OCS Study 

MMS 2005-016 

 

Workshop on Socioeconomic Research 

Issues for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

February 2004 

U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 
U.S. Department of the Interior

Minerals Management Service 

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

OCS Study 

MMS 2005-016 

Workshop on Socioeconomic Research 

Issues for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

February 2004 

Editors 

Melanie McKay 

Copy Editor 

Judith Nides 

Production Editor 

Prepared under MMS Contract 

1435-00-01-CA-31060 

by 

University of New Orleans 

Office of Conference Services 

New Orleans, Louisiana 70814 

Published by 

New Orleans

March 2005 
 iii 

DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared under contract between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and 

the University of New Orleans, Office of Conference Services. This report has been technically 

reviewed by the MMS and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that contents 

necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Service, nor does mention of trade names or 

commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. It is, however, exempt 

from review and compliance with MMS editorial standards. 

REPORT AVAILABILITY 

Extra copies of this report may be obtained from the Public Information Office (Mail Stop 5034) 

at the following address: 

 U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Minerals Management Service 

 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region 

 Public Information Office (MS 5034) 

 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard 

 New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394 

 Telephone Numbers: (504) 736-2519 

 1-800-200-GULF 

CITATION 

This study should be cited as: 

McKay, M. and J. Nides, eds. 2005. Workshop on Socioeconomic Research Issues for the Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region, February 2004. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2005-016. 

153 pp. 
 v 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

List of Figures............................................................................................................................... vii 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix 

Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... xi 

Chapter 1, Workshop on Socioeconomic Research Issues for the Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region........................................................................................................... 1 

Chapter 2, Session on Industry Trends and Dynamics .................................................................. 5 

Chapter 3, Community-level Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity in the Gulf of 

Mexico Region.................................................................................................................. 13 

Chapter 4, Cultural Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity in the Gulf of Mexico Region .................. 19 

Chapter 5, Crosscutting Issues and Questions ............................................................................. 27 

Appendix A, Participants............................................................................................................. 33 

Appendix B, Agenda.................................................................................................................... 41 

Appendix C, Proposed Studies and Study Topics ....................................................................... 43 

Appendix D1, Legal Framework for Minerals Management Service Socioeconomic 

Studies in the Gulf of Mexico, Richard G. Hildreth......................................................... 69 

Appendix D2, The History of the Offshore Industry in the Gulf of Mexico, Tyler Priest .......... 77 

Appendix D3, Planning Challenges at the Bureau of Land Management, Rob Winthrop .......... 85 

Appendix D4, Social Impact Assessment and Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf of 

Mexico, Harry Luton and Rodney E. Cluck ................................................................... 101 

Appendix D5, The Cultural Context of Oil Development in California’s Coastal 

Region: Contrasting Community Responses during the Exuberant Era, 

Michael R. Adamson ...................................................................................................... 139 
 vii 

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE PAGE 

Figure 1: Gulf of Mexico Region............................................................................................... 102 

Figure 2: General model. ........................................................................................................... 119 

Figure 3: Gulf model.................................................................................................................. 120 

Figure 4: County oil and gas fields by group............................................................................. 140 

Figure 5: Crude Oil Production: Santa Barbara and Ventura Groups, 1876–1965. .................. 141 

Figure 6: Crude Oil Production: Cuyama Valley and Santa Maria Groups, 1876–1965. .......... 142 

Figure 7: Building Permits Issued, City of Ventura, California, 1921–1931. ........................... 145 
 ix 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE 

Table 1: Differences between the SIA paradigm and Gulf realities. ......................................... 125 
 xi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) thanks all participants in this workshop. Their active 

participation and enthusiasm were crucial in the success of this endeavor. In addition we would 

like to thank the following people who were unable to attend for their assistance in the 

preparation for the workshop: Dr. Shana Walton, Associate Director at the Deep South Regional 

Humanities Center, Tulane University; Mr. Joey Brackner M.A., Folklorist for the Alabama 

State Council on the Arts; and Dr. Tina Bucuvalas, Director of the Florida Folklife Program, 

Division of Historical Resources, Bureau of Historical Preservation, Department of the State. 

Each of them shared their knowledge and expertise on cultures and populations in the Gulf of 

Mexico Region and provided valuable contact information for other participants. The MMS 

thanks the following for their written and editorial contributions to this workshop report: Diane 

Austin, Kimberley Cook, Asha Luthra, Harry Luton, Diana Olien, Kristen Strellec, and Barbara 

Wallace. The University of New Orleans, Office of Conference Services, was the contractor 

responsible for the meeting coordination. We would especially acknowledge the patience and 

assistance of Patricia Arteaga and the students that assisted in each session. The staff of the 

Monteleone Hotel were accommodating to our requests. Support funding is provided through the 

MMS Environmental Studies Program. 
 1 

CHAPTER 1 

WORKSHOP ON SOCIOECONOMIC RESEARCH ISSUES 

FOR THE GULF OF MEXICO OCS REGION 

A workshop on social and economic topics related to the oil and gas industry was hosted by the 

Minerals Management Service (MMS), Gulf of Mexico OCS Region (GOMR), February 3–5, 

2004, at the Monteleone Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Workshop Objective 

The objective was to provide guidance for studies planning for the next five years. The workshop 

began with the premise that much has been accomplished during the last decade of MMS 

socioeconomic research and that it is time to assess future directions for the program. The 

workshop sought advice, rather than consensus, on key questions, useful analytical approaches, 

and critical information needs. While the workshop was intended to identify specific information 

needs, MMS was seeking “strategic thinking” about issue selection, methodologies, and 

assessment goals. Issues related to specific socioeconomic modeling techniques were not 

addressed by this workshop. 

Workshop Structure and Schedule 

The two-and-a-half-day workshop was divided into three parts (see Appendix B, Agenda). The 

first half-day plenary session included all workshop attendees and consisted of introductions, 

presented papers and discussions designed to acquaint participants with the goals and procedures 

of the workshop. The paper, “Social Impact Assessment and Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf of 

Mexico” by Harry Luton and Rodney Cluck shows that standard approaches to social impact 

assessment that focus on individual projects and demographic effects are inappropriate for the 

Gulf’s oil industry. Richard Hildreth’s paper, “Legal Requirements for Social Impact 

Assessments under NEPA,” reviews court decisions regarding the adequacy of impact 

assessments and concludes that a great deal of flexibility in approach and content exists, 

particularly in the assessment of the “no action alternative.” Tyler Priest’s “The History of the 

Offshore Industry in the Gulf of Mexico” describes evolutionary changes within the offshore 

industry in the context of their onshore social and economic effects (see Appendix D, Presented 

Materials). The plenary session concluded with an organizational meeting for the breakout 

groups. 

The second half of the first day and the following day consisted of three concurrent breakout 

groups, of approximately 20 members each, organized around broad assessment categories: 
 2 

• Industry Trends and Dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico Region, chaired by Kristen Strellec 

and co-chaired by Diana Olien, Ph.D. 

• Community-level Impacts of Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico Region, chaired by Asha 

Luthra and co-chaired by Barbara Wallace 

• Cultural Impacts of Oil and Gas Activity in the Gulf of Mexico Region, chaired by H. B. 

Kimberley Cook, Ph.D. and co-chaired by Diane Austin, Ph.D. 

Each breakout group conducted brainstorming sessions focused on issues or questions related to 

the group’s topic. There were three separate brainstorming sessions (Tuesday afternoon, 

Wednesday morning, and Wednesday afternoon). Each brainstorming session followed a similar 

format: (1) the session chair presented the group with an overall problem statement and/or set of 

general questions; (2) in order, each participant either contributed an idea or “passed”; (3) each 

idea was recorded on a flip chart; (4) as necessary, the session chair refined or reframed the 

general questions; (5) after the group had exhausted ideas on a problem statement or question, it 

categorized similar comments into emerging themes; (6) the group then prioritized the 

categorized comments or themes and formulated research topics; and (7) individual participants 

completed one or more of the Proposed Study forms provided by MMS. While this was the 

general brainstorming framework, each group varied in terms of how many steps of the 

brainstorming process were completed by the end of the session. Some participants submitted 

Proposed Study forms in the week following the workshop; some study ideas were submitted by 

more than one participant (see Appendix C). As part of the brainstorming process, each breakout 

group session was tape recorded. Formal written notes were taken in some, but not all, of the 

breakout groups. 

The last half-day plenary session included two papers. Robert Winthrop described social impacts 

associated with oil development managed by the BLM and approaches the agency is taking to 

assessing and mitigating them. Donald Callaway discussed U.S. Park Service research on land 

use patterns among rural Alaskan communities to demonstrate techniques for formally 

identifying and measuring sociocultural impacts. The plenary session concluded with 

presentations from the three breakout groups and a synthesis discussion. 

The intent of the workshop organization and its emphasis on brainstorming was to encourage 

strategic thinking about issue selection, methodologies, and assessment goals for socioeconomic 

research sponsored by the Gulf of Mexico Region. Chapter 2 discusses the key crosscutting 

issues identified by the participants. Chapters 3 through 5 provide the discussion papers 

presented during the first plenary session. Breakout group discussions and findings are presented 

in Chapters 6 through 8. 
 3 

Workshop Participants 

Workshop participants are listed in Appendix A. The workshop included MMS staff, invited 

participants, and other public participants. All attendees participated in the breakout groups. To 

facilitate the work of these groups, MMS sought to ensure that each had a pool of participants 

that, as a group: 1) exhibited disciplinary diversity; 2) exhibited a diversity of research interests 

including some with no previous experience with the GOMR OCS; 3) contained significant 

expertise within the research traditions addressed by group; 4) contained sufficient knowledge of 

socioeconomic impact topics addressed by the group; and, 5) contained sufficient knowledge of 

offshore oil, its operations and impacts. To that end, a large proportion of workshop participants 

had been invited to participate in a specific breakout group. 

Background to MMS Studies Program 

In the 1970s and 1980s, the GOMR conducted few social and economic studies. The Gulf’s 

present-day approach to social and economic research dates from 1992. That year the National 

Research Council (NRC) reviewed the MMS studies program and the GOMR held its 

socioeconomic agenda setting workshop. The NRC argued that the greatest impacts from 

offshore petroleum activities have occurred in the GOMR over an extensive period from a wide 

range of OCS-related activities. For this reason, the NRC claims that the Gulf is a “natural 

laboratory” for the study of the industry’s effects. Building on advice from the NRC, its Science 

Advisory Committee, several workshops and its many critics, the GOMR developed a broad, 

eclectic, comprehensive approach to the social and economic consequences of the program that 

includes studies of the industry and its dynamics, baseline descriptions, studies designed to better 

calibrate its economic and demographic projects, and studies of the industry’s effects on 

communities, on recreation and other economic activities, and on human activities such as family 

life, crime and environmental justice. Since 1992, the GOMR has published the results of over 

35 social and economic studies; almost 20 ongoing ones are yet to be published. Summaries and 

electronic versions of published studies are available on the web at: 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/techsumm/rec_pubs.html. 

Descriptions of the ongoing studies are found at: 

http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/ongoing_studies/gom-se.html. 

The workshop is also designed to address the many complex problems the GOMR has 

encountered as it has applied the NRC “natural laboratory” approach to NEPA to the Gulf 

offshore oil industry. Below are listed several of the “challenges” faced by socioeconomic 

assessments of the GOMR OCS leasing program: 

• The challenge of the baseline. Under NEPA, an area unaffected by the proposal is the 

“baseline.” In the Gulf, the industry has operated for decades. Since there is no 

environment “unaffected” by oil, in a sense, there is no baseline. In this situation, how 

does one separate the effects of oil from other regional, national, and worldwide trends? 
 4 

• The challenge of cumulative effects. Since the industry is already in place, a lease sale’s 

primary socioeconomic effect is to maintain the status quo. The State of Louisiana 

regularly complains that, since most socioeconomic effects of the industry are 

cumulative, sale-level assessments do not adequately assess the OCS program’s real 

effects. What should constitute cumulative effects and how should they be separated from 

other regional, national, and worldwide influences and trends? 

• The challenge of the “affected area.” In addition to the complexity of the industry, the 

GOMR covers Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and parts of Florida. Its 56 

coastal zone counties and parishes include the extremes of social, economic, cultural, and 

institutional variation. How does one provide detailed assessments of industry effects 

within this vast expanse? 

• The challenge of the industry. The industry is not well described and is actually a 

multitude of varied industries involved in finding, extracting, refining, and marketing 

petroleum-based products. Each industry has its own structure, economic dynamics, 

technologies, infrastructure requirements, labor organization and demands, and localized 

effects. How does one address this complexity and variability on regional and local 

levels? 

• The challenge of “local effects.” Many social and infrastructural effects are determined 

by specific local conditions—the unused capacity of a certain school district, the 

demands on a water system, or traffic on a specific road connecting a port and highway. 

How can the multi-county, sale-level assessments address local-level effects? 
 5 

CHAPTER 2 

SESSION ON INDUSTRY TRENDS AND DYNAMICS 

This section of the Minerals Management Service workshop focused participant discussion on 

four main objectives: 

1. Gaining a better understanding of what constitutes or defines the petroleum industry 

in the Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR) and identifying key issues and trends in the 

industry as a whole as well as its specific sectors; 

 

2. Gaining a better understanding of the key issues and trends associated with industries 

that support or are impacted by the industry in the GOMR; 

3. Gaining a better understanding of the overall operating environment that the industry 

faces in the GOMR; and 

4. Improving data collection and use. 

From discussion over three workshop sessions, the following general themes or areas for study 

emerged: industry globalization and world market issues; examination of offshore and onshore 

industry structure, sectors, and players, individually and in terms of interaction; understanding 

projects and investment decision-making; issues relating to labor, both white- and blue-collar; 

and investigation of industries supporting or impacted by petroleum industry activity; improving 

data collection and use related to all these themes. What follows is an overview of how these 

general themes or areas for study were taken up in participants’ discussion. 

The Gulf of Mexico Region in a Global Petroleum Industry 

Workshop participants identified a major area of study as the place of GOM offshore activity in a 

global petroleum industry, looking at the relative advantages and disadvantages of operations in 

the GOMR. In this context, participants wanted to know more about the resource base of the 

GOM and its reserves relative to other offshore basins. They raised questions about how 

profitable the GOM is compared to other offshore regions; how efficient GOM exploration is; 

how well the region competes at present for investor dollars; and what future prospects are in 

terms of the GOM’s competitive position in these regards. The role of foreign players and state 

oil companies needs consideration as part of an assessment of the relative attractiveness of the 

GOM as an area for petroleum industry activity. 

Participants wanted better definition of the place of the GOM in a world energy market. They 

noted differences, for example, between markets for oil and for natural gas and differences of 

pricing mechanisms in these areas. OPEC’s influence on world petroleum prices needs 
 6 

examination, as does comparison of fiscal incentives and regulatory issues in the GOM and other 

petroleum producing regions. 

Participants singled out a number of areas for study of impacts on GOM operations, which 

included the availability of cheap crude oil, the growing global market for liquid natural gas, 

changes in exchange rates, local/global practices, and alternative energy sources such as coal bed 

methane. 

As participants noted, support industries are also part of the global market environment, and the 

GOM support sectors—fabrication, for example—must meet global competition. Here the issue 

is how well support sectors will be able to stay “ahead of the curve” and compete internationally; 

what would enhance their competitiveness internationally? 

Characterizing Offshore Industry Structure and Players 

Here the first focus was change over time in terms of those participating in offshore and onshore 

GOM oil and gas activity, in particular the increasing presence of independent firms—on the 

Shelf, in Deepwater, and in the global arena. In general, participants singled out the need to 

identify the various players: majors and independents, national and multinational, large and small 

in both offshore and onshore industry-related sectors. It was suggested that the Baxter (1993) 

study approach be replicated and updated. 

Considering the major companies and independents, participants asked what the increased role of 

independents means in terms of expertise and level of specialization in operations, as well as in 

terms of spending for industry research and development. They raised the issue of interfirm 

relationships and how these have changed over time. They suggested that the increased role of 

independent firms may mean emphasis on cash return and enhanced shareholder value at the 

expense of improving industry infrastructure, asking whether independents rely on aging 

infrastructure without investing in updating or improving it. 

Looking at independent firms, there is a need to characterize the companies involved in each 

sector of development, examining types of companies in each sector, size of companies, and 

degrees of specialization. There is also a need to look at the impact of mergers and acquisitions 

and at the degree of competition and consolidation among these firms. Barriers to entry, if any, 

should be identified, as well as factors that drive entry, exit, or consolidation in each sector. 

Different impacts of business cycles and differing vulnerability to price volatility among players 

and in sectors need examination. 

Turning to specific upstream sectors, there should be study of geophysical service providers and 

problems they have faced with more data than there are buyers for, as well as the difficulty of 

selling buyers on new but more expensive technology. Consolidation in this sector was noted, as 

in drilling. With respect to drilling, it was suggested that the risks drilling contractors have 

assumed and their use of contract labor is worth study. More generally, participants were 
 7 

interested in service sector participation as joint venture partners, particularly with respect to risk 

sharing. It would also be useful to look at the changing views on the part of companies with 

respect to overall corporate mission and their identification with energy services as opposed to 

petroleum: do they see themselves as oil companies or energy providers? Here the example of 

BP as a self-identified “energy provider” going beyond petroleum was mentioned. 

Turning to downstream, participants noted the importance of looking at downstream operations 

like refining and petrochemicals as they are affected by offshore activity. There is a need to 

know where regional production goes in terms of downstream processing and distribution; 

impacts on the petrochemicals industry of higher natural gas prices and what general trends seem 

to be emerging in that sector; consolidation in the downstream arena; changes in downstream 

demand for products; and environmental regulations as they relate to demand for natural gas. 

The future role of liquefied natural gas in meeting natural gas demand also needs study. 

Projects 

Workshop participants said there was a need for study of types of projects characteristic of 

current operations in terms of the Deepwater projects underway; changes over time in targets for 

investment; project objectives in terms of field size or additions to reserves; length of projects; 

application of newer technologies; and access to infrastructure. Better understanding of 

Deepwater projects is essential, especially with regard to their peculiarities and relation to price 

volatility. In general, however, there is a need to know how successful companies in the GOM 

have been at adding to/replacing reserves. Attention should be directed to differences between 

Shelf and Deepwater projects, particularly with reference to levels of capital investment, duration 

of projects, field development strategies, and demand for labor. The growing demand for natural 

gas and its impact on project planning and targets deserves attention; for example, 

notwithstanding the shift in activity off the Shelf to Deepwater, there is the possibility of finding 

deep gas reserves on the Shelf, a possibility largely unexplored. The search for giant fields is also 

a focus for investment. More data on the expenditure of companies over the life cycle of projects 

would be useful. 

It is important to look at the infrastructure that supports projects, looking at what is in place, 

what it will take to maintain existing infrastructure, and what expansion or updating of 

infrastructure will be necessary. Participants observed that increased focus on natural gas will 

mandate changes and improvement in this area. 

Participants expressed interest in the process of project decision making, in terms of how 

projects are developed, ranked in terms of rate of return, and budgeted, looking at changes over 

time in the relative importance of gas as opposed to oil. There is a need to look at technology 

issues in relation to projects; one example of this would be to look at the way new approaches to 

seismic data may rejuvenate projects in old fields. Technological questions raised the general 

issue of research and development. Participants asked where research and development was 

going on and how it was directed at reducing risks. They also identified questions of how to 
 8 

measure or assess the impacts of technological change and how technology is transferred across 

the industry. 

It would be useful to know more about project finance and risk management in projects; how are 

risks assessed, and who bears them? 

