Leave the Oil in the Ground

A succinct letter to the editor published by the Santa Barbara Independent on August 22 has reignited one of Santa Barbara's longest-running civic arguments: whether the region's remaining oil should be pulled from the ground or left where it lies.

The letter, written by Santa Barbara resident John Broberg, takes direct aim at a previous letter by Gerald Quindry, which had argued that local drilling is justified because oil remains essential for chemical feedstocks, fertilizer, lubricants, and asphalt. Broberg calls that reasoning "self contradictory and extremely illogical," noting that most oil produced today is burned as fuel rather than reserved for those industrial uses.

"Most of the oil produced these days is burned for fuel," Broberg wrote, arguing that because Santa Barbara's oil is poor quality and expensive to produce, "it would make more sense to leave it in the ground and keep it from being burned."

Why a Letter Writer's Argument Resonates Locally

Letters to the editor rarely make news on their own, but this exchange lands on well-trodden ground in Santa Barbara County, where oil has shaped the economy, the coastline, and the political landscape for more than a century.

The region's relationship with petroleum is foundational. Some of California's earliest oil development occurred along the Santa Barbara coast in the late 1800s, and the 1969 blowout on Union Oil's Platform A off Summerland-adjacent Santa Barbara remains one of the most consequential environmental disasters in American history. The spill helped catalyze the modern environmental movement, contributing to the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the first Earth Day.

That legacy has made "leave it in the ground" more than a slogan here — it has been a governing philosophy for many local officials and voters. County voters have repeatedly weighed in on oil development through ballot measures and county supervisor races that hinged, in part, on where candidates stood on new drilling, cyclic steaming, and offshore lease expansion.

The Feedstock Argument — and Its Counter

At the heart of the Broberg-Quindry exchange is a genuine policy tension that extends well beyond Santa Barbara. Critics of aggressive fossil fuel phaseouts often note that petroleum is not only a fuel source: it is a feedstock for plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and road materials. Even a fully electrified economy, the argument goes, will still need hydrocarbons.

Broberg's response, as published by the Independent, inverts that logic. If oil is so precious for non-combustion uses, he argues, then burning it — especially dirty, expensive-to-extract local oil — is the worst possible use. Better, he writes, to use "easy-to-produce oil in other places as a bridge fuel as we cut back on the burning," while leaving harder-to-reach reserves such as Santa Barbara's in the ground for future generations.

"That way our grandchildren will have some oil for these important nonburning uses," Broberg wrote, adding that once renewable energy sources scale up further, "there will be a glut of oil and plenty for the future."

The economics of local production lend the argument some weight. Santa Barbara's offshore platforms and onshore fields, including operations in the Orcutt area and along the Gaviota coast, have long faced higher per-barrel production costs than large conventional fields elsewhere. As global demand for petroleum fuels plateaus or declines in coming decades under most energy transition scenarios, high-cost, lower-quality crude is widely expected to be the first to become uneconomic.

What Comes Next for Local Oil

The letter exchange comes as Santa Barbara County continues to navigate the slow wind-down of its oil era. Offshore platforms in federal waters have been decommissioning incrementally, and several onshore projects have faced years of permitting battles, environmental review litigation, and lease disputes.

State policy has moved in the same direction. California has set statutory targets for economy-wide decarbonization and has tightened oversight of extraction methods such as cyclic steaming and high-pressure steam injection, techniques used in heavier crude fields on the Central Coast. Meanwhile, local governments in the region have pursued cleanup and land-use transitions for former oil properties, including longstanding efforts to remediate the old Ellwood and Summerland field sites.

For residents, the stakes are practical as much as philosophical. Oil and gas royalties, property taxes, and jobs have historically flowed into the county's budget and workforce, particularly in northern Santa Barbara County. Any acceleration of the phase-out — whether driven by policy, litigation, or market forces — will require planning for the fiscal and employment effects on communities around Santa Maria, Orcutt, Lompoc, and Vandenberg Village.

At the same time, residents along the Gaviota coast and in communities near existing operations have long raised concerns about spills, pipeline ruptures — most notably the 2015 Refugio spill from Plains All American's Line 901 — and the climate consequences of continued extraction.

A Debate Without a Final Word

Whether the region's remaining oil stays in the ground or continues to flow will ultimately be decided by regulators, courts, and market forces rather than letter writers. But the Broberg letter captures a sentiment with deep roots in Santa Barbara: that this coastline, scarred by the disaster that helped launch the modern environmental movement, may be the most fitting place to argue for conservation over extraction.

As Broberg puts it, the logic is straightforward — save the oil not by drilling it, but by not needing to burn it. Whether local, state, and federal policymakers agree remains one of the defining questions for the 805 region's next half-century.