 90 percent of oil spined in the OCS is a result of these "small" spills. (In 1986, one "small" barge spill of 616 barrels of oil killed 10,000 California seabirds.) In a classic case of Interior logic, MMS documents justify the omission of small spills by stating that many of these size spills go "unreported". A recent Congressional report revealed that Interior has not levied a single civil penalty against the operators of any offshore rig since 1983, despite thousands of violations. The National Research Council harshly criticized the MMS spill prediction model, which basically plays a numbers game to predict how many spills may occur rather than what the impacts of a spin may be. MMS blithely asserts that spills will simply be contained - therefore, the impacts will be minimal. The second half of the transportation mythos is more complex and insidious. Since the Valdez spill, attention has focused on how to make oil transportation safer. Numerous "spill bills" hit Capitol Hill and state legislatures. Oil spill task forces sprang up everywhere as recommendations poured forth on how to increase tanker safety: double hulls and bottoms, bow tbrusters, speed limits, tug escorts, local pilots, better crew training, and so forth. As industry representatives publicly bemoaned the enormous costs they would incur to implement these changes, they were no doubt privately pleased that public pressure still missed the mark. The question is not, "How do we transport oil safely?" but "How do we use less of it and thereby transport less?" In March 1990, the Office of Technology Assessment published a report with the blunt truth: "The unfortunate reality is that short of eliminating oil transportation at sea entirely, there is no perfect solution to offshore oil spills. It is certain that oil spills will occur again." (The emphasis is OTA's.) This is not to say that double hulls, trained crew and other safeguards are not vitally important interim measures. But we must recall that double hulls will not stop spills, nor will they stop the buildup of carbon dioxide and acid rain-producing emissions. Of the 3.2 million metric tons of oil entering the oceans annually, 45 percent comes from transportation, but another 46 percent comes from terrestrial waste discharge, runoff and atmospheric transport. Reducing oil consumption, and nothing less, will address all these problems in the long term. The Interior OCS leasing program not only increases the amount of tanker transportation and associated risks, but it perpetuates the myth of oil dependency. Every time another well is drilled offshore, we delay the inevitable transition to cleaner, safer energy alternatives. Energy Fact: The amount of oil wasted in 1986 by rollback of U.S. vehicle efficiency standards equalled 1985 U.S.imports from the Persian Gulf. Permanent Protection: The Truth In November 1989, a coalition of coastal state congressional delegates introduced the National Ocean Protection Act (H.R. 3751). The legislation proposed to permanently prohibit new oil and gas leasing and development from most of the nation's federally managed Outer Continental Shelf, including Alaska. It would effectively shut down the Interior OCS leasing program. MMS officials, already in rout by ever-increasing visibility of the besieged leasing program, immediately termed the Ocean Protection Act a radical, "hysterical "response to the Valdez spill. Radical? Although the protected offshore area was large, the actual amount of hydrocarbon resources shut off was comparatively small - only 5.5 billion barrels of oil. A full 93 percent of the nation's estimated economically recoverable oil and gas resources would be left available to the oil industry. Five billion barrels of oil are dwarfed both by current U.S. consumption (17.4 million barrels of oil a day in 1989) and untapped energy conservation savings. Compelling figures were available to convert the sceptics. For example, if fuel economy standards were increased to 40 mpg for new autos and 30 mpg for light trucks, we could save 14.8 billion barrels of oil over the next 30 years - nearly three times the amount put off limits by the Ocean Protection Act. Furthermore, it was documented that the investment needed to develop offshore hydrocarbon resources was 38 times the amount required to save the same amount of oil and gas through measures as simple as installing energy efficient windows. The National Ocean Protection Act had signed on 65 cosponsors by May 1990. Even conservative Republicans signed aboard as constituent pressure became irresistible. The urgency of the OCS controversy was given further visibility by release of a National Academy of Science report that made public the inadequacies of the OCS leasing program. The National Research Council had been requested to study the adequacy of scientific and technical information available for three lease sale areas in particular (two in California and one in Florida). The report was a damming analysis of the Interior environmental studies program. It found that there was not enough information for development and production decisions, nor was there enough information to even hold the lease sales themselves. MMS has long held that it can proceed with lease sales before environmental studies are complete - that leasing is separate from development. But the National Research Council study pointed out that Interior has never refused an industry development and production plan out of hundreds submitted. In other words, to lease is to drill and develop. In May, Rep, George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Water, Power and Offshore Energy, conducted field hearings in the Pacific Northwest and North Carolina on the OCS leasing program. Public testimony resoundingly called for permanent