Labor 

Workshop participants repeatedly raised labor-related questions in all sessions of discussion. 

They identified a need to look at the characteristics of the GOMR industry labor force with 

respect to age, gender, education, place of residence, and living conditions, noting that the most 

recent survey directed at these issues was done in 1986 (Centaur Associates Inc. 1986). These 

characteristics needed to be studied in each sector of the industry, looking for differences, if any, 

between sectors. Differences in employment levels between sectors and the impact of 

technological change on each sector required study. Workforce quality issues were also raised, 

especially with reference to skills, productivity, and safety. 

Particular labor issues identified included the “graying” of the workforce; the number of workers 

permanently leaving the workforce as a result of industry downturns; and the educational, 

training, staffing, and specialization levels of the workforce. These issues related to the need to 

look at changes over time in the GOMR oil and gas workforce, in general and sector by sector. 

Many participants noted a need to examine the growing industry practice of contracting out a 

wide variety of operations in terms of what this has meant for workers. However, they also noted 

the difficulty of assembling data on the contract labor force, as well as in assessing its 

productivity. They raised the question of how the contracting out system has impacted and will 

impact jobs and the economy of the GOMR. In particular, they also asked whether there are 

differences between independent and major companies, and between sectors, with respect to 

contracting out. Contracting out in drilling was especially mentioned. 

The growing shortage of oil and gas industry professionals, particularly petroleum engineers, 

received extended attention. Participants observed that there is a decreasing number of U.S. 

nationals, as opposed to foreign nationals, in the professions; they also mentioned the aging of 

geoprofessionals as a group in the petroleum industry. Recruitment problems like resistance to 

geographical mobility and attitudes toward the petroleum industry held by potential professional 

recruits exist in both upstream and downstream industry sectors. Competition in recruiting with 

the “dot.com” industries is an issue here as well. The quality and availability of university 

training programs is a concern in the supply of qualified professionals for the petroleum industry. 

In terms of trained and skilled labor, the offshore industry was seen in competition with other 

industries like construction, refining, and petrochemicals. But the place of the offshore GOMR 

labor force in a global industry context is also worth study, particularly in terms of such issues as 
 9 

productivity, employment levels, and labor organization. With reference to labor organization, 

comparison to the North Sea and West Africa is desirable. Study of labor in all sectors and in a 

global context would be useful. 

Overall, the most important issues relating to labor were the changing characteristics of the oil 

industry workforce over time; meeting industry needs for trained workers and professionals at all 

levels and in all sectors; contracting out; and worker productivity in a global industry. 

Supporting and Impacted Industries 

Turning to the industries that support oil and gas activity in the GOMR, workshop participants 

wanted to identify all the support sectors and ask how reliant these industries are on oil and gas 

as opposed to what they might do for other industries. Looking at the support sectors, there 

should be a thorough descriptive analysis of those involved, including size of companies, 

ownership of them, locations, consolidation and competition among them, labor mix, interfirm 

relationships (particularly between large and small firms), and how these characteristics have 

changed over time. In the context of this description, the problem of establishing the parameters 

of oil and gas industry support sectors was discussed. For example, if one goes into enough detail 

to ask where parts used by support industries come from, it is difficult to get relevant and 

accurate information. 

The impact of industry activity on support sectors should also be studied by looking at how the 

size and duration of projects affect support sector mix, how support sector industries finance 

projects, and how oil and gas industry business cycles impact support industries/sectors. The 

place of support industries in a global petroleum industry needs examination, particularly with 

respect to whether support industries are competitive internationally. It was noted that foreign 

governments often subsidize their own players in support sectors. Sector by sector, what would 

enhance international competitiveness of the GOM support industries? 

Attention should also be directed toward support sectors’ use of contract labor, training of 

workers, and relation to local economies. The environmental impacts of support industry 

operations and the ways in which support industries are meeting the challenges of environmental 

regulation deserves study. Once again, in this area, attention should be directed to changes over 

time. In the environmental context, particular concern is the issue of coastal erosion and how 

leasing activity has impacted this over time. State policies and regulations’ impact on support 

sectors should be examined. 

In the context of support and impacted industries/sectors, workshop participants singled out 

several for specific attention. These included catering services, with study including local 

economic impact and labor mix; coring, logging, and geophysical services; the insurance and 

legal sectors, including changes over time in costs of insurance and the changes in the insurance 

sector in general; banking and financial institutions; environmental consulting and remediation; 

and housing and real estate. Ports were identified as an area needing examination, including both 
 10 

public and private facilities, labor in ports, and infrastructure necessary for port functions. 

However, the difficulty of obtaining relevant data on port activity was mentioned as a formidable 

problem. 

When workshop participants looked at the interaction of industries in the diversified economy of 

the GOMR, they identified labor as an area in which industries involved in oil and gas activity 

compete with others outside this arena, specifically for skilled, trained workers. Here it would be 

useful to know the degree of specialization required of workers and the extent to which they can 

and do retrain for work outside the petroleum industry. Within the industry, one should look at 

competition for labor between offshore and onshore sectors, paying particular attention to 

construction, refining, and petrochemicals. 

Turning to competition between petroleum-related industries and those not connected with oil 

and gas, participants saw a need to contrast oil and gas activity to activity in such areas as 

tourism and commercial fishing in terms of overall economic value and environmental impacts. 

What is the magnitude or intensity of use of the GOM on the part of non-petroleum industry 

users? Here recreational use, as, for example, beaches and rig fishing/diving would be included 

in investigation. How does the petroleum industry compete for space in GOM waters with the 

military, as well as with fishermen? 

 Impacts of petroleum industry activity on non-petroleum industries/sectors are worth 

examination, with specific attention directed toward real estate and the housing market, tourism, 

and financial institutions. Study of impacts on the petroleum industry of federal and state 

planning already underway is needed; MMS needs to know what other governmental agencies 

are planning. 

Land loss was identified as a critical problem in the GOMR. Participants raised the question of 

the impact over time of lease sales and oil and gas activity on coastal erosion. Specifically, there 

is a need for more information on how the current rate of land loss impacts OCS activities, 

looking at industries/sectors both connected and separate from oil and gas—ports, coastal 

infrastructure, commercial/recreational fishing and diving, for example. 

A final impact area related to intraregional shifts over time in the locus of business activity. 

More especially, what will be the impacts of an increasing concentration of petroleum industry 

planning and operations management in Houston as opposed to New Orleans or Lafayette? What 

will the focus on Houston mean for the GOMR as a whole? To what extent will other GOMR 

cities or communities continue to compete successfully with Houston as bases of petroleumrelated operations? 

Data Collection 

To approach the issue of data collection, workshop participants began by identifying what data, 

ideally, would be desirable to have. These included exploration and development budgets for 
 11 

individual companies; data on fixed and variable costs; lease by lease actual expenditures; costs 

by water and well depth; employment records; data on contract labor; amount of refinery use of 

imported oil; state and local finance data; data on use of imported liquefied natural gas; data on 

public and private port facilities; and data on risk sharing. Participants noted that data collected 

in Centaur (1986), individual labor force information by zip code, would be useful to update. 

The practical barriers to acquiring much of this data, however, appear to be challenging. Here 

workshop participants heard from Zeta Rosenberg who has been trying to collect data on a wide 

range of GOMR OCS industry spending and costs over the last five years. 

In organizing her data collection project, Rosenberg took a number of steps to try to ensure 

success. She made use of regional economists and statisticians, and hired people who knew 

people in the industry. To be inclusive, the survey went well beyond exploration and production 

to include support companies, including seismic services, transportation providers, and 

fabricators. To try to improve response rates in what was a voluntary survey, surveyors sent out 

letters to everyone and followed up with weekly phone calls. Notwithstanding these follow-up 

efforts, none of the contacts responded within the first month of survey release. In the end, the 

response rate was low, averaging about 20% of those contacted. In fact, in some areas, response 

rate was so low that information use would have violated confidentiality. In others, responses 

were erroneous or simply lacking; no one, for example, supplied data on labor turnover rates. 

Information about contractors was especially hard to get. 

So what should be done about future surveys? Rosenberg suggested that in the future, MMS data 

gathering should coincide with industrial census data gathering. There probably need to be fewer 

and simpler surveys; as another workshop participant said, “Simplify, simplify, simplify.” He 

added that when he had conducted a survey, he had gone out to companies and done the work of 

data collection himself rather than expect companies to perform it. Rosenberg and others noted 

that it must be clear to industry respondents how responding benefits them—what they will gain 

from participation. Other workshop participants noted that the amount of time required to 

assemble and complete responses to the survey, three days, was excessive, and that it would be 

unreasonable to expect smaller firms to give that much time to a voluntary effort. Industry 

volatility—firms merging or going out of business—also made it difficult to get information. In 

passing, it was noted that industry organizations like the American Petroleum Institute seem to 

fare little better at data collection. 

Overall, workshop participants said it would be desirable to decide which data really was 

necessary and important to collect, as well as to explore better methods of getting data. In 

particular, industry participants should be able to see how cooperation would be to their benefit. 

It would also be desirable to make better use of information collected by state and local agencies, 

though this raised the problem of separating out the impacts of state and federal policies and 

regulation of offshore. More analysis of data MMS already collects, as well as a need for more 

user-friendly data, was also suggested. 
 12 

References 

Baxter, V.K. 1993. The Effects of Oil Industry Restructuring in Louisiana. In: S.B. Laska, V.K. 

Baxter, R. Seydlitz, R.E. Thayer, S. Brabant, and C.J. Forsyth, eds. Impact of Offshore 

Petroleum and Production on the Social Institutions of Coastal Louisiana. Prepared by the 

University of New Orleans, Environmental Social Science Research Institute. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Region. Cooperative Agreement 14-35-0001-30470. OCS Study MMS 93-0007, pp. 

43–76. 

Centaur Associates, Inc. 1986. Indicators of the Direct Economic Impacts due to Oil and Gas 

Development in the Gulf of Mexico: Executive Summary; Volume I: Narrative; Volume 

II: Exhibits and Data. 3 vols. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Dept. of Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. Contract 14-12-0001-3-178. OCS 

Study MMS 86-0014, 86-0015, and 86-0016. 33, 100, and 706 pp. 
 13 

CHAPTER 3 

COMMUNITY-LEVEL IMPACTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY 

IN THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION 

This section of the Minerals Management Service workshop focused participant discussion on 

three main objectives: 

1. Identifying types of fiscal and infrastructure concerns facing oil-involved communities in 

the Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR). 

2. Defining the current socioeconomic effects of the oil and gas industry on communities in 

the GOMR. 

3. Defining the current socioeconomic effects of the oil and gas industry on urban areas in 

the GOMR. 

Each of the three workshop sessions addressed one of the above objectives. Six general themes 

emerged after the brainstorming ideas and discussion from each session had been synthesized. 

The themes included: 1) understanding community dynamics; 2) understanding the community 

public administration structure; 3) understanding adaptation and accommodation strategies; 

4) understanding the significance of environmental impact statements; 5) using appropriate 

forms of research methodology; and 6) examining industry-specific issues that affect 

communities in the region. We provide an overview of how these themes emerged in the 

workshop sessions below. 

Community Dynamics 

Stakeholder Groups 

Workshop participants identified the need for MMS to better understand the role of different 

groups in a community. For example, how do we identify the stakeholder groups in each 

community? How do these stakeholders directly or indirectly affect the community’s relationship 

to the oil and gas industry? The participants discussed how the power structure of various 

communities needed to be understood to address marginalized groups negatively affected both 

economically and socially. Participants also believed that identifying the voice of a community 

was necessary to understand the nature of the relationship between the community and the 

offshore industry. 
 14 

Social Networks and Social Capital 

Participants wanted to gain more insight into community social networks. In other words, how 

do the formal and informal interpersonal relationships between community residents affect the 

community/industry relationship? Understanding community networks can help MMS better 

understand why the industry has different socioeconomic effects in different communities across 

the GOMR. Some participants also wanted to know whether social networks coincide with 

geographical and/or political units. Answering this question would help us better define 

communities that are affected by the oil industry. Some workshop participants also wanted to 

compare the amount and type of social support or social capital in oil-involved communities to 

communities that are not involved in offshore oil. Social capital is the structure of interpersonal 

relations and institutional linkages that create social ties that bind a person to the community and 

that enhance an individual’s life chances (Coleman 1988:98; Bourdieu 1986). Social support has 

implications for health, education, family, employment, and other life outcomes. It is important 

to examine network structures in a community to understand and predict how people adjust to 

difficult and changing situations such as cycles in the oil and gas industry. Studying social 

networks also allows us to measure the amount of solidarity among residents, which can be an 

indicator of community satisfaction. 

History of Communities 

Finally, participants believed that historical analyses of communities needed to be incorporated 

in future studies. It is one of the only strategies to understanding of the cumulative effects of the 

oil industry on different communities across the GOMR. Historical analyses also help us better 

understand industry effects that are long-term and complex. The importance of an historical 

perspective came up in each of the three community impact sessions. 

Community Public Administration Structure 

Fiscal Structure 

Workshop participants wanted to know more about the disbursement of tax revenues in 

communities. For example, what are the direct and indirect mechanisms that affect the fiscal 

structure of communities? Where does the money come from? Who controls its disbursement? Is 

the money that results from offshore oil development dispersed equally across groups and 

communities? Are there differential tax implications and demands for various industry sectors? 

Answers to these and similar questions would most likely explain the economic dependency of 

communities on different sources of revenues. In turn, this information would improve our 

ability to predict potential community effects of the industry. 

Although examining the fiscal policies of specific communities was discussed, it is also 

necessary to compare the policies across states in the GOMR. One possible way to research these 

differences is to systemically analyze the annual state budgets for the five states in the GOMR. 
 15 

Participants wanted to compare the delegation of state revenues to local communities across the 

region. Others believed that it was particularly important to differentiate transfer funds from 

direct funds within communities to better understand existing fiscal structures. 

Strategies to Pay for Infrastructure 

Fiscal structure and soundness are directly linked to community infrastructure. The various 

strategies to pay for community infrastructure were discussed. Participants believed that the 

amount of tax base diversification in a community was important in gaining pertinent 

information about potential impacts. In addition, fundamental industry changes should be more 

closely examined to fully understand a community’s ability to pay for infrastructural needs. 

Others suggested that we look at different mechanisms that communities may be experimenting 

with to deliver public services (e.g., privatization). 

Carrying Capacity of Infrastructure 

The next topic focused more directly on the carrying capacity of various infrastructural 

resources. For example, what is the preexisting capacity of a community to respond to oil 

industry changes? Much of the discussion addressed the carrying capacity of physical forms of 

infrastructure such as ports and roads due to increased oil-related activities and the in-migration 

of workers. However, some discussants believed that it was important to look at public services 

in a broader way. For example, churches can also play an important role in a community’s 

reaction to industrial change (e.g., collapsing oil or gas prices, the closing of a plant, etc.). This 

broadened concept of infrastructure allows for more flexibility and a higher probability of 

addressing impacts. 

Adaptation and Accommodation Strategies 

Community 

Differential community response to oil and gas industry activity came up repeatedly across all of 

the workshop sessions. The participants believed that it was important to understand the level of 

dependency of various GOMR communities on the industry. For example, to what extent do 

communities redefine themselves to fit the industry? In turn, how do industries shape 

communities to fit their needs? Do you build an oil town or does the oil company build a town to 

fit it? This process would affect the types of public services and infrastructure that would be 

available to residents. Some participants argued that even if different communities reached 

similar relationships with the oil and gas industry, it is more important to understand the process 

of how they reached that relationship than the type of relationship itself. 
 16 

Some of the study questions included: If one or two platforms are decommissioned, what effect 

does that have on the communities that have been supplying them? What is their nature of 

industry dependency? In addition, how does industry job outsourcing affect different 

communities and states in the region? 

In the last workshop session, the group primarily focused on the adaptation and accommodation 

strategies of major urban centers in the GOMR. Several study ideas were proposed to conduct 

business case studies that would examine the impact on a city such as New Orleans when an oil 

company moves to another city such as Houston. Although some believed that the loss of 

approximately 1,000 white-collar jobs would be minimal to a large city’s economic stability, 

they predicted that significant impacts were more likely to be found in civic pride and the overall 

reputation of the city. Following a social constructionist perspective, it could be more of a matter 

of perception than real change. One way to examine such industry impacts is to trace displaced 

employees from one location or position to another. For example, did displaced employees move 

to another city? Did they stay in the same location and change occupations or did they choose to 

start their own businesses? Another possible impact could be seen in real estate markets. If 

displaced workers were clustered in particular neighborhoods and moved at the same time, it 

could have significant impacts on property values and schools. Schools may lose some of their 

most active and involved parents. Community organizations and churches could also lose some 

of their most active members. Although these effects would not be as noticeable as in a small 

community, there is little existing information on industry impacts in large cities. 

Many of the participants believed that a few case studies of oil and gas companies should be 

conducted to determine if the findings were viable enough to pursue further. The importance of 

conducting historical case studies of oil-involved communities and major oil and gas companies 

was mentioned consistently. Participants also believed that the level of significant change needs 

to be addressed. For example, a series of case studies of oil companies might find a number of 

important changes. However, an economic model could determine that there isn’t any 

statistically significant impact at the macro-level. It is important to examine effects at different 

levels of analysis (business, household, city, county, neighborhood, etc.) because the lack of 

significant impacts at one level does not necessarily indicate that the effects won’t be significant 

at another level or cumulative over time. 

One way to better understand a community’s adaptation and accommodation strategies is to 

examine the local social economy (Tolbert et al. 1998; Tolbert et al. 2002). To what extent is 

there a local business constellation? Is the cluster primarily local or is it dominated by outside or 

corporate interests? It is also important to determine the overall productivity and efficiency of the 

constellation as well as understand the mechanisms that make it work. What are the attributes of 

communities that support the development and actions of local business constellations? It is 

necessary to examine local social economies of various communities because it can be a strategy 

of adapting to shocks in the environment. Consequently, these local businesses can “become 

buffers for communities that insulate them from global forces” (Tolbert et al. 1998:407). It is 

possible that port cities are structured in a way that helps them adapt to all types of economic 
 17 

development or decline—even those not directly tied to the oil and gas industry. Port cities may 

be resilient in a variety of ways due to the actions of local businesses. 

Individuals and Households (Work and Lifestyle) 

Considering adaptation and accommodation strategies, participants also wanted to focus on 

individuals and households. Some participants wanted to know more about the economic 

household strategies of those working in the oil industry. For example, community effects extend 

beyond job creation or job loss. Effects can be far more subtle and indirect in that people can 

lose opportunities to maintain a certain lifestyle. Some people need formal economy options to 

maintain other lifestyle patterns (fishing, hunting, farming, etc.). Determining the economic 

tipping point is important in better understanding people’s decisions. For example, it would be 

useful to know how much income someone working in the oil and gas industry needs to maintain 

their alternative work activities such as shrimping and fishing. Would these lifestyles disappear 

entirely without the availability of offshore oil and gas employment? What are the benefits and 

burdens of industry involvement on families in the region? 

The Environmental Impact Statement 

Workshop participants discussed the utility of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)—who 

uses them and how. In addition, some participants wanted EISs to address the implications of 

specific industry-related effects. Others thought these effects needed to be defined better. For 

example, the relativity of effects (positive and negative) needed to be addressed. Thresholds of 

significant effects should also be determined. 

Research Methodology 

One of the brainstorming ideas that received the most support was the promotion of monitoring. 

The EIS was suggested as a tool to systematically evaluate community changes. One of the most 

important tasks to accomplish effective monitoring is to develop a small set of baseline universal 

indicators. These indicators could be used consistently over time and place to study change. 

