2018 Opinion Polls

Oil Spills

___

By Cassie Rogers, Jonathan Feeney, Megan Schwab, Samantha Olson, and Valeria Gonzalez

Platform Holly (Photo: Glenn Beltz/Flickr)

Introduction

History:

Ever since the outbreak of World War I, countries around the world have gone through great lengths to create and control methods of oil harvesting (Black 2015). Oil drilling, both on land and off the coast, has become a growing concern for environmentalist as world oil consumption continues to grow at exponential rates. The fight for control of oil has sparked many global events such as the 1973 oil crisis, battles during the Gulf War, and many other economic disputes between countries, making it a hot topic to study from a socioeconomic standpoint (Black 2015). The first offshore oil rig was created off the coast of Summerfield, California back in 1896. Now the Pacific region is home to over 23 oil platforms and 200 miles of pipeline (BOEM 2017). Consequently, many new oil rigs have been created in response to increased demand, however, these rigs were not designed to last forever and have caused some major environmental impacts when they fail. For example, almost 4 million gallons of oil have been leaked into the Pacific region since 1969, however, that amount seems marginal compared to the almost 6 million gallons harvested in 2017 alone (USDI 2017). In addition, the use of pipelines instead of foreign tankers to deliver oil eliminates the risk of a massive spill such as the  One other critical point to understand is that the offshore oil rigs production has been substantially decreasing over the past decade (from 24,000 gallons in 2008 to 5,700 gallons in 2017), which prompts the debate as to whether the US should continue building new oil rigs to increase production or move to more renewable resources (USDI 2017).

Science behind the drills:

The concept of offshore oil drilling is similar as it is on land, however, it involves a much more robust high-pressure system to pull oil from the ocean floor. On land, there is an increase of 1 atmosphere of pressure for every 528000 feet increase in altitude. In water, however, this increase in pressure is experienced every 33 feet (Anderson 2018). The Deepwater Horizon oil rig, for example, had a pipe that went through 5,000 feet of water then drilled down through 13,000 feet of rock in the ocean floor (Gross 2010). The drilling sites are chosen based on the likelihood of them having oil. Several methods are used to determine the presence of oil, such as using shock waves and exploratory drilling. After a site is chosen, the platform is built with drill pipes that reach the ocean floor called a drill string (Lamb 2018). On one end of the drill string is the drill bit that grinds into the earth, the other end is at the top of the platform. The drilling mud is pumped through the drill string to lubricate the drill bit and defend against the pressure buildup, but the main line of defense from a huge blowout is the blowout prevention system (Lamb 2018). This system is in place to seal the well and reroute the oil if something were to go wrong. Since there are both natural and synthetic chemicals used in the mud, scientist has studied the effects on both localized and distant areas of the rig. The studies have found that there are short-lived effects on the areas directly surrounding the rigs, which is mostly caused by the increased turbidity of the water caused by the mud (BOEM). Once the drills are no longer harvesting enough oil to make a profit, companies can choose to plug up the well and abandon it, partially remove it, or fully remove the rig using cranes or explosives.

Current Situation

The oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast in 1969 has had a substantial influence on the opinions of coastal residents regarding offshore drilling ever since. After the spill, residents took it upon themselves to clean up the damage, picking up oil on the beach and transporting oily birds in their own cars to be cleaned elsewhere (Clarke and Hemphill, 2002).  The community was outraged and demanded that better management practices be adopted to protect their beloved coast. The community even signed and circulated a petition to ban offshore drilling. In response to this, the President of Union Oil Co. Fred L. Hartley said, “I don’t like to call it a disaster, because there has been no loss of human life. I am amazed at the publicity for the loss of a few birds.” After the oil spill of 1969, views toward the environment started to change for the better.

Throughout the years there have been many oil spills involving offshore oil rigs, but whether the continuation of these spills actually impacts the public’s opinion is one of the key reasons for this poll. Attitudes toward offshore drilling were only slightly less supportive following the 2010 spill in the Gulf of Mexico; however, the opinions of coastal residents were drastically changed. One study showed an 80 percent decrease in support for offshore drilling including the expansion of existing operations from 66% in 2008 to 59% in 2010 (Lilley and Firestone 2013). As always there is going to be some opposition; the results from a Florida poll show that attitudes were not changed after the 2010 spill and exposure to an event like this may not be enough to change opinions of some (Farrow 2016). BP, the company responsible for the 2010 spill, has been promoting tourism in Florida and the Gulf Coast while the effects of the spill are still being seen in the fish and other wildlife in the area that is often caught for human consumption (Susskind 2015).