protection from offshore drilling, and rallies in support of the Ocean Protection Act accompanied hearings in both Portland and Seattle. Mary Anne Radmacher, a resident of Cannon Beach, Ore., summed up the tenor of public testimony in opposition to off- shore drilling: " The people of Oregon and Washington stand to gain nothing from offshore development and have a great deal to lose... American energy consumption is excessive and adolescent, and the absence of a solid energy plan merely encourages irresponsible behavior in the entire nation. " The residents of Cannon Beach have put their actions where their words are. Rather than just say no to oil drilling, they have implemented a community energy conservation program to reduce oil use, strengthen the local economy, and improve the quality of life in their town. "Our community has gone to great lengths to demonstrate that positive individual actions, taken in large enough numbers, can eliminate the need for extensive, immediate development of domestic oil," testified Radmacher. "We now look to our leaders in government to provide these same creative actions at a federal level." At around the same time, the MMS public relations program was trumpeting a kinder, gentler leasing program by hinting that coastal communities would get a share of the oil revenues. The changes in rhetoric only served to intensify the anger of coastal residents and state officials. Said Rep. Miller: "The notion [is that] they will give us money and we will agree. That is extortion." As the Ocean Protection Act continued to gain support and the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee set about writing moratoria on certain Interior OCS appropriations (a last-ditch effort used in previous years to prevent Interior from holding lease sales by withholding fund-3), President Bush announced lease sale delays in a number of politically hot OCS regions. Although the reprieves were welcome, the decision was obviously motivated by political pressure, not environmental concern. The Bush Administration hoped to give a boost to Republican gubernatorial candidates in California and Florida; defuse the momentum behind the National Ocean Protection Act; and leave Alaska wide open for wholesale exploitation. Sceptics also noted that Bush's delays - like his pledge on taxes - were not likely to stand without the force of law. And, of course, there is the specter of "national security" which the President can invoke for real or perceived crises as a rationale for immediate leasing and development of oil and gas offshore. For now, the National Ocean Protection Act has been relegated to the back burner while OCS activists work on legislation to enforce the Bush announcement, and to stop appropriations for imminently threatened OCS regions. But the demand for permanent protection and a genuine national energy policy is not going away. After nearly a decade of lawsuits, political battles, public protest, legislative wrangling and congressional moratoria, the Interior Department offshore leasing program is in utter disarray. Energy Fact: Improved efficiency measures kept two billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in the U.S. in 1989. National Security - from both an environmental and political perspective - means ending our addiction to fossil fuels. Energy Fact: Only one percent of the Energy Department's 1991 budget will go to renewable energy, another one per cent to energy efficiency. THE ALTERNATIVES National Energy Strategy: Broken Promise The Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing the "National Energy Strategy which will be used to guide U.S. energy policy in coming years. Energy Secretary James Watkins has publicly promised that the threats of global warming will play largely in shaping the strategy. But the interim report released by DOE in April indicates it will be business-as-usual for market-driven fossil fuel abuse. The report states: "We will maintain the successful policy of reliance on market forces." But reliance on market forces has landed the nation in a boiling potful of dependence on foreign oil, skyrocketing trade deficit, reduction of economic diversity and loss of renewable energy technologies to overseas markets. Most importantly, the market ignores the environmental and social costs associated with fossil fuel use. According to a recent report by the Worldwatch Institute, if fossil fuel use continues to be left to the marketplace, ". . continued business as usual will result in a rapid undermining of the habitability of the planet during the next 20 to 30 years." And thanks to what DOE perceives to be a successful policy of reliance on the market, the United States burns twice as much energy to produce one dollar's worth of gross national product as do Japan, West Germany, and other nations. The DOE interim report defines the need for an energy strategy as a supply problem rather than a use problem. From the preface: "Having an adequate supply of energy to fuel a robust and expanding U.S. and global economy presents an increasingly difficult challenge. The notion that energy consumption must necessarily expand as economic growth occurs was tossed out years ago by informed energy planners. As a result of the 1973 oil embargo and the subsequent improvements in energy efficiency, the U.S. economy nearly doubled while energy use remained constant for more than a decade - until Reagan-Bush policies induced an increase in energy consumption in the mid-1980s. During the past year, Energy Secretary James Watkins conducted hearings around the country to solicit public opinion. According to the DOE interim report, "The loudest single message was to increase energy efficiency in every sector of energy use. Energy efficiency was seen as a way to reduce pollution, reduce