Measurement of these common social indicators in surveys, combined with case studies of the 

unique stories that shape different communities, would give MMS a much better sense of 

community effects across the entire GOMR. 

More specifically, case studies would be performed to identify the set of sensitive indicators that 

will be used. These same variables should also appear in larger scale aggregations using countylevel census data and other secondary data sources. After these steps are completed, long-term 

community monitoring can be used to track changes at multiple levels of analysis and describe 

cumulative impacts. 
 18 

In addition to monitoring, workshop participants emphasized the utility of various types of data 

(e.g., primary, secondary, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and research methodologies (e.g., 

ethnographies, case studies, historical case studies, surveys, network analysis, and GIS). 

Industry-Specific Issues 

Industry Impacts on the Community 

Several study ideas focused on the impact of industry changes on communities. One of the 

infrastructural changes occurring in many ports is the deepening of navigation channels. Deeper 

navigation channels are justified by creating and maintaining jobs as a result of construction 

projects or fabrication facilities. Is channel deepening occurring in specific communities? It 

would also be useful to examine the potential socioeconomic effects resulting from the 

competition between ports and shipyards that support OCS activities and offshore module 

fabrication. For example, how does channel deepening affect local and state tax revenues and 

overall economic development? 

Some workshop participants also wanted to know how oil and gas activity becomes concentrated 

in certain areas like Port Fouchon. What are the consequences of this concentration on 

communities (e.g., roads, highway access, zoning, new pipelines, etc.)? Given that new LNG 

plants will be constructed along deepwater ports, how will this affect the current pipelines? What 

is the pipeline capacity through Louisiana coastal wetlands? Finally, some participants wanted to 

study the impact of decommissioning and onshore waste disposal on communities. 

References 

Bourdieu, P. 1986. The Forms of Capital. In Handbook of Theory and Research for the 

Sociology of Education. J.G. Richardson, ed. Greenwood Press, pp. 26–65 

Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social Capital and the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of 

Sociology 94: S95–S120. 

Tolbert, C.M., T.A. Lyson, and M.D. Irwin. 1998. Local Capitalism, Civic Engagement, and 

Civic Welfare. Social Forces 77:401–27. 

Tolbert, C.M., M.D. Irwin, T.A. Lyson, and A.R. Nucci. 2002. Civic Community in Small-Town 

America: How Civic Welfare is Influenced by Local Capitalism and Civic Engagement. 

Rural Sociology 67(1): 90–113. 
 19 

CHAPTER 4 

CULTURAL IMPACTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY IN 

THE GULF OF MEXICO REGION 

While social impact assessment often mentions effects on culture, little is generally done to 

address this issue. The cultural impact group session was organized with the intent of breaking 

new ground. The goals of this session were to: 

1. Identify which populations and cultures in the region should be studied; 

2. Describe and compare the cumulative affects of the offshore oil and gas industry on 

cultural groups in the region; 

3. Uncover possible similarities in the ways that industry sectors have affected features of 

culture throughout the region; 

4. Determine if universal features of culture can be used as predictive units of analysis in 

identifying industry impacts; and 

5. Examine social impact assessment issues with a focus on the topic of environmental 

justice. 

To develop a basis for discussion, during the first breakout session, one of our participants, Dr. 

Don Callaway, presented his research on social network analysis in Wales, Alaska. This study 

was meant to provide the group with an example of how impacts on a feature of culture could be 

studied. Participants were then asked to comment on the following: 1) Could this study be used 

to investigate cultural impacts in the GOMR? 2) If so, how would it need to be altered? 3) Could 

it be used to study sub-cultural groups? 4) What other types of research projects could be 

developed for the GOMR? During the workshop the greatest emphasis was placed on the 

development of general study themes and research directions. While our group was diverse in 

terms of area of expertise, our regional experts came from the states of Louisiana and Texas. 

Thus, while many of our study themes can be applied to the entire GOMR, our focus was on the 

Central and Western areas. 

General Questions and Study Themes 

The following general questions were addressed during the cultural impacts session: 

• How do we identify cultures? Which ones should be considered for future MMS 

studies? 
 20 

• What are industry variables that impact culture? 

• How does the industry impact features of culture? 

• How do groups respond and adapt to changing environments? 

• What are the environmental justice issues we need to consider? 

How do we identify cultures? And which ones should be considered for future 

MMS studies? 

At the outset of the cultural impacts session participants brought up the problem of identifying 

cultural groups for analysis. Much of the discussion was on the need to understand changes in 

oil-affected communities such as Morgan City or New Iberia, often defined as counties or 

parishes. Participants noted that impacts on those communities involved with fabrication and 

support would differ from those due to downstream activities such as refining. Participants 

suggested that we need to go beyond the study of counties and parishes and look at specific 

cultural groups. The following in the state of Louisiana were suggested: the Isleños, the 

Chitimacha Indians of Saint Mary’s Parish, and the Houma Indians of Terrebonne and Lafourche 

Parishes. 

Group participants then suggested that regional cultures may be more significant in 

understanding industry impacts than are specific ethnic groups within the region. Some of the 

regions that participants suggested included: the Creole/Gulf Coast culture; South Louisiana, 

North Louisiana, and New Orleans. Many participants thought this approach was particularly 

relevant in “Cajun Country” since it had been defined, in part, by participation in the oil industry. 

In describing these regions it was suggested that we compare the cultures of today to those prior 

to 1937. Additional consideration should be given to generational issues across the region that 

are related to the oil industry. Thus, workshop participants identified various types of groups as 

cultures. In relation to the oil business, geographical differentiation from the coast outward and 

from key points such as concentrations of refineries, support or fabrication facilities may be the 

most relevant units of analysis to consider. 

Cultural groups could also be described based on shared features of culture such as language, 

subsistence practices, and economic organization. One group that has been overlooked is the 

small scale economies of south Louisiana that continue traditional subsistence practices. These 

groups often use traditional subsistence practices and harvest areas. They have often been viewed 

as “economically-challenged” because these activities are not recorded by the U.S. Census. 

Participants suggested that it is important to understand the small-scale economies of the coast 

for two reasons. First, many of these populations still rely in part on their traditional subsistence 

economies such as crabbing or fishing as part of their survival strategy. And second, they make a 

contribution to the heritage, cultural traditions, and economy of the larger system. Session 
 21 

members thought that identifying traditional contributions to local ways of life, and identifying 

the impacts of the oil and gas industry on them are issues that should be addressed. 

Our participants pointed out that these traditional coastal communities of Louisiana are internally 

structured and somewhat closed to outsiders. In describing these communities we need to 

identify groups of people within them to give us a more accurate description of their internal 

organization. An insider’s point of view will help us more accurately describe industry impacts. 

We also need to look at their varying attitudes concerning the oil business. In addition, cultures 

often define themselves by what they are not. It was suggested that we see how communities 

define themselves along these lines. Group members suggested the following methods for 

obtaining this information: 1) the use of ethnographic field methods; 2) the collection of 

historical narratives at the community level; 3) and open and structured interviews. These 

methods would allow us to more accurately identify stakeholders in the region. 

A problem we need to avoid in describing cultural groups is treating them as fixed, monolithic 

entities. Cultures are by definition adaptable. Labeling them as homogeneous, fixed units might 

lead to the possible problem of their not being considered as legitimate by the courts and other 

official bodies. 

A suggested approach to the problem of cultural effects was to describe cultural niches shaped or 

influenced by the industry. For example, one could identify cultures based on shared themes and 

events such as the Petroleum Festival. One could trace the evolution of this festival to show the 

changing cultural influences in the area. 

Another idea was to identify occupational communities. Participants suggested that we could 

understand the worker culture by describing their roles, positions, training needs, and stresses. 

This culture could be assessed for the present as well as for future industry trends. Participants 

also suggested that we examine multigenerational issues that transect these communities. In 

addition, we should investigate the common concerns that are related to occupational groups 

such as lifestyle issues. 

Other suggestions included looking at how land developers and coastal land development are 

driving culture change in the Florida panhandle. There, local cultural values are being redefined 

by relationships between an industry and in-migrating groups. Similarly, participants asked how 

trends in various petroleum industry sectors will change the profile of migrant workers that come 

into the state of Louisiana and into the Gulf of Mexico in general. In addition to the affected 

area, we need to describe the groups who make long commutes to work in various industry 

sector jobs and how this job pattern affects their cultures, communities, and hometowns. It would 

also be beneficial to focus more attention on the workers and their work environment both 

offshore and in support industries. 

Much anthropological research has focused on traditional, small-scale societies. In the past 

decade many oil corporations have moved out of southern Louisiana and have established their 

corporate operations in Houston, Texas. To provide a more balanced perspective of industry 
 22 

impacts it could be useful to obtain information on the culture and activities of white-collar and 

other workers in this geographic location. 

In his plenary session paper entitled: Legal Framework for Minerals Management Service 

Socioeconomic Studies in the Gulf of Mexico, Dr. Richard Hildreth suggested that we examine 

environmental impacts in the GOMR that originate from neighboring countries outside of the 

boundaries of the United States. Expanding on this idea, our group participants suggested that we 

also consider cultural impacts in the Gulf that emanate from Latin American and CircumCaribbean countries. To gain a more thorough understanding of migrant populations impacted by 

industry activities in the United States, it would be useful to view them from a more relativistic 

perspective. For example, while the partial integration and participation of migrants in the U.S. 

system might be seen as a negative impact, migrants themselves may prefer to maintain their 

primary socioeconomic base and support networks in their countries of origin. 

During our final workshop discussion it was suggested that we describe corporate cultures within 

the industry. Impacts can differ based on the ways in which different companies are structured 

and operated. Understanding these differences might give us a better understanding of impacts 

on workers, their families, and communities. 

 

At the end of our discussion of cultural entities it was suggested that we consider the financial 

practicalities of our proposed study ideas. As MMS’s funding is limited, it is important to rank 

studies in terms of their relevance to NEPA and their utility as support for improving 

Environmental Impact Statements, mitigation, and monitoring. 

What are industry variables that impact culture? 

Participants questioned how future trends in the oil and gas industry will modify baseline cultural 

effects. Some of the trends discussed included: 1) The move to deep water as a response to 

royalty relief; 2) The increase in sophisticated technology and educational backgrounds of the 

worker population; 3) The shorter lifecycle of projects, but the longer duration of technical 

experts working offshore; 4) The globalization of the industry with operations in Qatar, Nigeria, 

Brazil, Trinidad, etc.; 5) The importation of equipment and supplies from international firms; 6) 

Royalty relief for shallow-water, deep gas operations; and, 7) Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) 

operations in the Gulf. 

In relation to Gulf-wide trends, participants asked the following questions: 1) How will new 

energy resources, equipment, and tools affect impacts? 2) How will the workforce, their needs, 

and training requirements be affected? 3) Where will new workers come from? 4) How will we 

identify stakeholders? 5) What types of industries will develop in this country to support the 

global activities of the oil and gas industry abroad? 

In discussing these trends participants brought up the fact that the oil industry has often helped 

maintained cultures in the region. Therefore, it was suggested that we examine how the potential 
 23 

absence of industry activities will impact cultures in the region. This discussion emphasized that 

research should include both negative and positive impacts as well as direct and indirect affects 

of industry activity in the Gulf. 

One participant observed that we need to look at the difference in impacts between the states in 

the GOMR. While comparing Louisiana and Texas it was pointed out that Texas has been better 

able to absorb the benefits of oil and gas activities. The question was asked, how do state-level 

infrastructures vary in their ability to absorb and benefit from industry sector activities? 

How does the industry impact features of culture? 

In addition to identifying cultural entities we were also interested in describing how industry 

sectors impact universal features of culture, including subsistence technologies, economic 

systems, social organization, gender relations, informal networks such as associations and 

interest groups, and belief systems. 

In looking at possible uniformities in the ways that features of culture are affected it was 

suggested that we reexamine the topic of offshore work schedules and their effects on 

communities in the region. This topic was recently addressed by an MMS study entitled “Social 

and Economic Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Activities on Individuals and Families” (OCS 

Study, MMS 2002-022). This study was conducted in Morgan City and New Iberia, Louisiana. 

Participants suggested that we compare the 14-days-on and 14-days-off work schedules of 

offshore workers throughout the region to see if the impacts on family and community members 

are similar. Another idea was that we compare differences between the Gulf of Mexico and 

Alaska regions. By comparing particular universal features of culture we might be able to 

develop predictive models in assessing industry impacts. 

One method for understanding impacts on features of culture would be to use social network 

analysis. This approach would work well for closed communities in the Gulf such as Vietnamese 

populations but would have to be modified if it were to be applied to larger and more diffuse 

cultural groups such as the Cajuns of Southern Louisiana. Along these lines it was also suggested 

that we use some form of social network analysis to identify an impacted phenomenon within the 

culture such as certain types of plants or indigenous food sources. After identifying them we 

could then describe how they have been impacted by oil and gas activities. 

Group discussants developed a larger and more inclusive model that describes industry impacts 

on cultures by using historical eras and project lifecycle phases as the independent variables. The 

four historical phases would include industry activities: 1) on-shore, beginning in the early 

1900s; 2) on the shelf in shallow water beginning around 1953; 3) at present in deepwater; and 4) 

and future activities in ultra-deepwater. Each era would then be described in terms of the project 

phase, including its activities and resource needs. Impacted features of culture such as social 

structure could then be compared across eras based on industry activities. As an example, one 

could compare differential activities related to production with a focus on labor requirements and 
 24 

work schedules. By comparing this information across eras one could describe the cumulative 

impacts of this phase of the industry on social structural systems in the communities where 

workers come from as well as the networks that develop in the occupational cultures of workers 

on the rigs. 

Participants suggested additional features of culture where we should describe impacts. One idea 

was to look at the educational systems in the GOMR. How have formal and informal educational 

systems been impacted? How will educational requirements and training be altered to meet 

future industry demands? 

The cultural impact group participants brought up new and interesting features of culture that are 

worthy of investigation. One of these was material culture. For example, in the state of Louisiana 

it would be interesting to describe how the infusion of cash and oilfield materials have been used 

to alter yardscapes and internal house features. Along these lines participants suggested that we 

describe cultural innovation in other areas as well. Specifically, how have groups in the GOMR 

successfully incorporated, altered and utilized impacts from the oil and gas industry? Again, this 

was part of the emphasis on positive contributions of the industry to cultural expression. 

Additionally we should consider industry impacts in the areas of generational differences, 

language, gender, and social structure. On the topic of generational differences we need to 

compare the differential experiences and degree of commitment for different generations 

involved in the industry for the GOMR. 

Other discussions about features of culture included the suggestion that we examine small-scale 

economic systems and the local environment. From a methodological point of view, participants 

suggested that we use more ethnography, historical narratives, and insider types of approaches. 

How do groups respond and adapt to changing environments? 

Coastal erosion, a major concern of the state of Louisiana, was brought up by the cultural impact 

session participants. Because erosion is a significant factor in local culture change, participants 

felt that we need to consider its impacts in any understanding of the oil industry’s effects on 

coastal populations and cultures in Louisiana, and possibly elsewhere. Participants asked: What 

are population shifts in response to land and job losses? What is the impact of land loss on the 

sense of family, community and place? How will traditional small-scale subsistence economies 

be altered? When people are displaced from their homes and from industry jobs, what are the 

implications for family and social networks? In particular, how are extended family members 

affected? What are population movements like in terms of age, race, and ethnicity? How is 

language affected? How is participation in the culture affected by population movement due to 

land loss? How has traditional knowledge of specific environments been altered? When we look 

at land loss, what are the cumulative effects? What percentage is due to industry activities? 
 25 

Some participants brought up the issue of climatic change. In particular they wanted to know 

which issues might be relevant. What types of impacts will there be on coastal communities? 

Participants then suggested that we conduct an investigation of historical changes in community 

identification with the oil industry. The hypothesis might be that significant turning points in the 

industry correspond with notable and measurable changes in the way residents buy into and 

"own" the oil industry as an appropriate locus of regional identity and sense of place. For 

example, as the industry moves into deep water and labor demands change, communities respond 

in measurable ways with greater distance from the industry. As erosion issues deepen, perhaps 

identifiable sectors of the community realign their cultural identities and associations with the 

industry. 

What are environmental justice issues we need to consider? 

Based on the requirement that the MMS address environmental justice issues, participants 

recommended that we develop a mini-atlas of low income and minority populations in Louisiana 

and elsewhere in the GOMR. The three most prominent groups to be considered would be 

African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. A tiered geographic approach could be 

used to expand beyond coastal communities. A difficulty with this approach is that it may ignore 

important sub-cultural group distinctions. Group members also reiterated that many of these 

issues relate to impacts on all inhabitants of the area, not just on low income and minority 

populations. For example, how have non-minority males been adversely affected by recent 

industry trends since they compose much of the industry’s workforce? 

Participants suggested two studies to expand on an on-going study by the MMS, entitled 

“Environmental Studies in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.” This study found that there is a 

possibility that minority groups (Houma Indians) could be disproportionately affected by OCS 

planning activities. Based on this finding, the first study would ask the following questions: 

1) What are the consequences of possible disproportionate exposure and risk of exposure? 2) Can 

any specific negative impacts be documented, or even shown to be plausible? and 3) How do 

Houma traditional activities either diminish or enhance the disproportionate risk? 

The second study proposed that we investigate the longer-term historical processes of settlement 

and population distributions along the Gulf Coast to consider 1) whether regions other than 

Lafourche Parish are also likely candidates for environmental justice investigations; 2) how the 

Houma came to be in the precise locations where they are now; and, 3) whether current 

resettlement issues that arise from coastal subsidence can be framed and understood in a more 

environmental justice focused narrative. Several participants emphasized that we should 

investigate this issues in terms of historical changes in community identification with, and 

participation in, the oil industry. 
 27 

CHAPTER 5 

CROSSCUTTING ISSUES AND QUESTIONS 

This workshop was organized into three discussion groups that addressed different sets of 

questions. Each group consisted of individuals with widely differing backgrounds, interests, and 

experience with the offshore industry. Nonetheless, each group identified important questions 

and concerns that were also identified by the other groups. These crosscutting issues are 

summarized in this chapter. Instead of deciding at this moment which ideas might be funded and 

which put aside, the MMS plans to consider this entire spectrum of expert advice about issues, 

methods, and strategies as it develops its socioeconomic research agenda over the next five 

years. See Appendix C for the complete list of study ideas generated at the workshop sessions. 

Industry 

A recurring theme raised in all workshop sessions was the need for a better understanding of 

what constitutes, or defines, the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico Region (GOMR). A 

major issue for all sessions was the place of the GOM offshore industry in the global one. While, 

in the industry session, the emphasis was on the place of its activity in a global petroleum 

industry and energy market and the relative advantages and disadvantages of operations in the 

GOMR in terms of attracting investment dollars, all sessions wanted a better understanding of 

the scope and causes of the geographical shifts that have taken place within the industry sectors. 

For example, the concentration of corporate headquarters in Houston has social and cultural 

effects not only in Houston, but across the GOM region. Participants wanted a better 

understanding of all upstream and downstream industry-related sectors and emphasized change 

and the relative importance of change. 

Turning to the industries that support oil and gas activity in the GOMR, workshop participants 

wanted to identify and thoroughly describe them on a sector by sector basis and ask how reliant 

these industries are on oil and gas as opposed to other industries. Specific support industries 

mentioned included catering services; diving; coring, logging, and geophysical services; the 

insurance and legal sectors; banking and financial institutions; and real estate. Ports were also 

identified as an area needing examination, including both public and private facilities. 

