Port Closure Threatened in Skirmishing on Oil Drilling

The Senate Appropriations Committee, in an expression of frustration over offshore drilling bans, Tuesday approved a measure that would force oil ports to close in 1991 if prohibitions on drilling in nearby waters remain in effect.

The surprise action, introduced by Sen. James A. McClure (R-Idaho), appeared to be intended to put an end to the moratorium process that has put California off limits to offshore oil drilling for a decade and stirred the rancor of senators who favor exploration for oil.

The economic impact of a port shutdown on cities such as Long Beach would be so catastrophic that opponents of offshore drilling would have little choice but to stop barring new oil exploration by congressional mandate, supporters and critics said.

Approval of the port-closing measure, which was attached to an Interior Department funding bill on a 12-10 vote, appeared likely to at least force Congress to limit the scope of a sweeping one-year offshore drilling moratorium recently approved by the House.

The moratorium, which was accepted reluctantly by the Senate panel as part of the appropriations bill, bars new oil exploration within 84 million acres of American coastline, including the entire length of California, through October, 1990.

Acknowledge Dilemma

Even staunch drilling advocates acknowledged that public concern about oil spills, particularly the Exxon Valdez disaster off the Alaskan coast, had made it impossible to vote against a moratorium.

Rather than oppose a moratorium outright, they sought to turn that public concern to their advantage, arguing that any coastal waters too sensitive to be exposed to drilling ought also to be protected from more hazardous oil tanker traffic.

“If an area is really sensitive,” said Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), “let’s close it.”

The amendment would bar oil-carrying tankers from entering any U.S. waters in which oil exploration was prohibited beginning in October, 1991.

Passage of the amended measure prompted cries of outrage from drilling critics, who denounced the port closing provision as “mischievous” and “irresponsible.”

“This is a distortion,” said California Rep. Leon E. Panetta (D-Monterey), sponsor of earlier bills that have put most of California off limits to drilling since 1981. “They’re saying: ‘If you don’t like drilling, we’ll take your tankers away.’ ”

“It’s sort of like planting a time bomb,” said Lisa Speer, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s a ploy to pressure the states that have moratoriums to drop them.”

But other environmentalists acknowledged that the port-closing measure puts them in a difficult position because it appears to echo their own concerns about the risks that oil exploration poses to environmentally sensitive regions.

And many expressed concern that, if enacted by the Senate, the threat could be used as a negotiating chip to force the House to abandon a provision that would prevent the Interior Department from conducting even preliminary drilling studies off California.

The Interior Department, which opposes the drilling moratorium but had not expected to block it altogether, had made elimination of the ban on preleasing activity a top priority. The provision affords special protection to a vast area off Central California, where progress toward a scheduled 1991 lease sale otherwise would go unhindered.

In a victory for the Administration, the Senate panel agreed to delete the preleasing activity ban from the legislation on grounds that it would block crucial studies designed to assess whether drilling might pose an environmental threat.

While the committee approved the rest of the drilling moratorium, it voiced strong reservations, criticizing what it described as “ineffective” efforts by the House to address public concerns.

“I understand emotions,” warned Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), an outspoken supporter of the oil industry, “but we’re not supposed to be tossed along on the frothy sea of emotion. We’re supposed to deal with facts.”

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), an advocate of the moratorium, urged his colleagues to be patient in large part because “the nation is recoiling from oil spills.”

Despite the misgivings on the part of the committee, champions of the drilling ban expressed confidence that they could win approval of a comprehensive moratorium when the measure reaches the Senate floor. A vote could come as early as today.

Unexpected Twist

“The committee approval of the leasing moratorium is an important victory in our battle to protect the California coast from oil and gas development,” said Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.). As for the moratorium on preleasing activity, Cranston said: “I expect we will prevail.”

The introduction by McClure of the port-closing provision added an unexpected twist to what had been a straightforward battle between pro-exploration and anti-drilling forces.

Many observers interpreted the provision as a deliberate effort by the Senate committee to “tweak” California, which has wielded its legislative power in the House to protect itself from new offshore drilling while profiting enormously from the oil industry.

“I think what you’re witnessing is a regional dispute,” said Steve Goldstein, an Interior Department official. “California’s predominance in the House has tended to bring about a rather parochial point of view.”

Administration officials praised the McClure measure for focusing attention on the fact that tankers have proven more likely to cause oil spills than have offshore drilling platforms. But they refused to address the merits of the proposal, indicating only that the measure “served its purpose.”

A stronger reaction came from the oil industry, which contended that the measure might block its product from American markets if ports were indeed closed.

“We are vehemently opposed to that amendment,” the American Petroleum Institute said in a statement, “and we will work to strike it from the bill.”