dependence on imports, and reduce the cost of energy." Secretary Watkins has undoubtedly gotten the message. But what will he do with it? In November 1989, Watkins addressed the American Petroleum Institute and assured them that tax credits to encourage domestic drilling would be a major focus of the National Energy Strategy. He referred to the tragedy in Prince William Sound as a "stupid accident" and encouraged API to "work on their public image." In October 1989, Deputy Energy Secretary Henson Moore testified to the House Ways and Means Subpanel: "Now is the time for Congress and the Administration to work together to develop tax incentives which stop the deterioration of our oil and gad production industry." In the same breath, Moore stated that the Bush Administration was not ready to propose tax incentives for alternative fuels. Current U.S. energy policy has allowed relatively "cheap" fossil fuels to dominate the marketplace, and it looks as though the Bush Administration intends to continue the status quo. These inherently wrong price signals do not incorporate environmental and social costs or payback time into reasonable energy planning. DOE has heard an overwhelming consensus this year that they must make energy choices that generate multiple benefits. Reducing fossil fuel consumption will lower the trade deficit, save consumer spending, increase the diversity and competitiveness of American industry, slow global warming, reduce acid rain, and protect the global ocean from a continuing plague of oil spills. In late 1990, DOE will complete the National Energy Strategy and offer it to President Bush early in 1991. The American people, for the most part, will not have an opportunity to examine or comment on the final draft. It is looking as though tax dollars will once again be directed to Big Oil corporate profits while the potential of energy conservation and renewable energy systems will continue to be forced overseas to find a friendly marketplace. In 1984 alone, the oil industry received more than $8.5 billion in federal subsidies, an amount equal to $101 per American household. Unless the American people say, "Enough!" the national energy policy will continue to subsidize an industry that has a stranglehold on the energy marketplace, the economic health of the nation, and the global environment. Soft or Hard Energy: Hope vs. Peril The "soft path" of energy efficiency improvements implemented since 1973 is saving the United States $150 billion every year and conserving 14 million barrels of oil a day. That translates into roughly five billion barrels of oil each year that the nation does not have to import - about the same amount of hydrocarbon resources put off limits by the National Ocean Protection Act. And since each barrel of oil consumed emits 850 pounds of carbon dioxide, we also avoid two billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year. A barrel of oil saved is worth far more to society and the health of the planet than a barrel of oil burned. Yet this enormous energy potential languishes in the wings while the push to supply more fossil fuels continues. The strides forward in energy conservation in the 1970's have been stifled in the 1980's by return to a hard path of increased consumption. The DOE budget proposal for fiscal 1991 dedicated only one percent to energy efficiency programs - the end curve of a downhill plunge since 1981. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, if the nation would return attention to this energy potential, consumption could be reduced seven percent below today's level by the year 2000. This soft path of energy use would also save the nation an additional $75 billion annually. The same message is delivered time after time by state, national and international energy experts. The chairwoman of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Mary Lou Munts, recently commented: "Utilities have barely scratched the surface of cost-effective energy conservation measures.... We are convinced that a national commitment to improve energy efficiency would enable the nation to stabilize and reduce carbon dioxide without experiencing economic consequences." Sixty-three percent of U.S. oil consumption goes to the transportation sector - in large part because the average American car is one-half as energy efficient as West European and Japanese autos. Raising fuel economy standards for new automobiles could be the single most important step to reduce oil imports, urban smog and global warming for the near future, yet the Reagan Administration allowed fuel economy standards to be rolled back three years running. The Bush Administration has also resisted increasing fuel economy standards to reasonable levels. Interestingly, the amount Americans spend on gasoline every year is equivalent to the cost of air pollution in the U.S. annually: $100 billion. The United States, which has five percent of the world's population and consumes 28 percent of the world's oil, has a particular responsibility to confront the consequences of fossil fuel abuse, particularly global warming. Instead, the Bush Administration has followed the Reagan agenda of "more study." The few remaining holdouts of the international scientific community who deny the reality of global warming have been shouted down. Global warming is a reality, but other compelling reasons remain to begin the inevitable transition from the "hard path" of fossil fuels while we have - literally - some breathing room: acid rain (and associated forest loss, death of lakes and streams, and crumbling historical edifices), urban smog, and a debilitated farming sector dangerously dependent on petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers. An oft-heard criticism of renewable energy is that adequate