Another industry characteristic that participants identified was the need to better understand the 

changes in corporate structure and individual project characteristics that have taken place over 

time and how these changes have impacted different stakeholders, including various cultural 

groups. Important structural issues included ownership (i.e. major vs. independents; foreign vs. 

domestic), firm size, and degree of specialization and vertical integration. Important project 

characteristics included 1) the move to deep water; 2) the increase in sophisticated technology 

and educational backgrounds of the worker population; 3) the increase in the complexity and 

capital investment required for projects; 4) the shorter lifecycle of projects, but the longer 

duration of technical experts working offshore; 5) the importation of equipment and supplies 
 28 

from international firms; and 6) the growing importance of natural gas and liquefied natural gas 

(LNG) operations in the Gulf. The cultural impact members would like to describe and compare 

effects on features of culture by using industry eras and project lifecycles as the independent 

variables to better assess cumulative effects of industry impacts throughout time and across the 

region. 

Participants also noted the importance of studying corporate culture. It was suggested that we 

describe the different organizational cultures within the industry and how they impact the 

community. Issues included how individual firms view risk and risk management, investment in 

research and development for new technologies, labor relations and their overall role in the 

community. Some participants also wanted to know more about community dependency on 

industry. They wanted to know whether diversification in industry sectors affects a community’s 

ability to adapt to change. Determining the nature of dependency on the oil and gas industry 

would allow for more precise predictive models of community effects. 

It was suggested that we need to better understand the role of infrastructure. It is important to 

look at the infrastructure that supports projects, looking at what is in place, what it will take to 

maintain existing (and aging) infrastructure, and what expansion or updating of infrastructure 

will be necessary. Participants also emphasized the effects of industry change on the capacity of 

community infrastructures and the ability of communities to pay for and manage them. 

Stakeholders 

The second major theme that emerged across workshop groups was the need to identify and 

understand the various stakeholders. Participants discussed how the power structure of various 

communities needed to be understood because it determined which groups benefited from 

industry presence and which were marginalized, a key issue in social impact assessment. 

Community stakeholders vary across communities and could include political groups, property 

owners, and business owners. Identifying the political voice of a community is important in 

understanding the nature of the relationship between the community and the offshore industry. 

Participants also identified minority groups or cultures in the region as stakeholders to be 

considered, such as Cajuns, the Houma, the Chitimacha, Vietnamese, and Hispanics. Some of 

these groups have specific relationships to the petroleum industry that may affect social 

institutions and culture. 

Many of the important stakeholders that were identified interact with the petroleum industry 

through their use of the physical environment. These populations include those involved in 

fishing, shrimping, boating, diving, and other forms of recreation and commerce. Important 

commercial stakeholders may include those who use the GOMR ports and Gulf shipping lanes as 

a transportation corridor, as well as the GOMR ports themselves. In some areas, military uses are 

also involved. 
 29 

Another important group discussed at length in all breakout sessions was the industry labor 

force. Participants wanted to know more about: the skills and educational requirements needed 

and how they’ve changed over time; the formal and informal educational systems that develop 

these skills; recruitment and retention issues; job quality; and the role of technological change on 

jobs. 

Participants wanted to know about labor force differences across industry sectors. It was 

suggested that specific industry sectors may generate unique occupational communities or 

identifiable regional cultural differences. By understanding worker roles, positions, training, 

labor requirements, and stresses, we can better understand how industry trends may affect 

worker lifestyles. 

Similarly, participants noted the importance of the socioeconomic networks of migrants working 

in the Gulf of Mexico region. Such networks help determine relationships to the industry, 

occupational niches, and the strength and ties to the local area as well as to their communities of 

origin. The partial integration and participation of migrants in the U.S. system may not be 

viewed as a negative impact by migrants themselves. 

State and Local Variation 

The third major crosscutting theme discussed across workshop groups was the importance of 

addressing the geographical variation in industry effects. A change in the industry may not only 

affect one place more than another, but it also may be a benefit to one place and a burden to 

another. Participants emphasized differences in oil-related outcomes among the Gulf states in 

topics as diverse as industry growth and capitalization; contributions to, and demands on, 

infrastructure and public services; and effects on the environment. Participants suggested that 

such state-level differences need to be documented and explained. 

One critical factor noted by all the breakout groups was the difference in state fiscal structures. 

Because each community has different fiscal structures and sources of revenue, some workshop 

participants expected that this variation would be key to understanding socioeconomic effects 

related to the offshore industry. The fiscal structure information could indicate the level of 

economic dependency on various industry activities and sectors. On a related topic, the 

differences in community infrastructure are also directly tied to the fiscal policies of each locality 

and state. Although MMS has conducted a substantial number of community-level studies, much 

of the information is concentrated in a few local communities. The participants argued that we 

needed more information on fiscal structure and its effects across the region. 

Workshop participants emphasized the importance of studying port communities in the GOMR. 

They wanted to know more about infrastructural demands and capacities of various ports, as well 

as their ability to adapt to industry change. Additionally, some participants wanted to research 

the potential socioeconomic effects resulting from the competition between Gulf ports, states, 

and foreign countries for OCS activities. 
 30 

Understanding community networks across the GOMR was also identified as an important 

information need. Participants believed that identifying and comparing the type and scope of 

formal and informal networks would lead to a better definition of affected areas. Furthermore, 

these networks could explain why some communities vary in their adaptation to changes in oil 

and gas industry activities. Identifying affected cultural groups was also seen as important. 

The identification and understanding of affected cultures or culture groups was also an important 

information need. Many of those listed are well known—the Houma, for example. Participants 

believed that networking methodologies might work for the Houma and some other groups, and 

particularly for newly in-migrated ones, but that generally cultures were too geographically and 

socially diffuse to apply this approach. In some areas, the populations of counties and parishes 

affected by particular industry sectors might serve as a reasonable substitute for “culture group.” 

Participants emphasized the need to look at change over time and between generations. The 

MMS oil history project was seen as providing the kind of detail and historical depth that would 

be needed. The MMS should explore the possibility of dividing the Gulf coastal areas into 

something like “culture areas” to better address social and cultural change. Areas might be 

identified based on the sectors of the oil industry present, specific cultural entities present and 

local histories. The consideration of oil and culture should include the investigation of 

community identification with the industry. Impacted cultural groups were seen as immediately 

relevant to the topic of environmental justice. The development of a “mini-atlas” for the state of 

Louisiana of low income and minority populations was suggested. This could be expanded to 

cover the entire Gulf coast region. Studies of indigenous groups were suggested. 

Context of Social and Environmental Change 

A fourth common theme addressed was the importance of context in social and environmental 

change. The industry does not exist within a vacuum. Its effects must be considered within the 

context of other ongoing trends in the environment. Land loss, a critical problem in south 

Louisiana, was discussed as one example of this problem. Participants noted that the workshop 

was discussing the subtleties of oil industry effects on small-scale subsistence economies, social

structural networks, life experiences of different generations, and such culture features as 

language, but that the movement of people in south Louisiana due to coastal erosion has more 

significant and immediate effects in all these areas. 

Monitoring 

The issue of monitoring socioeconomic effects of the OCS program arose in all the sessions. 

Long-term monitoring was discussed as a goal under NEPA and the OCSLA. In this regard, 

effective monitoring was identified as the best way to address the issue of cumulative effects. 

Monitoring was also discussed as a methodological tool or research strategy, one that might 

prove particularly useful in the context of the Gulf, a complex situation in which effects are 

ongoing, causal relationships are impossible to specify, and outcomes are difficult to predict. The 
 31 

practicality and usefulness of monitoring industry, communities, and social conditions were 

discussed. An essential component of effective monitoring is the development of a set of 

common indicators that could be collected and analyzed over a long time period and across the 

entire GOMR. Some participants suggested that the EIS be used as a methodological tool to 

evaluate community change. 

Multi-Methods and Multiple Approaches to Issues 

The last major crosscutting theme identified by the workgroups involved methodology. 

Workshop participants emphasized the need for various types of data (e.g., primary, secondary, 

cross-sectional, and longitudinal) and the application of a wide range of research methodologies 

and strategies (e.g., case studies, surveys, historical case studies, network analysis, 

ethnographies, and GIS). Overall, participants said it would be desirable to decide which data are 

most important to collect as well as to explore better methods of collecting it. Workgroups 

suggested that two valuable parts of this undertaking should be a more inclusive synthesis of 

research MMS has completed and, also, a more systematic use of information that MMS and 

other state and federal agencies already collect. 
 33 

APPENDIX A 

PARTICIPANTS 

Full Name: Michael Robert Adamson, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Adamson Historical Consulting 

Field of Specialty: Twentieth-Century U.S. History 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Business and labor history, with a particular 

interest in organizational behavior; economic development; urban history; international 

economic/financial relations; public policy history across these areas 

Full Name: Diane Austin, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: University of Arizona 

Field of Specialty: Applied Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Environmental anthropology; community-based 

research; risk perception; impact assessment 

Full Name: William B. Bankston, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Crime/deviance; social change 

Full Name: Vern Baxter, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: University of New Orleans, Department of Sociology 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Industrial organization and business structures 

Full Name: John J. Beggs, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Stratification, social networks, labor markets, demography 

Full Name: Mary Boatman, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Chemical Oceanography 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Marine science 

 

Full Name: C. Ray Brassieur, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Louisiana at Lafayette 

Field of Specialty: Cultural Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Louisiana folk culture; wetlands cultural ecology; 

traditional ecological knowledge 
 34 

Full Name: Ralph B. Brown, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Brigham Young University 

Field of Specialty: Rural Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Social and community impacts; social change and 

rural development 

Full Name: Donald G. Callaway, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Senior Cultural Anthropologist, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office 

Field of Specialty: Cultural Anthropologist and Statistics 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Indigenous peoples of the far north with special 

emphasis on Alaska Natives; and indigenous peoples of the Russian Far East. Formal 

statistical analysis including social network analysis, and oral histories. Topical areas 

include globalization, socioeconomic and cultural change. Cooperative management 

regimes and traditional (local) ecological knowledge 

Full Name: Joseph Christopher, Regional Supervisor, Leasing and Environment 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Full Name: Rodney Cluck, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Environmental sociology; social change and 

development; race and culture; social impact assessment; energy 

Full Name: Craig E. Colten, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Professor, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Environmental Historical Geography 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Urban pollution; hazardous waste; environmental justice 

Full Name: Kimberley Cook, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Globalization and change; South America and 

Circum-Caribbean; aggression; women’s studies 

Full Name: Kristi A. R. Darby 

Affiliation: Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Geology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Upstream oil and gas, LNG 

Full Name: Brian Diepold 

Affiliation: URS Corporation and American University 

Field of Specialty: Economics 
 35 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Industrial organization/applied microeconomics, 

with a focus on international mergers 

Full Name: David Dismukes, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Louisiana Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Energy Economics, Policy/Technical Analysis 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Energy industries 

Full Name: Craig J. Forsyth, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: University of Louisiana, Lafayette 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Social impacts of OCS activity; examining the 

impact at the family and community levels 

Full Name: William R. Freudenburg, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Dehlsen Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology, University of 

California, Santa Barbara 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Resource-dependent communities/regions; 

technological controversies, risk, risk management, risk communication; environmentsociety relationships 

 

Full Name: Peter H. Fricke, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Fishing and fishery-related occupations; fishingand maritime-dependent communities; coastal zone management; sea-use management; 

demography; ethnography and oral history of coastal residents; NEPA and marine law 

and policy 

Full Name: Duane A. Gill, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Environmental sociology, community, and 

risk/disasters (MMS OCS Scientific Committee Member) 

Full Name: Robert Gramling, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: University of Louisiana at Lafayette 

Field of Specialty: Environmental Sociology/Social Impact Assessment 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Coastal resource development 

Full Name: Scott A. Hemmerling 

Affiliation: Doctoral Candidate, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State 

University 
 36 

Field of Specialty: Geography 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Environmental hazards; environmental justice; 

environmental philosophy; U.S. South 

Full Name: Richard G. Hildreth, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: University of Oregon Ocean and Coastal Law Center, Professor of Law and Director 

Field of Specialty: Ocean Resources Management 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Sustainable use of living and non-living ocean 

resources 

Full Name: Omowumi O. Iledare, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Petroleum Economics 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Oil and gas industry economics and policy analysis 

Full Name: Jack Irion, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Marine Archeology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Deep-sea shipwrecks 

Full Name: Mark J. Kaiser, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Center for Energy Studies, Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Energy Economics, Policy/Technical Analysis 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Decommissioning; fiscal systems; oil and gas 

infrastructure 

Full Name: Gary Kane 

Affiliation: The Kane Kompany, Inc. (President) 

Field of Specialty: Offshore Oilfield Construction, Maintenance, and Inspection with an 

Emphasis on Projects Involving Divers and Remote Vehicles 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Human performance in the offshore environment, 

emphasis on safety and quality workmanship 

Full Name: Maureen F. Kaplan, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Field of Specialty: Policy Analysis; Economic and Financial Analysis 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Policy analysis with a focus on the economic and 

financial impacts on industry from government regulations 

Full Name: Constance C. Landry 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Administrative Assistant; Procurement Coordinator 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Louisiana cultures 
 37 

Full Name: Shirley Laska, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Center for Hazards Assessment, Response and Technology; University of New Orleans 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Environmental sociology/disaster management 

Full Name: Dayna Bowker Lee, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Louisiana Regional Folklife Program, Northwestern State University 

Field of Specialty: Cultural Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Native American studies; Louisiana folklife; 

Creole studies; French Colonial Louisiana 

Full Name: Asha Luthra 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Macro-criminology; social stratification; social 

impact assessment 

Full Name: Harry Luton, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Social impact assessment 

Full Name: Brian G. Marcks 

Affiliation: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Management Division 

Field of Specialty: Environmental Impact, Coastal Zone Management 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Wetland ecology; environmental impact evaluation 

Full Name: Thomas R. McGuire, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona 

Field of Specialty: Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Natural resource-dependent communities; social 

impact assessment; public policy 

Full Name: Wilbur E. Meneray, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Assistant Dean for Special Collections, Howard-Tilton Memorial Library, Joseph 

Merrick Jones Hall, Tulane University 

Field of Specialty: Louisiana History 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Colonial Louisiana, Civil War, modern Louisiana 

politics 

Full Name: Diana Davids Olien, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: University of Texas of the Permian Basin 

Field of Specialty: History of the American Petroleum Industry, with Emphasis on Texas 
 38 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: History of the petroleum industry, American 

women’s history 

Full Name: Maida Owens, M.A. 

Affiliation: Louisiana Folklife Program, Division of the Arts 

Field of Specialty: Folklore/Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Louisiana traditional cultures; public 

presentations; roadside memorials 

Full Name: Frederick B. Palmer 

Affiliation: Shell Exploration & Production Company 

Field of Specialty: Government and External Affairs 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Providing public, social performance, reputation 

and local government relations support for Shell’s operations in the United States. 

Full Name: Michael E. Parker 

Affiliation: ExxonMobil Production Company 

Field of Specialty: Regulatory Advocacy 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Offshore operations and support; environmental 

compliance execution and monitoring; environmental impact assessment 

Full Name: John S. Petterson, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: President, Impact Assessment, Inc. 

Field of Specialty: Applied Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Technological disaster, community development, 

and social impact studies 

Full Name: Tyler Priest, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: History International, LLC 

Field of Specialty: Business History 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: History of the offshore oil industry 

Full Name: Zeta R. Rosenberg 

Affiliation: ICF Consulting LLC 

Field of Specialty: Economist 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Oil markets 

Full Name: J. Rhett Rushing, M.A. 

Affiliation: Research Department, University of Texas, Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio 

Research Interests and/or area of expertise: Folk narrative, folk religion, and Texan and folk 

food ways. Current projects include a study of curanderismo and stories of war. 

Full Name: Edella Schlager, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: School of Public Administration and Policy, University of Arizona 
 39 

Field of Specialty: Natural Resources Policy 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Community-based governance of natural 

resources, particularly fisheries and water 

Full Name: Joachim Singelmann, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Louisiana State University 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Stratification, Demography, Rural Sociology 

Full Name: Keith Storey, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Department of Geography 

Field of Specialty: Socioeconomic Impact Assessment 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Community-level assessments; impact 

management strategies; impact monitoring and auditing; human factors issues in offshore 

Full Name: Kristen Strellec 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Economics 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Energy, environmental, and mineral economics; 

social impact assessment 

Full Name: Charles M. Tolbert, II, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Baylor University 

Field of Specialty: Sociology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Socioeconomic and social demographic analysis 

Full Name: Allen Verret 

Affiliation: Executive Director, American Petroleum Institute, Offshore Operator Committee 

Consortium; Technical Advisor to the Deepstar CTR 6100 Regulatory Sub Committee 

Field of Specialty: Petroleum Engineer 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Engineering management; construction; field 

operations; production and drilling; and work over operations; marine technology 

development; and oil spill response operations. 

Full Name: Debra Vigil 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Environmental Studies 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Public relations and socioeconomics 

Full Name: Barbara Wallace 

Affiliation: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service 

Field of Specialty: Environmental Studies 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Economic development 
 40 

Full Name: Laura Renée Westbrook, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Director, Louisiana Regional Folklife Program at the University of New Orleans 

Field of Specialty: English, Pubic Folklore 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Applied folklore and anthropology; public 

interpretation; culture and environment; culture and public planning. 

Full Name: Dee Williams, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Minerals Management Service, Alaska Region, Environmental Studies Program 

Field of Specialty: Anthropology; Political Ecology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Social impact assessment, subsistence, traditional 

knowledge, environmental perception, common property resources 

Full Name: Robert Winthrop, Ph.D. 

Affiliation: Planning, Assessment, and Community Support Group, USDI Bureau of Land 

Management 

Field of Specialty: Anthropology 

Research interests and/or area of expertise: Participatory approaches to resource management; 

American Indian cultural rights; cultural conflict resolution 
 41 

APPENDIX B 

AGENDA 

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 

8:30–8:45 Welcome and Introduction. Mary Boatman 

8:45–9:15 Social Impact Assessment and Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf of Mexico. 

Rodney Cluck 

9:15–9:45 Legal Requirements for Social Impact Assessments under NEPA. 

Richard Hildreth 

9:45–10:00 Break 

10:00–10:20 The History of the Offshore Industry in the Gulf of Mexico. Tyler Priest 

10:20–10:35 Directions for the Breakout Groups. Harry Luton 

10:35–10:45 Brainstorming. Barbara Wallace 

10:45–11:30 Organizing breakout groups. 

11:30–1:00 Lunch 

1:00–4:30 Breakout session 1 

4:30–6:30 Reception 

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 

8:30–11:30 Breakout session 2 

11:30–1:00 Lunch 

1:00–4:30 Breakout session 3 

Thursday, February 5, 2004 

8:30–8:35 Introduction. Rodney Cluck 

8:35–8:50 Onshore Social Impact of Oil and Gas Development from BLM. 

Robert Winthrop 

8:50–9:20 Understanding Cultural Change in Alaska—Measuring of Federal Actions on 

Indigenous Communities. Donald Callaway 

9:20–9:35 Group 1 Synthesis Presentation. Kristen Strellec 

9:35–9:50 Group 2 Synthesis Presentation. Asha Luthra 

9:50–10:05 Break 

10:05–10:20 Group 3 Synthesis Presentation. H.B. Kimberley Cook 

10:20–11:30 Synthesis discussion. 

11:30 – 11:35 Closing remarks. 