Although there are many factors that can influence whether an individual is in favor of or opposes offshore oil drilling, one study was done in California showed that the demographic in favor of offshore oil drilling is generally conservative or Republican, less educated, elderly and non-white (Smith and Garcia 1995). Given that this study was conducted over 23 years ago, this demographic has remained largely unchanged. A different study states that the public’s opinion will vary depending on the source of pollution, and will tend to hold onto their initial beliefs after a spill (Carlisle et al. 2010). An opinion poll circulated by students at CSUCI seeks to gauge the public’s current opinion on offshore oil drilling, oil spills, and current management practices. The results of this poll will be presented in the following discussion.

Hypothesis:

1. We believe that there will be a positive correlation between those who support the continuation/increasing of offshore oil drilling with those who viewed spill management positively.
2. We believe that there will be a positive correlation between those who support decommissioning offshore drilling and those who believed we managed past oil spills negatively.

Questions

The data used in this analysis were from questions 3, 13, 14, 17, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Opinion Poll Survey.

Results

When asked about the historic California event in 1969, out of 1069 answers, only 37% of people knew that the event that took place.

Since 53% of the total people surveyed feel that humans are responsible for influencing California’s coastal resources, and 41% of people believe that both humans and nature are equally responsible, we can conclude that 94% of total people surveyed believe that humans do in fact play a role in impacting California’s coastal resources.

As Dr. Anderson has pointed out pollution does seem to be the most common response (ranked at 1) since it had the lowest average score (1.62). The last two results each have a much closer margin than pollution and habitat destruction do. We are able to draw the conclusion that while there is a consensus about pollution being a very important factor to most people, the last two categories of exotic species and excessive hunting are far less impactful in people’s minds.

While many people (21%) feel that the coast is not properly managed, even more, are unsure (48%). This is likely due to people not being aware of the management practices being used but lack of exposure to these areas is likely the culprit.

For cap and trade, 52% of people do not know anything about cap and trade which is somewhat disappointing; however for those who do know, feelings are fairly mixed, with an average score .28 this means that while slightly more people are positive about it, there is still an almost equal amount of negativity towards such a program.  With a Standard deviation of about 1 it swings both ways quite a bit. For the Santa Barbara oil spill, 48% marked unsure, reinforcing the findings from the previous question about the 1969 offshore event. Similarly, with a score of .31 and SD of about 1, the responses were slightly positive but still swings both ways a good deal. For the question regarding MPAs, responses take a positive spin, with only 27% being unsure about their implementation. The mean was 1.13 meaning that a lot more people feel positively about MPAs, even with the SD being about 1, again still swinging positive. Chances are most people read the words Marine Protected Area and think positively, even if they do not know exactly what it is.

If we exclude the 56% of people who were unsure how to move oil, the majority of remaining people (23%) thought pipelines were the best way to move the oil we extract from the Santa Barbara Channel to refineries.  

The next focus question asked the public’s opinion the future of offshore drilling in California. Out of the 1188 people who responded to this question, 29% were unsure; however, if we look at combined percentages of people who thought oil drilling should be expanded or continued (25%) compared to the combined percentages of people who thought oil drilling should be reduced or eliminated (52%), two times as many people supported less oil drilling.

Our next question asked how the opinions of individuals were changed by any particular oil spill. For all the oil spills the most frequent response was unsure, followed by negative, neutral being the third most frequent response and positive the last. The only exception being for the Deepwater Horizon spill, unsure was the second most frequent response and bad was the most frequent. Interesting to note that 54% of people are unsure about the Santa Barbara oil spill here, but in a previous question 48% were unsure.

The next set of focus questions asked about specific oil spills and nuclear fallouts such as the Aliso Canyon/Porter Ranch natural gas leak, the Santa Barbara oil spill, the Deepwater Horizon spill and the Apomimisi tanker sinking off Hawaii. If we average the results to all the sub-questions, the majority (roughly 47%) of people’s attitudes towards oil drilling and nuclear power became less supportive after the specific events listed within the question. Whereas roughly 3% of people on average were more supportive after a specific event had occurred.