technology is not available to begin transition anytime soon. This myth has been debunked by the very agency that refuses to heed its own information: the DOE. A 1985 DOE study reported that a 25-year research and development effort into renewables, together with even moderate improvements in efficiency, could meet the entire U.S. energy demand by the year 2010. Yet the 1991 DOE budget proposal dedicated an appalling one percent to renewable energy research and development. Other nations are confident of an energy future built on renewable sources and conservation, and are leaving the United States stuck in the past. Danish companies have captured a large portion of the California wind power market, West Germany has recently taken over the largest U.S. manufacturer of photovoltaics, and Japanese solar cells are imported into the U.S. And continuing to import these renewable technologies to meet our domestic energy needs will mean severe consequences for the future deficit. "The question for U.S. leaders is whether American companies will compete in these important new technologies or whether American consumers will have to import them from abroad" cautioned a study by Renew America. Many people, in both industry and government, cling to a stubborn preoccupation with finding energy alternatives that look like, smell like, and act like oil and its refined products. DOE is entirely willing to invest in new ways to produce liquid fuels from coal, oil shale, natural gas and biomass (which would still produce harmful emissions and enormous quantities of carbon dioxide) but resists technologies of true promise such as hydrogen fuel cells, photovoltaics and wind power. Hydrogen fuel cells, if powered by renewable, relatively non-polluting energy sources such as photovoltaics, have enormous potential to provide transportation fuels from limitless resources. (It must be cautioned however, that some photovoltaic processes have toxicity problems which must be addressed.) Similarly, wind power is still associated with creaking, rusty windmills, when in reality, a recent study concluded that the Pacific Northwest alone could support 19,000 megawatts of clean, sustainable wind system capacity. Assuming that most large power plants produce around 1,000 megawatts, wind power could supplant the need for 19 new power plants in the Northwest. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are not the only keys to a sustainable future - mass transit must also play a key role in our paved-over, exhaust-fouled urban areas - but they must be acknowledged as immediate, available means to improve global economic and environmental health. The United States simply cannot afford to wait any longer. A barrel of oil saved by conservation is worth far more to society and the health of the planet than a barrel of oil burned. Energy Facts: Each increase of one mile per gallon saves 420,000 barrels of oil a day. U.S. annual energy savings from energy efficiency improvements since 1973 total $150 billion. "FOREIGN" OIL: THE MYTH In November 1989, the Saudi Arabian minister of oil stood before the Independent Petroleum Association of America and said: " The U.S. can secure its freedom in the use of oil by recognizing the necessity of importing it in increasing volume over time, and you can import it most freely from Saudi Arabia.... The interests of both Saudi Arabia and oil independents are best served by co-operation that keeps the oil prices down and alternative energy uneconomical. He received a hearty round of applause. Saudi Arabia has had other significant friends in the United States in recent years. Last fall, the DOE announced it wanted to stop purchasing oil from Mexico to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and, instead, buy the oil from Saudi Arabia. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is intended to be a sort of insurance policy in the event of supply disruptions, and DOE was prepared to grant the insurance policy to the nation that caused the 1973 oil embargo. This seems odd, unless one is willing to accept the evidence that there really is no such thing as "foreign oil" anymore. For example, Saudi Arabia and Texaco jointly own three major refineries and gas stations in 26 states. Texaco agreed to use Saudi oil for its refineries and Saudi Arabia gets 50 percent of the profits. As a recent Time magazine article put it: "The man who wears the star is also wearing an Arab burnous." The world's top-ranking oil company is not Exxon or Shell, but Saudi Arabia's Aramco, much of whose profits come from the United States. Similarly, Kuwait Petroleum (KP) has moved into international marketing and refining. KP has already purchased Gulf's refining operations in Europe and is now looking for opportunities in the U.S. In spite of the flap about oil disruptions from OPEC and the recent hostilities between Iraq and Kuwait, we can be sure that the Saudis do not want their U.S. refinery profits slowed by a halt in the flow of crude oil to their refineries in our country. Refining profits are sharply up in recent years as refineries are at capacity and essentially in control of production and pricing. So why is President Bush sending troops and reservists into the Persian Gulf - at a cost of billions of dollars? Even before the Iraqi invasion, Persian Gulf oil cost the United States $495 a barrel: $27 for the oil and the rest for $47 billion worth of military presence in 1985. The cost of human lives, of course, is incalculable. President Bush cannot really be worried about our oil supply; he knows that only five percent of U.S. supply comes from Iraq and Kuwait. The General Accounting Office assures us that we are nowhere near as vulnerable to supply disruptions now as we were in 1973. The answer was bluntly stated in a recent