Hodel’s View on Offshore Oil

It has been observed: “There are lies, darned lies and statistics.”

Your editorial (April 24), “Try the Truth, Mr. Hodel,” accused me of the former, then went on to make selective use of the latter.

The truth is, there are some statistics you overlooked:

--California produces 1.2 million barrels of oil per day, but consumes about 2 million, according to the Department of Energy. About 40% of the gasoline burned each day in the state comes from oil produced elsewhere.

--Even with a projected increase in federal offshore production by 1992, California still will produce only about 1.4 million barrels while consuming a projected 2.1 million.

This is not to belittle California’s history as both pioneer and major energy producer. The first offshore oil well in America--perhaps in the world--was drilled in Santa Barbara County 90 years ago. More recently, California technology has contributed greatly in making offshore drilling environmentally sound, safe and the nation’s best hope for replacing severely depleted domestic oil reserves. In touring California last August, I heard from many Californians who believe their jobs related to the offshore oil and gas industry are important not just to themselves but to he state and the nation as well.

To be sure, we also heard from those in tourism and fishing, two other industries vitally important to California. Future energy crises, which are more likely to occur without the federal offshore leasing program, are much more of a threat to these industries than the proposed 5-year plan we have under consideration. It was not offshore drilling that put an estimated half-million Americans in the tourist industry out of work because of the Iranian oil embargo in 1979.

The Times only muddied the water in suggesting the proposed 5-year plan would have results comparable to placing an oil derrick next to the Statue of Liberty or off Cape Cod between Woods Hole and Martha’s Vineyard (such derricks would have to be state leases, since all federal leasing is at least three miles offshore). A platform in federal offshore waters closest to the coast would have an apparent size smaller than a dime held at arms length to a person on the beach. Yet, we recognized even this is a cause for concern in some areas. This is one reason for my decision in February to delete from the leasing plan more than 3 million acres off Big Sur and Monterey Bay.

There is no way we can have a federal program and keep the entire thousand-mile California coastline totally free of platforms visible from the shore, but the number will be relatively small. There are 19 at present, and we expect about 30 in 1992. s . Consider also that as platforms are installed offshore California in coming years, older platforms will be removed, having completed their production.

The federal offshore program has proven that drilling can exist in harmony with the coastal environment, and in some respects enhance it. We will continue to work with representatives of the people in California in seeking to maintain this harmony.

Discussions between Interior and members of Congress regarding the program began less than a year ago, and are continuing. This is not a long time to try to resolve the vital, complex issues involved. The program will function much smoother if we can achieve a reasonable and workable understanding through the congressional consultation process than if we were to win a bitter moratorium fight in Congress.

The Interior Department will oppose renewal of a congressional moratorium on leasing offshore California because we want the consultation process to have a reasonable chance of success. Regrettably, some people have given up on this process--I have not.

DONALD PAUL HODEL

Secretary of the Interior

Washington