Interpretation

Overall Californians, despite living next to or on the coast, seem to be ill-informed on issues pertaining to California’s coast. Take for example the survey question that asked what significant event took place in California’s coastal zone in 1969? Out of 1069 answers, only 37% of people knew that the event that took place in 1969 off the coast of California was an oil spill, most conceded to simply not knowing, one believed it was the Vietnam War. Results like this are likely due to the large gap in time, having happened 49 years ago, it’s effects are not clearly visible to most people. However even without specific knowledge of a particular historical event or a full understanding of all the measures taken by coastal government to manage marine resources, as indicated by the large amount of uncertain or unsure answers throughout the surveys, especially with regard to significant management practices like Cap & Trade or the best method with which to move oil. However, Californians do not seem to have trouble believing that humans do play at least some role in impacting California’s coastal resources. Since the average person is not necessarily realizing the effects of various factors that greatly impact the way our coast and environment are managed since practices like Cap & Trade are largely invisible. Cap & trade does not directly influence a person who does not own a business with a carbon footprint, so it goes unnoticed, while the impacts it creates are large. Again, visibility seems to be what drives the public’s opinion; when asked which events changed support for specific industries, the BP and Refugio Oil Spills topped the list for causing the biggest decline in support. Since these oil spills happened so recently, they are the most visible to people. This impacts political movements, for example, California frontrunners for governor and lieutenant governor have both taken a strong oppositional stance on the expansion of offshore drilling in California. * Since 53% of the total people surveyed feel that humans are responsible for influencing California’s coastal resources, and 41% of people believe that both humans and nature are equally responsible, we can conclude that 94% of total people surveyed believe that humans do in fact play a role in impacting California’s coastal resources,this is in line with research that found that many americans do believe in climate change, but pushes for things like policy change vary depending on several factors like trust in science (Egan & Mullin 2017). When asked to rank several different threats to California’s coastal areas pollution handily topped the list with an average score of 1.62, putting it easily at the highest.

Therefore we are able to draw the conclusion that while there is a consensus about pollution being a very important factor to most people. This is likely due to several factors like actual exposure. This reinforces data that public opinion will convince elected officials to make change (Egan & Mullin 2017). The last two categories of exotic species and excessive hunting appear be far less impactful in people’s minds and as such are not under the same scrutiny, pollution does impacts can be seen since steps are taken to curb pollution in many ways. With Prop 3 in the upcoming election being a water pollution initiative, it is the only environmental proposition on the ballot in the Nov 6 elections. To further compound this, on a smaller scale there is a drive to regulate “burger smoke pollution” (Hollbrook 2018). Demonstrating that pollution really is on the public’s mind by going after something relatively minor, but because it is pollution, and that what’s on the public’s mind, really does drive change. With oil being on peoples minds after Refugio, it becomes clear that political landscape changes with it. Out of the 1188 people who responded to the question about the future of oil drilling off of California’s coast, 29% were unsure; however, if we look at combined percentages of people who thought oil drilling should be expanded or continued (25%) compared to the combined percentages of people who thought oil drilling should be reduced or eliminated (52%), two times as many people supported less oil drilling.

Key Takeaway

Overall people do feel that oil drilling off the coast of California is having a negative impact and these impacts are translating into real world change through elected officials. However feelings are mostly divided on just how good a job is being done, in response to negative oil related coastal impacts.

REFERENCES

Black, B.C. 2015. How did oil come to run our world.

https://www.bbc.com/timelines/zqgxtfr (10/30/2018).

Carlisle, J. E., Feezell, J. T, Michaud, K. E. H., Smith, E. R. A. N., and L. Smith. 2010. The public’s trust in scientific claims regarding offshore oil drilling. Public Understanding Of Science. 19(5):514-527.

[PDF] sagepub.com

Clarke, K. C., and J. Hemphill. 2002. The Santa Barbara Oil Spill: A Retrospective. University of  Hawaii Press 64:157-162.

Farrow, K., Brinson, A., Wallmo, K., & Lew, D. K. (2016). Environmental attitudes in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil Spill. Ocean & Coastal Management, 119, 128–134. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.10.001

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569115300363

Gross, T. 2010. The science behind deep-water oil drilling. National Public Radio.

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=128047682 (10/30/2018)

Lilley, J., and J. Firestone. 2013. The effect of the 2010 Gulf oil spill on public attitudes toward offshore oil drilling and wind development. Energy Policy 62:90–98.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513008410

Natural resources revenue data: Pacific ocean production. 2017. US Department of the Interior.  

https://revenuedata.doi.gov/explore/offshore-pacific/#federal-revenue (10/30/2018).

Pacific region facts and figures. 2017. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

https://www.boem.gov/Pacific-Facts-and-Figures/ (10/30/2018).

Susskind, A. M., Bonn, M. A., Lawrence, B. C., & Furr, H. L. (2015). Regional Contrasts in Consumers’ Attitudes and Behavior Following the BP Oil Spill. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 57(1), 66–81. http://doi.org/10.1177/1938965515586619

https://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1816&context=articles

Egan, P, J., and M. Mullin. 2017. Climate Change: US Public Opinion. Annual Review Of Political Science 21:209-227.

https://www-annualreviews-org.summit.csuci.edu/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051215-022857

Hollbrooke, E.2018. California Cracks Down on Burger Smoke Pollution. Environmental Leader.

https://www.environmentalleader.com/2018/10/california-cracks-down-on-burger-smoke-pollution/