article by Otis Pike of the Newhouse News Service: "We are going to the Persian Gulf to limit the price of oil. " Perhaps this explanation is the most believable in the face of what we know of international oil power and the vow of Saudi Arabia to keep oil prices low. A public relations brochure from the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington, D. C. entitled, "Saudi Arabia and the United States: A Unique Relationship," states: "For over 50 years, Saudi Arabia and the United States have shared a dream for their people." It is perhaps time for the American people to be concerned about just what this relationship, just what this dream, might be. If the dream is indeed to keep oil markets flooded and consumption up in order to prohibit renewable energy and conservation from entering the marketplace, it will be a nightmare for future generations. Since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, proponents of domestic oil development have turned up the volume on demand for access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore regions. But they forget to mention that the United States has only three percent of remaining world oil reserves. All the oil from the Arctic Refuge and OCS together would feed the nation's fuel fix for only a few years at best. Then what? Even if U.S. oil production could be expanded soon, there simply is not a significant amount of oil left in undeveloped fields to make a dent in world markets. Most of the nation's remaining oil resource (66 percent of all oil ever discovered) has been left behind in the ground as existing wells are abandoned after conventional recovery. As major oil companies profiteer from the "crisis," Congress cries "foul, " editorial columns say there is no oil shortage, and others say it is all a ruse to avoid dealing with the deficit, people are frustrated by what we hear and don't hear. What is the truth? We particularly hear frustration in the voices of those who have been trying to change energy policy since the 1970's, such as Richard Watson, director of the Washington State Energy Office. Says Watson: "How many more 'oil crises' do we want to risk? How many more petrodollars can we afford to export? How much more do we want to spend to police the Persian Gulf? What kinds of environmental hazards are we willing to risk to continue our addiction to oil?" THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE Making the transition from old habits and familiar fuels of the past will not be easy, but it will not be as difficult as some suggest. In the late 1970's President Carter bravely took on the ideology of oil to a chorus of derision. Ask America to wear sweaters and car pool? Forget it. But Carter was proven right, and the nation realized how relatively easy it was to conserve energy and how immediate was the result. Oil consumption plummeted with what were basically simple housekeeping changes. It didn't cost and didn't hurt. Without those early successes, today's oil consumption and accompanying pollution would be nearly twice what they are. That those successes survived in spite of antagonism by the Reagan and Bush Administrations is testimony to their success and durability. And we have just begun to explore the potential of energy conservation and renewable energy systems. The technical expertise is available to wean ourselves from fossil fuels - without nuclear energy - over the next few decades. What we lack is political will. As is often the case, the American people understand both the problem and the solution, while the political leadership clings to the archaic ideology of oil. Recent polls by the Union of Concerned Scientists reveal that voters prefer renewable energy resources and efficiency over fossil fuels by a six-to-one margin. Three out of four voters say the United States must take the lead in fighting global warming. The World Resources Institute recently reported that 77 percent of Americans approve of raising fuel economy standards, even if it means paying $500 more for a new car. While President Bush mounts massive and costly military manuevers to keep oil prices low and DOE tries to squeeze oil out of shale, the American people are ready to get on with the future. The message is clear: True patriotism has nothing to do with enslavement to a dying industry that seems bent on taking the planet with it. The agenda for sustainable, clean energy seems simple on its face: removing market disincentives to conservation and renewables, improvements in mass transit, government-funded education, improved fuel economy standards, true least-cost planning for utilities, pollution taxes (levied on carbon content, for example) - generally, creating a level playing field for alternative energy sources. The difficult part of the agenda is getting political leaders to cross the threshold of change. They must first leave behind their dedication to Big Oil before we can move forward. The American people win have to push our reluctant leaders to that threshold. Since Americans consume nearly a third of the world's oil and contribute a proportionate amount of air pollutants and global warming gases, it is our particular responsibility to act soon. The fouling of Prince William Sound truly was the end of an era - or rather, the signpost to an end that must come quickly. We had somehow accepted the notion that oil was necessary for life. Now, we have begun to accept the reality that the consequences of exhaustive consumption of this finite, polluting energy source are exactly the opposite: not life, but death, If Exxon and the dinosaur oil culture it represents can blithely dismiss the horror of Prince William Sound as "the price of civilization," we must face the fact: It is a price too high, and it buys not civilization but ruin.