BREAKOUT GROUPS (second half of first day & second day) 
 43 

APPENDIX C 

PROPOSED STUDIES AND STUDY TOPICS 

Workshop participants were encouraged to submit, in writing, study ideas that MMS could draw 

on for future studies planning. No attempt has been made to rank these suggestions. Instead, the 

submitted materials are provided in alphabetical order by title. A letter from the State of 

Louisiana providing study suggestions is attached to the end of this list. 

(1) Project Title: Adaptive Strategies in a Changing Environment 

Study Area: Mobile, Alabama to Brownsville, Texas with emphasis on the five Louisiana basins 

and the Atchafalaya basin above Morgan City. The five basins include the Lower Mississippi 

Valley, Terrebonne/Lafourche, Atchafalaya/Wax Lake, Teche/Vermillion, and Chenier. 

Objectives: Plan to measure and describe how families and groups cope with fluctuations and 

impacts of the oil industry and changes in the social and natural environment. The areas of 

culture to be examined include family organization, knowledge of the environment, resource 

utilization, sense of place, social support networks of sharing, material culture, gender roles, 

language, community decision-making and political autonomy, oral history, cultural geography, 

ethnoscience, religious practices, intergenerational issues, associations and interest groups, and 

self identity and ethnic identity. 

Methods/Study Design: ethnographic research, ethnohistorical research, survey, secondary 

sources, by informant, oral history, cultural geography, and ethnoscience. 

Data Sources: community respondents, archives, photos, genealogies, civic records, public 

records, diaries, journals, U.S. Census, Bureau of Economic Research, land records. 

Potential Challenges: scope, accessibility, sampling, non-response, and identifying cultural 

brokers. 

Products: tapes/transcripts, community histories, ethnographies and community studies covering 

the above topics, SPSS data files (survey files), GIS mapping, photographs, and technical 

reports. 

(2) Project Title: Business Event: Departure of Large Employer 

Study Area: New Orleans, LA. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Two years. 
 44 

Objectives: Understand impact of moving management functions to Houston. Develop history of 

particular OCS-oriented business establishment. Study relationship of single establishment to 

community. 

Methods/Study Design: Historical analysis, political analysis, engage civic leadership/business 

leadership, track the employer—did they really leave? 

Data Sources: Corporate records, interviews, archived documents, newspapers, etc. 

Potential Challenges: Access to data sources above; impact will be very diffuse due to urban 

area scale. 

Products: report, papers/articles, possible book 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Not much, but one could draw on 

deindustrialization and plant closure literature. 

 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: Key 

issue for New Orleans cultural identity/psyche. How involved are people in the community? Can 

we identify impact in large-scale urban areas? 

(3) Project Title: Characterization of Support Activities in Gulf: Current 

Configuration and Potential Future Trends 

Study Area: Gulf of Mexico. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Six months. Might be scheduled to coincide with release of 

2003 or 2004 data. 

Objectives: To provide a financial and economic characterization of the support industries in the 

GOM OCS by project stage and project type. 

Methods/Study Design: For every phase in a project, identify associated activities. Identify which 

activities are support activities and whether this designation might differ between independent 

and major oil companies. Identify companies participating in support industries, and use publicly 

available sources of information to identify company ownership, number of employees, 

revenues, use of contract labor, customer base and area serviced. Develop a series of matrices 

that summarize findings. Use the matrices to provide a qualitative analysis of the change in 

support activities as older, closer-to-shore projects end and fewer newer and further-from-shore 

projects come on line as a result of lease sales. 
 45 

Data Sources: MMS publications and data, government data (Securities and Exchange 

Commission’s EDGAR data base), financial data bases (e.g., Standard & Poor’s, Dun & 

Bradstreet), company web sites, and newspaper articles. 

Potential Challenges: Detailed information might not be available for smaller supporting 

industries. Businesses might not distinguish between operations in state waters and those in 

federal waters. Other information might involve purchasing data from a vendor such as InfoUSA 

or Dun and Bradstreet. 

Products: The end-product is series of matrices that qualitatively characterize the GOM OCS 

support industries. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic: This project would build on the information in 

Deepwater Program: OCS-Related Infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico: Fact Book. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: First, 

a comparison of current support activities by distance from shore can indicate whether future 

development (e.g., deepwater areas) show different patterns, thus making estimates on 

socioeconomic impacts of future lease sales more accurate. Second, MMS can make a more 

informed estimate on the likelihood that support services will continue to come from established 

onshore areas compared to establishing new businesses in new areas. Third, MMS can indicate 

the number of small businesses currently supported by the offshore oil and gas activities in the 

GOM and, if possible, in the GOM OCS. 

(4) Project Title: Closing of an Oil Business in an Urban Area 

Study Area: Lafayette or any other city where an oil company moved out. 

Objectives: Define the oil company (or a part of it) leaving the city. Examine the individuals and 

their families. What happens to them? 

Methods/Study Design: Interviews. 

Data Sources: Individuals/families. 

Potential Challenges: None. 

Products: Add to the literature on impact. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Company movement has a dramatic 

effect—there may be no effect or less than previously thought. 
 46 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: Oil 

companies move from cities, but do employees move out or not? Do families stay? 

(5) Project Title: Community Response to Oil: Toward a Typology of Adaptation 

and Accommodation to Industry 

Objectives: Case studies of various communities where extensive OCS activity exists. This will 

begin to identify the factors that mitigate effects. 

Methods/Study Design: Develop a social historical view of each community. Over time, a 

typology of communities will develop. The typology will be along a continuum of variables. 

Data Sources: Census data, other socioeconomic indicators, and ethnographic data. 

Products: A typology of oil communities. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Most research has concentrated on the 

boom/bust model. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: MMS 

is searching for a new paradigm to examine effects. 

(6) Project Title: Competitiveness of Oil and Gas Service Industry in the GOM 

Study Area: Industry Dynamics and Trends. 

Proposed Period of Performance: January 2005–December 2007. 

Objectives: Provides measures of the competitiveness of oil and gas field service industry in the 

GOM. 

Methods/Study Design: Statistical and econometric analysis of data using indicators used in 

industrial organization. 

Data Sources: Databases compiled by Minerals Management Service and processed by LSU 

Energy Studies for previous MMS funded projects. 

Potential Challenges: Data collections and processing. Data continuity and availability. 

Accounting for mergers and acquisitions of firms within the service sector 

Products: Final report, papers published in the proceedings of conferences organized by 

reputable professional organizations and refereed journal articles. 
 47 

Justification/Applicability of Information: Assessing industry performance and cost of services in 

the GOM and its implications of on resource development in the OCS. 

(7) Project Title: Description of Industry Impacts on Cultures by Historical Eras 

and Project Lifecycle Phases 

Study Area: The geographic area of this project can potentially include the entire Gulf of Mexico 

Region. Study areas will be determined by the presence or absence of industry sector activity. 

Proposed Period of Performance: This project can be carried at any level of complexity. It was 

suggested that a baseline study be carried out in which first era is described. 

Description of Proposed Project: There are three proposed project eras. The first is an historical 

description of oil activities on land. The second era is an analysis industry activities carried out 

on the shelf. The third would be carried out in deepwater. The fourth would be an analysis of 

ultra-deepwater activities. These eras represent historical periods, beginning with industry 

activities on land and culminating in future activities in ultra-deepwater. 

Project lifecycle phases would include descriptions of industry activities, resource needs, and 

impacts on culture. Particular or joint features of culture can be compared across eras for 

particular project phases. For example, what are the impacts of labor requirements on local 

communities in across time based on differential industry activities? After this information is 

collected, comparisons can be made between particular features of culture and between cultures 

as well. 

Methods/Study Design: The initial project phase will be to conduct a study of initial onshore era. 

Ethnographic information and interviews can be obtained from industry experts from within the 

Minerals Management Service. 

 

Data Sources: Ethnographic interviews, expert opinion, and historical sources. 

(8) Project Title: Differences Among Independents and Major Oil Companies with 

Respect to Offshore Accident Rates 

Study Area: Gulf of Mexico. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Six months. 

Objectives: Independents, both large and small, are playing an increasing role in the GOM OCS. 

The workshop identified the question of whether there is a difference in accident rates among the 
 48 

company types. That is, as independents play an increasing role, will there be a concomitant 

increase in accident rates? 

 

Methods/Study Design: The researcher will investigate state and federal sources of injury and 

fatality statistics to identify the set of offshore oil and gas operations. Within the set, the 

researcher will work with the source to subdivide the observations into subsets based on 

company type (e.g., major, independent, contractor, service industry). If possible, the researcher 

will identify multiple years of data for the analysis. 

The researcher will perform standard statistical tests (e.g., hypothesis testing, Chi-squire, trend 

analysis, etc.) to evaluate whether there are significant differences or trends in accident rates 

among different types of companies active in the GOM OCS. 

Data Sources: MMS Accident Investigation data, Bureau of Labor Statistics (Fatal Occupational 

Injuries and Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

data from Form 300 (formerly Form 200), Log of Work-Related Injuries And Illnesses and Form 

301 (formerly Form 201), Injury and Illness Incident Report, and state data. 

Potential Challenges: The potential challenges associated with this project are 1) confidentiality 

of the data and 2) separation of onshore and offshore activities. 

Products: Identification of whether there is a change in accident rate among company types. If 

not, then changing role of independents in the GOM OCS is unlikely to lead to different (higher) 

injury rates. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: 

Independents are playing a growing role in the GOM OCS. A potential change in worker safety 

is one of the socioeconomic factors to consider when examining the changing nature of GOM 

OCS activities. 

(9) Project Title: Doing Cumulative Effects Assessment 

Study Area: National/International. 

Objectives: Identification of “good practice” approach to cumulative effects assessment in 

context of GOMR (large scale industrial sectors; complex activity; wide-geographic spread). 

Methods/Study Design: Literature review, focus groups (technical). 

Potential Challenges: Few good examples of socioeconomic Cumulative Effects Assessment. 

Generally, fewer still for this type of problem. 

Products: “Good practice” methodology proposal 
 49 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern:

Multiple projects, programs have systemic, synergistic effects. Developing an appropriate 

approach to this meta-problem would provide guidance to MMS on impacts of past and future 

projects. 

(10) Project Title: Environmental Justice at the Regional Level 

Description of Proposed Project: To launch a study to investigate the longer term historical 

processes of settlement and population distributions along the Gulf Coast to consider a) whether 

regions other than Lafourche Parish are also likely candidates for EJ investigations; b) how the 

Houma came to be in the precise locations where they are now; c) whether current resettlement 

issues that arise from coastal subsidence can be framed and understood in a more EJ focused 

narrative; etc. 

(11) Project Title: Environmental Justice from an Historical Perspective 

Description of Proposed Project: To conduct an investigation of historical changes in 

community identification with the oil industry. This project would have environmental justice 

overtones but could also be framed well outside of environmental justice perspectives. The 

hypothesis might be that significant turning points in the industry correspond with notable and 

measurable changes in the way residents buy into and “own” the oil industry as an appropriate 

locus of regional identity and sense of place. For example, as the industry moves into deepwater 

and labor demands change, communities respond in measurable ways with greater distance from 

the industry. As erosion issues deepen, perhaps identifiable sectors of the community realign 

their cultural identities and associations with the industry. And it is possible that some broad 

scale “dispossession” or “redefinition” can be detected that would provide a vehicle to raise the 

hot political issues of renegotiating regional access to federal distributions of mineral royalties 

and/or compensation claims. 

(12) Project Title: Examine the Role of Offshore Work in the “Saving of Culture” 

Description of Proposed Project: 7 & 7 work allowed individuals to work in other areas during 

their off time—farming/shrimping. It provided extra money so they could shrimp and farm. 

(13) Project Title: Exploration Efficiency of Firms of Different Sizes: Implications 

on GOM Petroleum Resource Development 

Study Area: Industry Dynamics and Trends. 

Proposed Period of Performance: October 2005–September 2007. 
 50 

Objectives: Identify and model measures of exploration efficiency by firms of different sizes to 

evaluate the trends in OCS industry dynamics and strength within the context of global 

petroleum supply and pricing. 

Methods/Study Design: Collect and process OCS data on exploration and production activity on 

in the GOM. Develop models to evaluate E&P activity on the GOM OCS. 

Data Sources: Databases compiled by Minerals Management Service on drilling, production and 

reserves and processed by LSU Energy Studies for previous MMS funded projects. 

Potential Challenges: Data collections and processing. Data continuity and availability. 

Developing algorithm to manage and process data into a useful format and to allocate reserves 

on lease basis to firms of different sizes. 

Products: Final Report, papers published in the proceedings of conferences organized by 

reputable professional organizations and refereed journal articles. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic: Update past studies conducted by researchers at 

LSU Energy Studies on the expanding role of independent oil and gas operators and profitability 

of OCS leases. 

Justification/Applicability of Information: Provide measures or indicators of industry trends and 

dynamics to quantify future GOM activity and output.

(14) Project Title: Factors Affecting Future Petroleum Exploration Productivity in 

the GOM 

Study Area: Industry Dynamics and Trends. 

Proposed Period of Performance: January 2005–December 2007. 

Objectives: Identify factors and issues that may affect future OCS oil and gas productivity and 

the implications of such issues and factors on petroleum resource development in the GOM. 

Methods/Study Design: Statistical and econometric analysis of data on the determinants and 

output of E&P activity on the GOM OCS. 

Data Sources: Databases compiled by Minerals Management Service and processed by LSU 

Energy Studies for previous MMS funded projects. 

Potential Challenges: Data collections and processing. Data continuity and availability. 

Developing algorithm to manage and process data into a useful format. 
 51 

Products: Final report, papers published in the proceedings of conferences organized by 

reputable professional organizations and refereed journal articles. 

Justification/Applicability of Information: The Gulf of Mexico OCS is expected to continue to 

play a major role in the U.S. efforts to import domestic production and reduce oil import. 

Identifying the factors affecting OCS exploratory productivity and trends in petroleum supply 

would facilitate the understanding of the potential of the Gulf in this effort. 

(15) Project Title: Follow-up Study to Current MMS Study Entitled: Environmental 

Justice Considerations in Lafourche Parish, Louisiana (OCS Study MMS 

2003-038) 

Study Area: Lafourche Parish. 

Description of Proposed Project: This study will be a follow-up to the environmental justice 

study just concluded by Scott Hemmerling, et. al. centered around Lafourche Parish. This study 

found that there is evidence that minority groups (Houma Indians) are disproportionately 

affected by OCS planning activities. Based on this finding this study would ask the following 

questions: 1) What are the consequences of that disproportionate exposure and risk of exposure? 

2) Can any specific negative impacts be documented, or even shown to be plausible? and 3) How 

do Houma traditional activities interact with the “nuisance” in ways that either diminish or 

enhance the disproportionate risk? 

(16) Project Title: Historical Examination of the Offshore Drilling Industry Impact 

on the Culture Groups of the Gulf of Mexico Region 

Study Area: GOMR—Florida Panhandle continuing West and South to Brownsville, Texas 

Proposed Period of Performance: Immediately preceding any other studies in the region (for 

purposes of historical accuracy, contextual authenticity, and troubleshooting). 

Description of Proposed Project: Objectives: To document and articulate the impact of the 

offshore drilling industry on coastal culture groups historically. 

Methods/Study Design: 

1. Phase One—This project will involve an extensive archival and literature search of 

historical interactions between the offshore drilling industry and coastal groups—from 

the beginnings of the land-based drilling industry through the move offshore and to the 

present. This should take place in the archival holdings and collections of facilities 

already known to focus on the oil industry and its service industries. 
 52 

2. Phase Two—This project will require oral history, life story, and ethnographic 

interviews with persons involved in and affected by all manners of the offshore drilling 

industry. Beginning with community leaders, retired employees, and other primary 

sources, the project will spread outward to encompass persons more peripherally 

connected to/impacted by the industry. 

This project will deal with human stories and artifacts and will draw its conclusions from the 

ground up. Emphasis will be placed upon each narrator’s evaluations and not a predetermined 

range of acceptable responses that generate statistical models. 

Data Sources: Primary sources will be employees and former employees of oil industry and 

service industry entities. Focus here will be on not only the employees, but on their families. 

Secondary interviews will be with those less directly associated with the industries—

infrastructure, housing, local government, schools, chambers of commerce, retail outlets, 

churches, etc. We are looking for patterns in the industry as they are perceived by the very 

people they impact. 

Potential Challenges: This is relatively new territory for those dependent upon charts and graphs 

to guide their thinking. We feel that the failing of many statistical models is that they do not 

“listen.” Instead they provide a range of answers and ask subjects to respond within a given 

framework. This model allows the actual human being to put their own feelings into their own 

words and we propose to find patterns in their responses from which we will base our 

conclusions. 

Potential challenges will include community attitudes towards the oil industry, the federal 

government, and perhaps outsiders in general. Also, personal experiences, relationships, and 

histories with the industry. 

Oral histories and life story interviews are incredibly powerful and meaningful largely because 

they take place face to face with real human beings (not survey forms) and they tend to validate 

the informant’s life experiences. With this is mind, there must be a component built into this 

study to train interviewers in techniques and technical documentation skills. 

Ideally this study would be multi-faceted and coordinated across the GOMR by several 

institutions already capable of instructing interviewers in the methods and mechanics of oral 

history collection. This too, would be a challenge. 

(17) Project Title: Impacts of Change on Other Resources Used by Local 

Populations and Communities 

Study Area: Coastal parishes and counties. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Two years, update every five years. 
 53 

Objectives: Identify, describe, and value (social and economic) resources used by local people 

and communities. The resources may be natural resources, jobs, culture, etc. Identify the impacts 

of oil industry operations on these resources and assess the outcomes under difference change 

agent scenarios. 

Methods/Study Design: Ethnographies of local populations and communities, map resources and 

areas of resource use, analyze impacts (e.g., effects on fishing and hunting by dredging new 

channels). 

Data Sources: Census, land use maps and plans, employment data, oil/industry plans and 

proposals, historical records. 

Potential Challenges: None. 

Products: Materials for EIS, EJ, and cumulative impact assessment; understanding of 

socio/cultural issues related to proposals. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): None in Gulf States—some in Alaska. 

(18) Project Title: Impacts of Offshore Development on Industry Migration and the 

Managerial/Administrative Workforce in the Gulf Coast Region 

Study Area: Houston, New Orleans (and, possibly, Lake Charles, Lafayette, Corpus Christi, and 

Beaumont/Port Arthur). 

Proposed Period of Performance: 2005–2006. 

Objectives: To examine the impact of offshore development in the Gulf of Mexico on the 

patterns of industry migration to and within the Gulf Coast, focusing on the administrative and 

managerial workforce. The idea is to get a better understanding of the spread effects of the 

growth and development of the offshore industry beyond worker communities along the coast. 

Methods/Study Design: The method would be historical research combining archives, statistical 

data and oral history interviews. The project would take as a model William Cronon’s Nature’s 

Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, which reveals the environmental, ecological, and 

economic linkages between Chicago and its Great West hinterland in the late-nineteenth century. 

This study would seek to provide a similar analysis of Houston and New Orleans for the postWorld War II period, examining the changing role of these two cities as the managerial hubs of 

the Gulf Coast offshore industry, and the impact of offshore oil and gas on the urban and 

regional geography of business and white-collar employment. 
 54 

Data Sources: Source would include oral history interviews, statistical and census data on 

housing, employment, migration, etc.; accessible company information and publications; 

archival research at the City Archives and Special Collections at the New Orleans Public 

Library, the Houston Metropolitan Research Center, the Harris County Archives, and 

information from other relevant archives and libraries. 

Potential Challenges: The main problem will be limiting the scope of the study and isolating the 

historical impact of the offshore petroleum industry from larger oil industry impacts on the 

region. 

