[jandrewrogers]

Crude oil floating in the ocean used to be a big nuisance in parts of California. It is a natural phenomenon, created by oil deposits on the ocean floor leaking into the environment. Santa Barbara was particularly famous for it.

Extraction of that oil via commercial wells greatly reduced the natural seepage, which is why there is so little crude oil floating in that ocean water today. Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.

[cryptoneo]

To me this "drilling is good for the environment narrative" sounded a bit misleading.

And not far down the rabbit whole one finds: The author of the study often cited by oil companies for above narrative, felt impelled to publish a clarifying statement: https://luyendyk.faculty.geol.ucsb.edu/Seeps%20pubs/Luyendyk...

Maybe stricter guidelines against operational "routine" spills led to a reduction of the sticky spots, plausible?

[jandrewrogers]

Per NOAA and USGS, ~20 million liters of crude oil naturally seeps into that part of the California ocean each year. That is more crude oil each year than the worst oil spill in California history[0].

You are projecting your biases. There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative. I was recounting an interesting fact about the environment there.

Many of these seeps are under considerable pressure as there is substantial natural gas mixed in. The seepage rate of each has been mapped and studied for many decades. It has long been observed that the introduction of drilling appears to substantially reduced the seepage rate at many of these underwater sites. Drilling wells significantly reduces natural pressure in these reservoirs, likely leading to the observed reductions in seepage.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Santa_Barbara_oil_spill

[Merovius]

> There was no "drilling is good for the environment" narrative.

…

> Oil drilling actually made the water cleaner.

[jandrewrogers]

For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases. That is not in evidence. Thinking that this was an attempt to create a narrative is a failure of reading comprehension.

This insistence that acknowledgement of facts has an ideological narrative is a pernicious strain of anti-science thinking.

[Merovius]

To be clear, I have no skin in the game here. I thought the point you made sounded plausible and as I have zero experience or expertise, I wouldn't argue against it.

I just thought it's ridiculous - and kind of funny - to deny making the claim you literally made. I'm not sure you have a lot of legs to stand on, accusing others of "anti-science thinking" and a "failure of reading comprehension" when asking us to ignore the clear, textual evidence of that contradiction.

> For it to be a "narrative", there would need to be an additional claim that this specific case and context, which is factual, generalizes to most unrelated cases.

Says who? That seems a very narrow and unusual definition of what makes a "narrative", bent to your purpose. It seems to me, a "narrative" in common parlance just means "telling a story" or "relaying a sequence of events". I honestly have never seen someone use the word to imply generalization (doesn't mean no one ever did, of course).

In any case, given that you responded to a comment talking about the two examples of Texas and Hawaii with an example about California and an "actually", it seems pretty fair to me to say, that you even fulfilled this artificially narrowed definition.

I mean, come on, you have got to admit that you have at least been unclear, if you didn't intend to make this argument. Instead of just defensively flinging insults.

[chrisg23]

"This insistence that acknowledgement of facts has an ideological narrative is a pernicious strain of anti-science thinking."

That is very well put. This should be added to the general list of fallacies in argument, and like the other ones (the slippery slope, hasty generalization, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc.) more general awareness should exist about these.

The current wave of anti-science, anti-logic, rejection of objective data, etc. is like nothing I've experienced in my lifetime. This is a subjective observation, maybe it has always been this way and I never paid attention because I was caught up in whatever I used to be caught up in.

[ta9000]

So you’re saying drilling destroyed crude oil’s natural habitat?

[peterlada]

To this day if you walk on the beach your soles or the soles of your shoes will get sticky tar spots. You need baby oil wipes to clean them up before entering your home.

And some of it, if not most of it is not natural seepage but early environmental catastrophes in the 50s and 60s, particularly around Summerland.

(Source ex-resident)

[mikkupikku]

Wtf I love Exxon now.

[pentamassiv]

How did the wildlife adapt to that? There must be some cool species there

[jandrewrogers]

I don't know much about it but I have read that the local ecosystem is well-adapted to the oil seep environment.

That area has been like that for something like 100,000 years, which is a considerable amount of time in evolutionary terms.

[dawnerd]

I remember swimming in Santa Barbara growing up (well closer to the Ventura side really) and having to dodge oil on the sand and water.

[gamblor956]

Natural seepage is still just as big of an issue now as it was back then in those areas, including Santa Barbara.

[annoyingnoob]

There is still tons of tar on beaches in Santa Barbara county, mostly all from natural seeps.