Products: A study as described in “Methods/Study Design.” 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Very little has been written on the role of 

the oil and gas industry in the modern history of New Orleans and Houston. Joe R. Feagin’s Free 

Enterprise City: Houston in Political and Economic Perspective (1988) is the only detailed study 

of business and urban development in Houston, but it does not address the issue of offshore oil or 

examine the growth of Houston in light of Gulf Coast regional development. Craig Colten’s 

edited collection, Transforming New Orleans and Its Environs (2000) discusses industrial 

pollution and the petrochemical industry along the lower Mississippi River industrial corridor, 

but does not connect New Orleans to the “upstream” segments of the oil industry, including 

offshore Gulf of Mexico. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: This 

study idea was discussed and featured both in the study group on “Industry Trends and 

Dynamics in the Gulf of Mexico Region” and the one on “Community-Level Impacts of Oil and 

Gas Activity in the Gulf of Mexico Region” at the Social and Economic Planning Workshop, 

February 3–5, 2004. It will address a broad consensus of the workshop that we need more 

empirical and historical (or cumulative) approaches to understanding regional-level impacts of 

the offshore oil industry in the Gulf. In their analysis of social impact assessment, Harry Luton 

and Rodney Cluck point out that in the Gulf of Mexico, “Most impacts are not rural; most 

impacted communities are not physically or culturally isolated; most impacted economies are not 

agricultural; and most impacts and not caused by demographic change.” This study will attempt 

to identify some of the urban, industrial and geographically integrated impacts of offshore 

development in the Gulf over time. 

(19) Project Title: Levels of Action/Autonomy in the Interfacing with the Oil 

Industry 

Study Area: A two-state or so region of the Gulf comprised of four to six community cases. 

Objectives: Document which actors initiated or otherwise moved that a community get x or y 

industry, plant, etc. associated with the oil industry. Do communities actively seek certain plants, 

etc. to locate them or are they targeted by the county, state, industry? It may address the variables 
 55 

common across those communities that seem to better control their own destinies while using the 

oil industry at the same time to get them. 

Methods/Study Design: Specifically trace the origins of certain plants, headquarters, etc. by 

documents and interviews in each town. Have a range of towns based on their ability to retain 

population, etc. 

Data Sources: See above. 

Potential Challenges: Finding and accessing key players at the state and industry levels. 

Products: An analysis showing at what thresholds communities maintain their ability to act 

while still interfacing with industry and the state. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): I have published two studies that have 

used this approach: one on the Mercedes Bay plant locating in Alabama and the other on how a 

small town in Missouri established its industrial based in the 1950s long before other small 

towns did so. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: It 

would show levels of integration across state-community-industry, etc. and the points where each 

has more or less autonomy to act. This would help communities in particular know better where 

they can better leverage their ability to act to secure their best deals, while still allowing for the 

company to get what it wants. 

(20) Project Title: Modeling the Impacts of Louisiana Coastal Land Loss on OCS 

Exploration and Production Activity 

Study Area: Central Gulf. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Two years. 

Background: Coastal Louisiana is experiencing persistent land loss estimated at 25 square 

miles/year. Much of the infrastructure that supports Gulf OCS activity (pipelines, transportation 

facilities, preliminary processing, etc.) lies in these coastal parishes. 

 

Objectives: 

1. Identify current and anticipated risk due to land loss to the infrastructure and OCS 

support sectors to which they belong. 

2. Examine the ways in which this impact would affect the bottom-line costs for Gulf OCS 

exploration/production. 

3. Consider how the land loss may shift infrastructure and support sector activities to other 

Gulf locations as a result. 
 56 

 

Methods/Study Design: 

Team: Coastal geologists, environmental sociologists, natural resource economists. 

Modeling land loss, identifying infrastructure and support sectors in shadow of impact. 

Estimating costs of damage, reconstruction, retrofitting for strengthening through interviews with 

industry technical representatives. Through scenario development of impacts, interview industry 

representatives for assessments of business decisions. Collect information from any sector 

companies that have already made decisions to move infrastructure and business activity due to 

land loss. 

Data Sources: U.S.G.S., N.O.A.A., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MMS, U.S. Census County 

Business Patterns, industry organizations, businesses, representatives of businesses through indepth focused interviews. 

Potential Challenges: The potential challenges will be predicting risk as outcome of land loss. In 

addition, prediction of future business changes due to the risk is also a prediction rather than a 

measurement of past actual occurrence. 

Products: Reports disseminated by MMS, refereed publications, presentations at industry and 

academic conferences. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): There have been no studies to our 

knowledge on this topic. Social/economic impact assessments in general of Louisiana coastal 

land loss are beginning to be undertaken. 

Justification / Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: The 

findings will be useful for better appreciation of the business and community challenges that 

coastal Louisiana will face with land loss with regard to OCS activity. Equally useful will be the 

findings for an appreciation of the impact of coastal land loss on the revenue stream to the 

federal government from OCS production. 

(21) Project Title: Monitoring Socioeconomic Impacts 

Objectives: Attempt to define objectives of project/program/etc. Monitor whether these 

objectives have/have not met these objectives; determine whether or not management methods 

were effective in achieving their objectives. 

Methods/Study Design: Secondary sources review, interviews, technical focus groups. 

Potential Challenges: Environmental monitoring practices well-established focus-economic 

monitoring not so. Issues of objectives of monitoring, monitoring indicator choice, monitoring 

responsibility and commitment are poorly developed. 
 57 

Products: Proposed methodology for how to monitor effects. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern:

Follow-up of EIS findings, proposed management strategies is essential if there is to be feedback 

and any “learning from experience”. This information can be applied to future EA studies. 

Enables identification and promotion of both positive and negative outcomes. Monitoring 

programs designed to measure whether you achieve “what was wanted” not “what was 

expected.” 

(22) Project Title: OCS-Oil/Gas Employment as Part of Household Economic 

Strategies 

Objectives: The socioeconomic impacts of closing OCS oil and gas-related facilities depends on 

the place of such employment in household survival strategies. This study will examine a sample 

of current and displaced oil/gas workers to identify a range of such 

Survival/lifestyle strategies and to assess the effectiveness of such strategies in mitigating job 

displacement. Such strategies may include fall-back or job-subsistence living; periodic migration 

to other communities for oil/gas-related work; shifting to other work with compatible skills. 

(23) Project Title: Oil and Community Networks 

Study Area: Selected communities on the GOMR. 

Objectives: Nature and extent to which oil-related activities influence community character and 

organization. 

Methods/Study Design: Survey/interviews/review secondary sources. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: Oil 

and gas activities potentially have significant economic impacts at the community-level. The 

purpose would be to trace the social and political mechanisms that underlie and help in the 

organization of these activities. 

• direct/indirect economic effects 

• evolution of support services/technologies/capabilities 

• ways in which oil and gas-related sectors are treated by local authorities (taxation, 

planning, etc.) 

• involvement of industry within community/donations, political positions held, service 

organization involvement. 
 58 

(24) Project Title: Oil and Gas and Houston Neighborhoods 

Study Area: Houston Census Tracts. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Three years. 

Objectives: Identify industrial tracts of oil and gas workers in Houston. Profile demographics of 

oil and gas workers/neighborhoods. Associate temporal shifts in neighborhood patterns with key 

events in industry/geopolitics. 

Methods/Study Design: Use decennial household Census data, explore new American 

Community Study as source for move frequency information, and standard demographic shiftshare analysis. 

Data Sources: Internal long form decennial Census data (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000) 

American Community Study (1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003, ...) 

Local data from planning agencies, etc. 

Potential Challenges: Six months to secure access to data; 1970 Census data may not be 

Permeable in the time frame specified; local data is sketchy before 1990. 

Products: Thesis/dissertation by graduate student, MMS report, academic articles, maps, tabular 

material subject to Census disclosure. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): No study at this level of detail in largescale urban area. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern:

Emphasis on large urban area, detailed description of oil and gas workers and families, coverage 

of administrative and production workers, and exploration of new data source (ACS) which will 

replace the Census long form in 2010. 

(25) Project Title: Preliminary Characterization of the Socioeconomic Impacts of a 

“No Action” Scenario 

Study Area: Gulf of Mexico. 

Proposed Period of Performance: Two years. 

Objectives: Typically, a discussion of a “no action” scenario in an environmental impact 

statement is described in terms such as “all impacts, positive and negative, associated with the 

proposed actions would not occur.” The infrastructure and employment in the GOM OCS and 

supporting on-shore communities, however, reflect a half-century of oil and gas development. 
 59 

Oil and gas are non-renewable resources that, in aggregate, show an annual decline. An 

evaluation of a “no action” scenario should reflect the 1) absence of work for the support 

industries serving the exploration, delineation, and platform fabrication phases; 2) ensuing shift 

in ownership in existing structures; 3) declining need for support services during the production 

period; and 4) increase in the need for decommissioning support services. This project focuses 

on items 2 through 4. 

Methods/Study Design: The goal is to develop a simplified tool for evaluating the impacts of a 

“no action” scenario. For current, existing projects in the GULF OCS, the steps would be: 1) 

develop a snapshot of current operations in the GOM OCS; 2) classify existing projects into 

model projects; 3) develop a financial model for model project; 4) record numbers and types of 

projects estimated to go out of production each year; 5) evaluate loss in production phase support 

services; and 6) evaluate increase in decommissioning phase support services. The financial 

model would incorporate logic to evaluate when project ownership might change (e.g., from 

major to large independent to small independent) due to different cost structures. 

 

Support industry activities do not necessarily have a linear relationship with project production 

levels. It takes the same amount of activity to transport supplies a given distance from shore/port 

whether the project is at full production or nearing the end of its economical lifetime. The next 

step is to integrate the findings about the number of uneconomical projects with the matrix of 

support activities to qualitatively estimate the loss in production support services and the 

increase in decommissioning/ demolition support services over time. 

Data Sources: MMS data bases supplemented as necessary by API data on ownership and 

operating costs. The models are intended to be flexible and provide an indication of possible 

future scenarios, rather than an accurate modeling of every project. 

Potential Challenges: Adjusting the balance between broad brush assumptions and detailed data 

to provide a flexible yet accurate projection of possible future scenarios. 

Products: An estimate, perhaps qualitative, of the decline in the need for support services in 

onshore communities in the absence of future lease sales. 

It is possible that the model might identify a situation where it is the bulk of the smaller, nearingthe-end-of-life projects that require the majority of support services while the majority of 

production is coming from a small proportion of giant producers. Such a situation might lead to 

negative impacts on the onshore communities that support production phase activities. That is, a 

“no action” scenario is not simply the absence of the positive and negative impacts associated 

with a lease sale. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: Each 

EIS contains an evaluation of a “no action” scenario. This project would provide a beginning 

basis to evaluate the negative impacts of a “no action” scenario. Benefits of a lease sale are 

measured from the “no action” baseline and MMS might decide to present the alternative 
 60 

perspective where additional lease sales maintain (or prevent the erosion of) current 

socioeconomic conditions in the onshore communities. The study might indicate areas of a 

declining need for support activities in one region that might be available to support activities in 

another part of the Gulf of Mexico and thus alleviate the pressure for new onshore development. 

(26) Project Title: Role of Elites in Community Response to Oil Activity 

Study Area: Small city in Louisiana. 

Proposed Period of Performance: 1970–2004. 

Objectives: Elites are a valued community resource. Their existence determines the survival of a 

community. This project will study whether community elites are old-timers who stay or are 

newcomers who leave. A large part determines the effect of an oil downturn. 

Data Sources: Interviews with community leaders. 

Products: Develop theories of old-timers v. newcomers. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Role of elites in community development 

exists. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: Learn 

the role of leadership—mitigating effect on community. 

(27) Project Title: Shell Shock 

Study Area: New Orleans, LA. 

Proposed Period of Performance: 2005–2006. 

Objectives: Community and firm-level study that aims to demonstrate impacts that quantitative 

data at the metropolitan level conceals. Do a study of how the arrival and consequent leaving of 

Shell corporate headquarters in New Orleans. It is bounded by time with Shell locating in the 

Gulf/New Orleans at the time of offshore drilling and them leaving in 2002 or so. How did this 

departure affect community identity, local politics, shifts in the tax base, shifts in civic 

engagement, etc.? Characterize Shell corporate presence—expectations. Effects on robustness of 

civic groups, tax base, charitable contributions, employee wages, social capital, and perceptions 

of the community. Characterize the activities of employees. 

Methods/Study Design: Historical using both archives and interviews with key persons also 

company records and extant data (Census, etc.) on tax bases, newspaper accounts. Examining the 
 61 

managerial decision-making that determined levels of staffing in New Orleans and ultimately the 

closing of the headquarters. 

Data Sources: Newspapers, company publications, trade publications, interviews, other extant 

data sets, New Orleans publications/magazines, histories of Shell, in-house Shell publications, 

and oral histories. 

Potential Challenges: Access to some sources of data (people not willing to talk). No access to 

company sources and data/information, etc. 

Products: A history of the effects that one major oil company has on a city when it moves in and 

out. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Information can be found in the trade 

press on Shell. There is also information about the shutdown of oil businesses and infrastructure, 

especially for the bust following the collapse of oil prices in 1986. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: It 

would give a better picture of what potentially happens at the urban level as a result of a very 

specific segment of the Gulf oil industry—most specifically, with offshore oil drilling. 

(28) Project Title: Social Networks and Social Capital in Oil-Related Communities 

in the GOMR 

Study Area: Selected Communities along the Louisiana and Texas Coast. 

Proposed Period of Performance: 2005–2008 

Objectives: Develop an understanding of social networks and social capital of residents of oilrelated communities. To what extent do these social networks coincide with the geographical/ 

political communities? How does the social capital embedded in these networks facilitate the 

actions of individuals within these communities? Are the networks and social capital of oil/gas 

involved communities different from those not in oil/gas-related activity? 

Methods/Study Design: Guided interviews to gather information from individuals in these 

communities. 

Data Sources: Original data collection—public data sources to define oil/gas-related 

communities. 

Potential Challenges: Identifying and/or getting access to oil and gas-involved individuals. 
 62 

Products: Data set from interviews. Report of findings from analysis of differences between oil 

and gas and non-oil and gas involved and the implications for the ability to cope with oil and gas 

activity in area. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Information on spatial communities but 

not for social networks and social capital. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: 

Social networks and social capital are important factors in how communities and individuals can 

cope with economic activity. Understand how social communities (defined by networks?) 

conform to political/geographic bounded communities. 

(29) Project Title: Structural Trends in The Global Petroleum Industry as They 

Impact the Gulf Of Mexico Region 

Study Area: Socioeconomic Research Issues. 

Proposed Period of Performance: start either June or September, 2004 and finish either in 

December 2005 or May 2006. 

Objectives: Explore industry and corporate governance and structure as they impact Central Gulf 

of Mexico (GOM) offshore oil investment and employment outcomes. Locate viability of GOM 

in dynamics of global petroleum industry. Specifically identify key players offshore and 

document the effects of joint ventures, mergers, larger companies operating in deepwater, 

foreign state oil companies, and key government regulatory/incentive policies on offshore 

investment and employment. 

Methods/Study Design: Trend analysis, largely using existing and available data on the strategies 

and financial operation of 40-50 principal companies operating in the Gulf. Proposal is to update 

and analyze an existing data base built by the author (see V. Baxter, Chapters 2-3 in “Impact of 

Offshore Oil Exploration and Production on the Social Institutions of Coastal Louisiana,” MMS 

93-0007). 

Financial data will be updated on about the largest 40 private companies and 10 or so foreign 

state owned companies active in the GOM. Data will be collected on joint ventures, mergers, 

number of local exploration and production offices, offshore lease purchases, wells drilled, 

employment, and other important variables related to offshore activities. 

Data Sources: MMS data, including but not limited to annual OCS Statistical Summaries, 

economic forecasting data collected by ICF Consulting study of offshore expenditures, etc. 

Industry publications, such as Oil and Gas Journal, Pennwell’s USA Oil Industry Directory, 

Pipelines and Facilities Database, and other publications. 
 63 

Company financial data, available through such sources as Moody’s Industrial Manual and 

Compact D/SEC online data base. 

Personal interviews with industry sources as necessary. 

Potential Challenges: Locating some data may be challenging, but most sources are secure and 

reliable. 

Products: Report to MMS that can include raw data as well as summary and analysis: at least 

one conference paper; ultimately, a book manuscript. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): The proposed study is largely an update 

of a previous study done by the author (See MMS 93-0007) ten years ago. So far as I know, no 

comparable study of oil industry structure and trends is available that specifically refers to 

investment and employment outcomes in the offshore GOM. Scholarly research is plentiful on 

the governance and re-structuring of the petroleum industry, but this study places a unique focus 

on the offshore GOM. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: Study 

of industry trends, company strategies and structures is invaluable organizational analysis to 

complement economic analysis of the impacts of offshore oil activity. Outcomes of interest 

include investment and employment impact of the offshore oil industry in the GOM as they 

impact many other outcomes such as housing markets and regional economic development. 

(30) Project Title: Untitled 

Proposed Period of Performance: Three months. 

Objectives: Develop a method and proposal for the study of impacts of OCS oil/gas industry on 

urban areas of GOMR. 

Methods/Study Design: Examine several case studies of business closing/relocation as this 

affected a metro area (preferably in same sector, e.g., auto industry). Identify most relevant 

methods and types of data. Use these in OCS oil an gas proposal. 

Products: Literature review, evaluation of several case studies, and proposed methods and data 

for OCS study. 

(31) Project Title: Urban Communities and Infrastructure Impacts 

Study Area: Large Urban Area (population > 50,000). 
 64 

Objectives: Identify neighborhoods and populations likely to be impacted by changes in the oil 

industry’s operations. Describe existing urban infrastructure and identify shortfalls and areas of 

excellence. Describe and quantify cumulative and proposed changes in the oil industry. 

Methods/Study Design: Conduct neighborhood ethnographies; demographic overview of urban 

area; comprehensive review and valuation (social and economic) of urban infrastructure 

identifying critical variables/measurement points; evaluate neighborhoods and minority and/or 

poor populations living areas using infrastructure measurement points; evaluate cumulative and 

proposed changes using infrastructure measurement points; undertake impact analysis. 

Data Sources: Census; urban area government; federal and state agencies; business plans and 

proposals of oil industry; fieldwork and ethnographies. 

Potential Challenges: Obtaining clear reference and measurement points (variables) 

Products: Description of human environment (EIS), description and analysis of impacts on 

special populations (EIS – EJ), description of cumulative impacts on neighborhood and urban 

area infrastructure, assessment of impacts under different change scenarios, and data bank. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Census, population, and infrastructure 

data generally available but not brought together. Neighborhood and special population ethnographies not normally available. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern:

Develop baseline and analysis for use in EIS and assessment by MMS, industry, and local 

government. 

(32) Project Title: Who Uses Offshore EIS Documents? 

Study Area: GOMR. 

Objectives: To determine who uses the findings/data from MMS EIS documents and for what 

purposes. 

Methods/Study Design: Survey/interviews 

Products: Report, recommendations on format/information to be included in EIS. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Anecdotal. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern: EIS 

documents are required. Determining who uses them and for what purpose could improve their 

utility as planning documents to promote/prevent/manage offshore development. 
 65 

(33) Project Title: Work and Lifestyle 

Study Area: GOMR. 

Objectives: Examination of degree to which offshore worker defines or is defined by the 

worker’s lifestyle and activity patterns. 

Methods/Study Design: Survey of offshore workers; interviews. Determination of extent to 

which workers are 1) solely oil workers and 2) have secondary/other employment. 

Products: Report outlining extent to which there are oil/non-oil activity linkages; implications of 

such linkages. 

Current Status of Information on this Topic (linkages): Very limited. 

Justification/Applicability of Information to Issues of Regional or Programmatic Concern:

Workers with secondary employment/interests may be less affected by a downturn in the 

offshore oil and gas sector. Some may be able to return to commercial shrimping, fishing, etc. 

Rotational work in the offshore industry may support lifestyles that other work systems cannot. 

This may lead to higher levels of satisfaction among the workforce. In turn, this may have 

implications for worker turnover, productivity, worker health, etc. 
 66 
 67 
 69 

APPENDIX D1 

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE 

SOCIOECONOMIC STUDIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

RICHARD G. HILDRETH 

Introduction 

This paper reviews the legal framework for Minerals Management Service (MMS) 

socioeconomic studies carried out as part of the federal offshore oil and gas program in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Regarding the methodologies to be used for such studies, the relevant legislation and 

regulations only refer to collecting “time-series and data trend information,” designing 

“experiments to identify” the causes of change, and quantifying impacts (including “cumulative 

impacts and effects”) “to the fullest extent possible including magnitude and duration.” 

Congressional legislative history documents suggest that production areas be monitored in a 

manner “designed to provide time series data which can be compared with earlier studies ... for 

the purpose of identifying any significant changes and the possible cause of such changes” 

(House Report 95-1590, August 29, 1977). For studies included in environmental impact 

statements (EISs) prepared by MMS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

the applicable regulations state: 

Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of 

the discussions and analyses in environmental impact statements. They shall 

identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to 

the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement. An 

agency may place discussion of methodology in an appendix. (40 C.F.R. 

§ 1502.24) 

Thus, the choice of methodologies to be used for MMS socioeconomic studies is left largely to 

the discretion of MMS staff within the very general legal framework discussed next. 

Legal Overview 

The legal framework for studies in support of the federal offshore oil and gas drilling program 

has been relatively stable since the major amendments to the 1953 Outer Continental Shelf Lands 

Act (OCSLA) in 1978 (Hildreth 1976, 1986). It is based on legislative requirements contained in 

the OCSLA and NEPA and regulations and court decisions interpreting those legislative requirements. Section 20 of the OCSLA requires “a study of any area or region included in any oil and 

gas lease sale in order to establish information needed for assessment and management of environmental impacts on the human, marine, and coastal environments ...” (43 U.S.C. 

§ 1346(a)(1)). That section also requires additional studies subsequent to the leasing and 
 70 

developing of any area or region to establish environmental information and monitor the human, 

marine, and coastal environment in a manner designed to provide “time-series and data trend 

information.” 

For these purposes the “human environment” is legislatively defined as the “physical, social, and 

economic components, conditions, and factors which interactively determine the state, condition, 

and quality of living conditions, employment, and health of those affected, directly or indirectly, 

by activity occurring on the Outer Continental Shelf” (43 U.S.C. § 1331(i)). 

These requirements are implemented through environmental assessment (EA) documents 

prepared under NEPA Section 102 (42 U.S.C. § 4332) and accompanying Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Section 102(2)(A) requires federal agencies including 

MMS to “utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of 

the natural and social sciences” in their decision making which may have an impact on the 

human environment. 

Many NEPA practices and procedures evolved from major federal energy development 

initiatives onshore and offshore (Harris et al. 2003). EISs prepared as part of the OCS lease sale 

process in the early 1970s ranged from a 67-page EIS for the leasing of 80 tracts in the Gulf of 

Mexico to a four-volume, 2000-page EIS for a 1975 Southern California lease sale. Court 

challenges by environmental and fishing groups and state and local governments to lease sale 

EISs sometimes resulted in federal court orders delaying the sales pending EIS revisions 

(Hildreth 1976, 1986). The EIS defects to be remedied usually involved inadequate evaluation of 

oil spill risks and harms and energy supply and conservation alternatives. In the 1970s and 80s 

challenges to three Georges Bank lease sales resulted in thirteen separate federal court opinions, 

many involving NEPA compliance issues. Sale delays usually decreased industry interest in the 

sale area. They provided sale opponents time to negotiate tract exclusions and sale conditions 

and seek Congressional sale moratoria. With the most contentious OCS areas off the west and 

east coasts covered by continuing sale moratoria, NEPA compliance litigation has decreased 

markedly (Christie and Hildreth 1999). 

CEQ recently sponsored a major review of NEPA practices and procedures (Connaughton 2003; 

Goldfarb 2003). Possible changes discussed to date do not appear to affect MMS assessments of 

OCS oil and gas development activities. 

Legal Requirements for Socioeconomic and Cumulative Impact Assessment 

Socioeconomic Effects 

The CEQ NEPA regulations state “economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to 

require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact 

statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are 

interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the 

human environment” (40 C.F.R. § 1508.14). According to the regulations, effects include 
 71 

“aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative”; 

“indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced 

changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air 

and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems” (40 C.F.R. § 1508.8). 

The outer legal limits on socioeconomic assessments are not well defined. In City of Davis v. 

Coleman, 521 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1975), the federal appellate court ruled that indirect effects 

which are merely “speculative” do not have to be evaluated. Otherwise, the federal courts have 

not provided much guidance on the type and scope of socioeconomic effects which must be 

evaluated under NEPA. In State of Louisiana v. Lujan, 777 F. Supp. 486 (E.D.LA. 1991), the 

state of Louisiana sued to stop OCS Sale 135 based on the alleged inadequate evaluation of 

socioeconomic effects in the final NEPA EIS for Sale 135. While there was some evidence that 

the EIS failed to consider or fully disclose the potential socioeconomic effects of Sale 135, the 

court found those defects an insufficient basis for issuing an injunction stopping the sale and did 

not provide any guidelines for improved studies. 

CEQ has issued guidance (CEQ 1997) on how federal agencies can comply with Executive 

Order 12,898 on environmental justice (E.O. 12,898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (1994)). The guidance 

states that the identification in the NEPA process of disproportionately high and adverse effects 

(including “multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards”) on 

minority and low-income populations “should heighten agency attention to alternatives 

(including alternative sites), mitigation strategies, monitoring needs, and preferences expressed 

by the affected community or population.” 

Cumulative Impacts 

The CEQ NEPA regulations define a cumulative impact as an “impact on the environment which 

results when the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or 

person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impact can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 C.F.R. § 1508.7). OCSLA 

regulations state that findings from MMS environmental studies “shall be used to recommend 

modifications in practices which are employed to mitigate the effects of OCS activities and to 

enhance the data/information base for predicting impacts which might result from a single lease 

sale or cumulative OCS activities” (30 C.F.R. § 256.82(d)) (emphasis added). Thus OCS lessees 

submitting exploration and development and production plans for MMS approval are required to 

provide an assessment of the cumulative effects on the offshore and onshore environments 

expressed in terms of “magnitude and duration” (30 C.F.R. § 0.203(a)(17); 250.204(a)(11)). 

These lessee assessments can be helpful to MMS in satisfying its obligations under OCSLA 

section 20 discussed above. 

There have been several judicial interpretations of the cumulative impacts assessment 

requirement relevant to MMS ESP responsibilities under the OCSLA. In Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Inc. v. Hodel, 865 F.2d 288 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the federal appellate court 

invalidated Interior Secretary Hodel’s approval of the 1987–1992 five-year OCS Lease Sale 
 72 

Program due to the failure of the final EIS to consider the cumulative impact of simultaneous 

offshore oil and gas development in the Pacific and Alaska regions on marine species that 

migrated between those regions, such as whales and salmon. That defect was subsequently 

corrected, and sales in those regions were carried out pursuant to the program. In North Slope 

Borough v. Andrus, 486 F. Supp. 332 (D.D.C. 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 642 F.2d 589 (D.C. 

Cir. 1980), involving Alaska OCS oil and gas leasing, both the trial and appellate courts ruled 

that the cumulative effects of “other significant Federal and state energy development projects ... 

in progress and planned for the North Slope Region” had to be considered in the EIS. 

A widely-quoted decision of the federal appellate court for the Central and Western Gulf of 

Mexico region has stated that an EIS cumulative-effects study must identify: 1) the area in which 

effects of the proposed project will be felt; 2) the impacts that are expected in that area from the 

proposed project; 3) other actions—past, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable—that have had or 

are expected to have impacts in the same area; 4) the impacts or expected impacts from these 

other actions; and 5) the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed 

to accumulate (Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1985)). In addition, every three 

fiscal years, OCSLA section 20(e) requires the Interior Secretary to submit to Congress and the 

public “an assessment of the cumulative effect” of OCS oil and gas activities on the “human, 

marine, and coastal environments” (43 U.S.C. § 1346(e)). 

All studies of cumulative environmental impacts should include associated socioeconomic 

effects (Bowen and Riley 2003; Kildow et al. 2000). 

 

MMS Implementation 

MMS’s OCS Environmental Studies Program’s (ESP’s) principal function is to obtain 

information about the ecological, physical, oceanographic, and socioeconomic implications of 

energy resource development (Murdock et al. 2002). It supports MMS and Interior Department 

decision making at all stages of the offshore oil and gas leasing program carried out under the 

OCSLA in compliance with the foregoing impact assessment requirements including the post 

lease sale stages of exploration (30 C.F.R. § 250.203(g)); development and production (30 

C.F.R. § 250.204(j)); and decommissioning (30 C.F.R. § 250.1700). However, for mature areas 

of the OCS such as the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico, MMS has determined that 

environmental assessments generally are not required for the post lease sale stages of exploration 

plans and development and production plans, 51 F.R. 1855, 1857, Jan. 15, 1986, and lessee 

information gathering obligations are correspondingly reduced (30 C.F.R. § 0.203(a)(8)). A CEQ 

NEPA regulation (40 C.F.R. § 1508.4) authorizes such “categorical exclusions” from the NEPA 

process and agency applications of the regulation are judicially reviewable. California v. Norton, 

311 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2002). Exclusion from NEPA of development and production plans 

reviewed by MMS in the Gulf is to some extent supported by OCSLA sections 25(e)(1) and (l) 

(43 U.S.C. § 1351(e)(1), (l)). 
 73 

On June 27, 2002, Interior Secretary Norton approved the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 

2002–2007 (MMS 2002b). The two-volume final EIS (MMS 2002a) accompanying the program 

contains environmental, socioeconomic, and cumulative impact information for comparing the 

three regions covered by the program, Pacific, Alaska, and the Gulf of Mexico. The program 

includes annual area-wide sales in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico and two sales in the 

Eastern Gulf. Assessing the environmental and associated socioeconomic and cumulative 

impacts of these sales is the responsibility of MMS’s Gulf of Mexico Regional Office. The final 

EISs for Lease Sale 181 in the Eastern Gulf (MMS 2001a) and for nine 2003–2007 Central and 

Western Gulf lease sales (MMS 2002c) contain extensive socioeconomic and cumulative impact 

analyses as well as short discussions of environmental justice issues. The brief socioeconomic 

and cumulative impact analyses in the EA documents for Western Gulf sales 180 and 184 (MMS 

2001b, 2002d) build on the more detailed analyses contained in the May 1998 final EIS for 

Proposed Lease Sales 171, 174, 177, and 180. Recent community (Hughes et al. 2002; Keithly 

2001) and regional (Wallace et al. 2001) level background studies commissioned by MMS’s 

Gulf regional office have focused on socioeconomic rather than cumulative impacts. 

In addition to the cumulative impacts they already discuss, Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale EISs 

could evaluate the cumulative impacts of activities such as offshore oil exploration, 

development, production, and facilities decommissioning (Lima 1997) activities in Mexican 

waters of the Gulf, and possible new oil and gas transport facilities on the Gulf OCS to be 

licensed by the Coast Guard under the Deep Water Port Act as amended in 2002 (Public Law 

107–295, November 25, 2002)). To include Mexico’s Gulf waters in MMS cumulative impact 

assessments is supported by a 1997 CEQ memorandum (McGinty 1997) and several lower 

federal court decisions (Goldfarb 2003). 

In addition, platform removals as part of offshore oil decommissioning activities in state and 

federal waters off California have raised concerns about the spread of marine invasive species, 

an issue also of concern in the Gulf (Showalter 2003). 

On the other hand, mining of methane hydrate deposits on the Gulf sea floor is probably too 

“speculative” to require any sort of detailed analysis of potential cumulative impacts at this time. 

Less speculative would be evaluation of the cumulative impacts on Gulf of Mexico ocean 

resource users including offshore oil operators of existing and proposed marine protected areas 

and marine reserves (Carter 2003). 

 

Conclusion 

Past socioeconomic and cumulative impact assessments carried out by MMS in the Gulf have fit 

relatively comfortably within the applicable legal framework. Changes in methodology and 

emphasis in future assessments currently being discussed by MMS staff (Cluck and Luton 2002a, 

2002b; Luton and Cluck 2003; Murdock et al. 2002) could improve the social scientific validity 

and utility of the assessments while continuing to meet MMS legal obligations. To the extent the 

proposed changes facilitate increased tracking of cumulative impacts, they will assist MMS in 
 74 

meeting key legal obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and the Outer 

Continental Shelf Lands Act. 

References 

Bowen, R.E. and C. Riley. 2003. Socio-economic Indicators and Integrated Coastal 

Management. Ocean & Coastal Management 46:299–312. 

Carter, D.W. 2003. Protected Areas in Marine Resource Management: Another Look at the 

Economics and Research Issues. Ocean & Coastal Management 46:439–456. 

Christie, D.R. and R.G. Hildreth. 1999. Coastal and Ocean Management Law in a Nutshell. St. 

Paul, MN: West Group. 

Cluck, R.E. and H. Luton. 2002a. Responding to Social Change and Avoiding Self-Subversion: 

The Social and Economic Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development on 

Communities, Families, and Individuals in the Gulf of Mexico. In SPE International 

Conference on Health, Safety & Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production 

Proceedings: 20–22 March, 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. CD-ROM. Dallas, TX: 

Society of Petroleum Engineers. 

Cluck, R.E. and H. Luton. 2002b. Towards a Multi-Level Social Assessment Framework: Effects 

and Responses to Change in the Gulf of Mexico. In SPE International Conference on 

Health, Safety & Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Proceedings: 

20–22 March, 2002, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. CD-ROM. Dallas, TX: Society of 

Petroleum Engineers. 

Connaughton, J.L. 2003. A More Effective and Timely NEPA. In Proceedings of the Rocky 

Mountain Mineral Law Forty-Ninth Annual Institute, Chap. 2. Westminster, CO: Rocky 

Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: CEQ. 

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/ej/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297.pdf

(accessed December 18, 2003). 

Goldfarb, D. 2003. NEPA: Application in the Territorial Seas, the Exclusive Economic Zone, the 

Global Commons, and Beyond. Southwestern University Law Review 32:735–760. 

Harris, C., R. Tuchman, and J. Hall. 2003. New Brine, Old Bottle: NEPA and NPDES 

Bottlenecks and Potential Solutions in Coalbed Methane Production in the Powder River 

Basin. In Proceedings of the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Forty-Ninth Annual Institute, 

Chap. 13. Westminster, CO: Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. 
 75 

Hildreth, R.G. 1976. The Coast: Where Energy Meets the Environment. San Diego Law Review 

13:253–305. 

Hildreth, R.G. 1986. Ocean Resources and Intergovernmental Relations in the 1980s: Outer 

Continental Shelf Hydrocarbons and Minerals. In Ocean Resources and U.S. 

Intergovernmental Relations in the 1980s. Maynard Silva, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview 

Press, pp. 155–196. 

Hughes, D.W., J.M. Fannin, W. Keithly, W. Olatubi, and J. Guo. 2002. Lafourche Parish and 

Port Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Industry on 

the Economy and Public Services, Part 2. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2001-020. 

Keithly, D.C. 2001. Lafourche Parish and Port Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Petroleum Industry on the Economy and Public Services, Part 1. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2001-019. 

Kildow, J.T., B. Baird, C.S. Colgan, H. Kite-Powell, and R. Weiher. 2000. Improving Economic 

Information for Ocean and Coastal Resources. In Coasts at the Millennium: Proceedings 

of the Seventeenth International Conference of the Coastal Society, 9–12 July 2000, the 

Portland Marriott Riverfront, Portland, Oregon, L.W. Jodice, A. Gupta, and R. Boyles, 

eds. Alexandria, VA: The Coastal Society, pp. 305–313. 

Lima, J. 1997. Long-term Socioeconomic Effects Of Onshore Facility Decommissioning. In

Decommissioning and Removal of Oil and Gas Facilities Offshore California: Recent 

Experiences and Future Deepwater Challenges. F. Manago and B. Williamson, eds. Santa 

Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara, Marine Science Institute, pp. 124–

135. 

Luton, H. and R.E. Cluck. 2003. Social Impact Assessment and Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Draft. N.p.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

http://www.mms.gov/eppd/socecon/files/gulfSIA.pdf (accessed December 8, 2003). 

McGinty, K.A. 1997. Memorandum to Heads of Agencies on the Application of the National 

Environmental Policy Act to Proposed Federal Actions in the United States with 

Transboundary Effects. Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC, July 1. 

http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/transguide.html (accessed December 18, 2003). 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2002a. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing 

Program: 2002–2007: Final Environmental Impact Statement. 2 vols. Herndon, VA: U.S. 
 76 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-

006. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). 2002b. Proposed Final Outer Continental Shelf Leasing 

Program 2002–2007. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 2002c. Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales, 2003-2007: Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 

198, and 201: Western Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200: Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 2 vols. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-052. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 2002d. Proposed OCS 

Lease Sale 184, Western Gulf of Mexico: Environmental Assessment. New Orleans, LA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2002-008. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 2001a. Gulf of Mexico 

OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale 181, Eastern Planning Area: Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. 2 vols. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2001-051. 

Minerals Management Service (MMS). Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. 2001b. Proposed OCS 

Lease Sale 180, Western Gulf of Mexico: Environmental assessment. New Orleans, LA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region. OCS EIS/EA MMS 2001-034. 

Murdock, S.H., F.L. Leistritz, and S. Albrecht. 2002. An Examination of Selected Recent MMS 

Socioeconomic Studies and Assessments in the Gulf of Mexico. Herndon, VA: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Environmental Studies 

Program. http://www.mms.gov/itd/pubs/2002/2002-057.pdf (accessed January 20, 2004). 

Showalter, S. 2003. Aquatic nuisance species in the Gulf of Mexico: A Guide for Future Action 

by the Gulf of Mexico Regional Panel and the Gulf States. University, MS: Sea Grant 

Law Center, University of Mississippi. 

http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/ANS.pdf (accessed December 5, 2003). 

Wallace, B., J. Kirkley, T. McGuire, D. Austin, and D. Goldfield. 2001. Assessment of 

Historical, Social, and Economic Impacts of OCS Development on Gulf Coast 

Communities. 2 vols. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2001-026 and 

2001-027. 
 77 

APPENDIX D2 

THE HISTORY OF THE OFFSHORE INDUSTRY IN THE GULF OF MEXICO 

TYLER PRIEST 

In their “Social Impact Assessment” essay, Harry Luton and Rodney Cluck have a section 

entitled: “Challenge of Identifying the Offshore Oil Industry.” This challenge, they write, is due 

to “the size and complexity of this industry, because the full spectrum of enterprises involved in 

finding, extracting, processing, storing, and bringing petroleum-based products to market is 

present, because the support and transportation requirements of offshore operations add 

substantially to the complexities and variabilities of the oil industry, and because of its uneven 

distribution across the Gulf” (Luton and Cluck 2004). 

Indeed, the offshore industry in the Gulf has a long, varied, and dynamic history. When scholars 

first attempted in the mid-1980s, during the oil bust, to make some sense of this history, they 

assumed it was over, or at least winding down. The Gulf was written off by many people as the 

“Dead Sea.” Then came the deepwater miracle, which initiated yet another era in this history and 

forced us to reevaluate early conclusions and rethink how we apply received wisdom about 

extractive economies, at least in the case of the Gulf. Luton and Cluck ask some excellent 

questions about how we identify the industry, historically and otherwise. Offshore development 

in the Gulf has been unique, but it also has served as a model for other offshore provinces. 

Unlike most petroleum provinces, in which discoveries have been concentrated in a short span of 

one to three decades, substantial discoveries have been made in the Gulf of Mexico basin for a 

century. In contrast to the major provinces of the world, where hydrocarbons are concentrated in 

a small number of world-class “giant” fields (fields with a known recovery of 500 million barrels 

of oil equivalent [boe] or more), the GOM basin has yielded thousands of smaller fields as well 

as numerous giants and “large” fields of 50 to 500 million boe (Nehring 1991), which has made 

room for both large and small operators and a brilliant diversity of contractors. As the search for 

oil and gas around the world moved into deeper waters and new offshore environments over the 

last thirty years, the Gulf of Mexico has remained the primary laboratory for technological 

innovation and regulatory practices. 

Concerned with the social and economic impacts of offshore development, scholars and analysts 

of the industry have rightfully focused on local and micro-level changes affecting communities, 

support-centers, fabrication yards, demographics of the labor force, etc. What Luton and Cluck 

appear to be calling for in their paper, and what we have been trying to do in the GOM history 

project, is marry our knowledge of the local-level effects with a macro-level understanding of 

changes in the oil industry and, I would add, in business-government relations. So I will try to 

offer some provisional and very general thoughts on this. 

It is important to keep in mind two things when looking at this history. First, the ongoing search 

for oil in the GOM has been a function of the long-term decline of the lower 48 United States as 
 78 

a petroleum province. The discovery of oil in this country peaked in 1930; oil production peaked 

in 1970. By the end of World War II, the most obvious oil onshore, contained in structural traps, 

had already been found. To replace depleted reserves, new kinds of traps and oil would have to 

be found using new exploration concepts and technologies and in higher cost environments. A 

good way of characterizing the post-World War II period, in my view, is as a “race against 

depletion.” Offshore GOM is the feature development in all of this. The second point, related to 

the first, is that the maturation of offshore oil and gas has occurred during a period, especially 

since 1973, of incredible volatility for the petroleum industry, involving soaring and plunging 

prices linked to the influx of foreign oil into the United States, new waves of government 

regulation, and drastic corporate restructuring. Only continuous revolutions in technology have 

sustained the GOM through this turbulent period. 

First Era: The New Frontier, 1938–1962 

In the late 1930s, major oil companies, through the corrupt leasing practices in Louisiana, 

obtained hugely profitable oil and gas fields in south Louisiana. This combined with the 

doubling of base domestic oil prices upon the lifting of price controls at the end of WWII both 

generated interest in the adjacent offshore domain and financed a new wave of exploration and 

drilling by the established firms (Humble [Exxon], Gulf, Shell, and California [Chevron] being 

the most active). Meanwhile, other oil firms who had missed out on the big action in south 

Louisiana (Kerr-McGee, Pure, Magnolia, Union, Superior) also cast their sights into shallow 

open water. The opportunism of oilmen was rewarded. During 1949–1956, the increase to U.S. 

domestic reserves from offshore development was nine times the average for onshore wells (U.S. 

Department of the Interior 1969). 

Technological innovations in geophysical exploration, drilling, and marine design and 

construction held the keys to this success. Operating in an open-water marine environment 

entailed great risk and required specialized expertise. To meet the challenge, the oil companies 

sponsored research at the major universities in this region and hired a generation of scientists and 

engineers out of them. And they both tapped into a preexisting Gulf Coast oil-service sector and 

cultivated competitively organized new ones in drilling and supply, transferring some of this risk 

to others and protecting themselves against the high infrastructure costs and irregular pace of 

exploration and development (Baxter 1997). The seeds of the larger offshore industry were 

planted during this period with the emergence of geophysical contractors (i.e. GSI, Western, 

Petty-Ray); engineering and construction firms (Brown & Root, J. Ray McDermott); supply and 

transport firms (Tidewater, Petroleum Helicopters); naval architects (Friede-Goldman); and 

various shipyards to construct new-fangled drilling vessels. The drilling companies, such as 

ODECO, Zapata, Global Marine, The Offshore Company, captured imaginations with the 

innovative development of a variety of submersible and jack-up rigs. 

The industry loves to celebrate the entrepreneurship of these early pioneers, and rightly so. But I 

would like to point out that government aid and support for the industry were also crucial to 

offsetting high costs and risks. These include not only the well-known tax benefits and incentives 
 79 

the industry as a whole received in the United States—such as the percentage depletion 

allowance and import quotas, imposed on a mandatory basis in 1959, just as major offshore 

discoveries were coming on stream—but specific assistance in the form of government 

technology transfers (i.e. sonar and radio-positioning; diving; war-surplus vessels; generous 

prorationing; little or no safety or environmental regulations). And despite oil company fears that 

the triumph of the federal government in the legal showdown with Louisiana and other states 

over control of the “tidelands” in the 1950s would harm prospects for development, federal 

leasing, begun in 1954, introduced an orderly method for cheaply and efficiently transferring 

huge tracts of the public offshore domain to industry. 

Second Era: Emergence of an Industry, 1962–1973

Despite federal support, in the late 1950s, many people, even those intimately involved with 

offshore, saw the GOM as a unique and perhaps temporary opportunity, not something that had 

long-term viability. In the late 1950s, Bouwe Dykstra, Shell Oil’s New Orleans vice president 

who was almost single-handedly responsible for carving out Shell’s strong position in the 

shallow-water Gulf, adamantly insisted that development would never reach beyond 200-foot 

depths. Not until the 1960s did the various companies involved offshore envision a longer future 

and come together as an industry, bound together by a common technological purpose. 

Two events in the early 1960s helped foster this cohesion. First was the historic March 1962 

offshore lease sale, in which the federal government offered for lease every tract nominated, 

awarding more than 2 million acres in leases and collecting $445 million in bonus bids, more 

than all the timber sales in Oregon and California and onshore mineral leasing for the year 

combined (Rankin 1986). Companies immediately began scrambling to drill their large inventory 

of leases, setting off a major boom in all related service and support businesses. The 1962 sale 

not only provided more leases for a larger number of companies to choose from, but it also drove 

down the price of cash bonuses, allowing smaller independents, who had begun to be shut out of 

the offshore game, to acquire a piece of the action, albeit still dominated by the majors (Lohrenz 

and Oden 1973). The sale also helped jump start major exploration for natural gas in the Gulf. 

The second major event was Shell Oil’s launching of the first semi-submersible drilling vessel, 

the Bluewater 1, and installation of the first subsea well, which greatly extending exploration 

into deeper waters. In 1963, to help spread offshore capabilities, Shell Oil decided to share these 

revolutionary technologies with the industry. Shell’s “million dollar school” signaled the 

beginning of greater cooperation and consultation within the industry to meet difficult 

technological challenges (Taylor 1983). Three major hurricanes in the 1960s (Hilda, Betsy, and 

Camille) also helped bring about a convergence of improved ideas and practices on platform 

design and construction, allowing production technology to begin catching up with exploration 

technology, culminating with the founding of the Offshore Technology Conference in 1969. 

Greater industry consultation on technical matters also helped companies produce the first 

“recommended practices” (RP) documents and meet rising health and safety and environmental 

regulations in the 1970s. 
 80 

Despite great progress, by the end of the 1960s the industry faced limits to its expansion. 

Although enough important discoveries were made to hold oil company interest, many leases 

proved to be unproductive and the cost of bringing in the productive ones began to outrun the 

price of oil, which had stubbornly remained in the $2–3 barrel range. Furthermore, the federal 

government moved to ration leases more severely under the so-called “tract selection” system in 

search of greater revenues with which to help pay for the Vietnam War. Tract selection offered 

blocks in a piecemeal fashion. Given escalating costs in deeper water, this hindered more 

efficient exploration strategies involving basin-wide geological assessments or structural trends 

or plays that transcended tract boundaries, thus constraining profitable development. A 1978 

study showed that since the beginning of federal leasing through 1975, the industry had paid out 

$18 billion for bonuses but had only earned $17.8 billion in revenues. Many leases for which 

bonus figures were included in this statistic had yet to pay out, but the point remained that 

success in the Gulf of Mexico had been highly variable. Notable successes included Shell Oil, 

Gulf Oil, Chevron, Tenneco, and Forest Oil, while striking failures were Texaco, Amoco, and 

Sun Oil (Dougherty et al. 1978). 

Third Era: Feeding Frenzy, 1973–1985 

In the early 1970s, the major contradiction of the early offshore system in the Gulf was 

temporarily resolved. Most obviously, the price spike caused by the OPEC oil embargo in 1973 

made offshore a much more profitable endeavor. Companies could afford a higher ratio of dry 

holes and unproductive leases to discoveries, even in progressively deeper water. However, lease 

bonuses began rising sharply before 1973, so this trend cannot be solely attributed to rising oil 

prices, improved production technology, or to the federal policy of tract selection. An 

unappreciated factor in this trend was the discovery and adoption of the “bright spot” or “direct 

detection” method of interpreting seismic data. Advanced digital recording and processing of 

seismic data, which had made quantum leaps in the mid-1960s, enabled geophysicists to detect 

hydrocarbons on the seismic record. Bright spots greatly diminished the dry hole factor in the 

risk equation, allowing companies to put a lot more money into its lease bids and more than 

make up for it in decreased drilling costs. Once the technology was developed and embraced, it 

had a giant impact on offshore exploration in the Gulf and helped pioneer a new deeper water 

hydrocarbon trend and paved the way for the installation of a new wave of massive fixed 

platforms (Forrest 2000). 

By the early 1980s, however, this adaptation appeared to give the industry only a short lease on 

life in the Gulf. The price of lease bonuses had risen to astronomical levels. In OCS Sale A62 in 

1980, Superior-Pennzoil-Sohio paid $165 million for a single tract, Ewing Bank 304. This sum 

dwarfed Shell Oil’s winning $10,000 bid in 1947 for South Pass Block 24, the largest offshore 

field discovered in the Gulf for many years ($52,457/acre versus $4/acre). Even the largest firms 

could not afford to bid alone, and had to bring in partners to offload some of the capital risk—

and, although they would not admit this, reduce the competition. Despite the price spike of the 

“second oil shock” and the application of new technologies, offshore leases were becoming 

prohibitively expensive. So was the cost of development as the deepwater frontier migrated out 
 81 

to the edge of the continental shelf in 1,000-feet-plus depths. In 1981, oil prices peaked and 

began to plunge. Industry leaders complained that the tract selection system of leasing was 

creating a shortage of exploration opportunities in the declining oil province of the United States, 

especially as environmental concerns blocked leasing off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (Farrow 

1990: 137–38). 

Fourth Era: Deepwater, 1985–Present 

The collapse in oil prices in the mid-1980s decimated the offshore industry in the Gulf, 

especially the drilling, service, and supply companies who assumed a great deal of the 

infrastructure and economic risk of offshore operations. In the midst of the carnage, the 

introduction in 1983 of a new “area-wide leasing” (AWL) system was the first step in reviving 

the “Dead Sea.” AWL put into play entire planning areas (e.g., the central Gulf of Mexico) up to 

50 million acres, as opposed to tracts specifically nominated and offered under the tract selection 

system. Some critics have charged that AWL stifled competition and that it has received too 

much credit for the deepwater boom of recent years. Proper credit, they insist, goes to 

technological innovations such as 3-D seismic, tension-leg platforms, directional drilling, and 

subsea wells (Boué and Luyando 2002). Yet, not until companies possessed cheap and extensive 

acreage did they have the incentive to develop and refine these technologies. 

Competition was indeed muted early in the game. Deepwater is too expensive, risky, and 

dangerous for small or undercapitalized companies. Shell Oil acquired a vast majority of the 

early deepwater leases under AWL and pioneered the technologies needed to operate on them. 

Recently, much credit for the deepwater boom has been given to the Royalty Relief initiative 

passed in 1995, but the real stimulus to deepwater exploration was when Shell brought in wells 

producing 10,000 barrels/day at its Auger prospect in 1994, compared to 500–1,000 b/d for a 

good well on the shelf. This completely changed the cost structure of the deepwater play. An 

operator could drastically reduce the number of expensive wells on a given platform and still 

produce at a greater rate than original estimates required for making the field profitable (Oil & 

Gas Journal 1995). 

The news from Auger set off a flurry of leasing in deepwater by the larger companies. With big 

discoveries in deepwater, they began to “high-grade” their offshore portfolio, selling off older, 

producing leases on the shelf to smaller companies with lower overhead and new technological 

capabilities (examples include Devon, Newfield, Anadarko, Forest) who can still produce those 

fields profitably. Shell and other super majors such as British Petroleum have established 

themselves as “basin masters” in deepwater through their control of platform and pipeline 

infrastructure, but the incredible profitability of deepwater oil and the spread of deepwater 

engineering technology (floating production systems, subsea wells) have drawn numerous 

companies, large and small, into the game. Kerr-McGee is an example of a smaller independent 

who has taken the lead in deepwater. As of 2002, at least forty different operators had drilled 

deepwater wells in the Gulf (Godec et al. 2002). 
 82 

At the end of each era described above, the offshore industry approached material and economic 

limits, which were overcome by technological innovation and/or improved terms of access, or in 

the case of the deepwater era, the discovery of new, highly productive reservoirs. Innovation has 

come from a wide spectrum of sources, including lessons learned overseas in places like the 

North Sea, Brazil, and West Africa, the result of this very fluid and dynamic industry bound by a 

sense of common purpose. The federal government, as well, deserves credit for managing the 

trade-offs over leasing submerged lands by giving the industry enough access and incentives to 

make offshore development viable while attempting in with varying degrees of success to 

maximize revenues and protect the interests of many different groups. I hesitate to venture an 

analysis of the current situation or make predictions about the future other than to say that of the 

relatively limited investment opportunities facing private oil companies in the world today—

including oil and gas in the Caspian and Russia, LNG, heavy oil, piped natural gas, and the 

redevelopment of conventional oil in OPEC countries—deepwater oil in the GOM and 

elsewhere, such as West Africa, is the most profitable of all. Although the GOM cannot reverse 

the long-term decline of production in the United States, it has helped prolong it and has given 

private oil companies leverage in the world oil market and in their relationship with OPEC. 

 

References 

Baxter, V. 1997. The Effects of Industry Governance on Offshore Oil Development in the Gulf 

of Mexico. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21(2,1997): 238–258. 

Boué, J.C. and G. Luyando. 2002. U.S. Gulf Offshore: Petroleum Leasing and Taxation and 

Their Impact on Industry Structure, Competition, Production, and Fiscal Revenues. 

Oxford: Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. 

Dougherty, E.L., L.A. Bruckner, and J. Lohrenz. 1978. Cumulative Bonus and Production 

Profiles with Time for Different Competitive Bidders: Federal Offshore Oil and Gas 

Leases. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Society of 

Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Preprint 7134. 

 

Farrow, S. 1990. Managing the Outer Continental Shelf Lands. New York: Taylor & Francis. 

Forrest, M. 2000. Bright Idea Still Needed Persistence. AAPG Explorer (May 2000), AAPG 

website, http://www.aapg.org/explorer. 

Godec, M.L., V.A. Kuuskraa, and B.T. Kuck. 2002. How U.S. Gulf of Mexico Development, 

Finding, Cost Trends Have Evolved. Oil & Gas Journal (May 6, 2002): 52–60. 

Lohrenz, J. and H.A. Oden. 1973. Bidding and Production Relationships for Federal OCS 

Leases: Statistical Studies of Wildcat Leases, Gulf of Mexico, 1962, and Prior Sales. 

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Society of 

Petroleum Engineers (SPE) Preprint 4498. 
 83 

 

Luton, H. and R. Cluck. 2004. Social Impact Assessment and Offshore Oil and Gas in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the International Association of 

Impact Assessment, 26–29 April 2004, Vancouver, Canada. 

Nehring, R. 1991. Oil and Gas Resources. In The Gulf of Mexico Basin: The Geology of North 

America, Volume J.A. Salvador ed. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America, 

1988. 

 

Rankin, J. 1986. Untitled Manuscript on the History of Federal Offshore Leasing. 

Oil & Gas Journal. 1995. Shell Marks Progress in Deepwater Gulf. Oil & Gas Journal On-line 

(November 13, 1995), http://ogj.pennnet.com. 

Taylor, D.M. 1983. 20th Anniversary of Shell’s Million-Dollar School of Offshore Technology, 

Ocean Industry (April 1983): 35–38. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1969. Petroleum and Sulfur on the U.S. Continental Shelf, 

August 1969, Box 134, Central Files, 1969–1972, Records of the Secretary of the 

Interior, Record Group 48, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 

College Park, MD. 
 85 

APPENDIX D3 

PLANNING CHALLENGES AT THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 

ROB WINTHROP 

Slide 1 

Slide 2 
Slide 3 

Slide 4 

86 
Slide 5 

Slide 6 

87 
Slide 7 

Slide 8 

88 
Slide 9 

Slide 10 

89 
Slide 11 

Slide 12 

90 
Slide 13 

Slide 14 

91 
Slide 15 

Slide 16 

92 
Slide 17 

Slide 18 

93 
Slide 19 

Slide 20 

94 
Slide 21 

Slide 22 

95 
Slide 23 

Slide 24 

96 
Slide 25 

Slide 26 

97 
Slide 27 

Slide 28 

98 
Slide 29 

Slide 30 

99 
Slide 31 

Slide 32 

100 
APPENDIX D4 

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS IN 

THE GULF OF MEXICO 

HARRY LUTON AND RODNEY E. CLUCK 

Introduction 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) created mechanisms to identify, assess, and 

mitigate adverse environmental and socioeconomic consequences of government land actions.

NEPA-related procedures have evolved into many types of interactions among decision makers

and stakeholders, and many forms of information gathering, assessment, and reporting. We

address only part of this picture: environmental impact statement (EIS) assessments of 

socioeconomic effects. Under socioeconomics, EISs evaluate economic, fiscal, demographic, 

infrastructural, and other social effects such as changes in crime rates and family structure, as 

well as psychological issues such as the fear of crime or changes in environmental attitudes. We

consider only the former types of effects and focus on the logic of NEPA-related assessments

rather than on EIS findings. The Gulf of Mexico offshore petroleum industry is our example. 

Impact assessment of offshore lease sales may entail unique problems, but it also faces the types 

of general energy-related issues that first motivated NEPA. Thus, we describe here a case in 

point of how a particular application of NEPA procedures to an ongoing policy in a complex 

situation raises issues that are common to many current types of social impact assessment. 

This paper discusses an “offshore petroleum industry” that is actually composed of many large

and small industrial sectors, such as drilling, production, shipbuilding, fabrication, pipelaying, 

diving and underwater construction, seismic surveying and analysis, trucking, air transport, 

offshore vessel transport, catering, oil refining, natural gas transport, and petrochemicals. Each 

of these sectors has its own organization, regulations, dynamics, technological developments, 

range of labor needs, working conditions, and responses to industry cycles and transformations. 

As a recent study notes, “Production platforms, once in place, can continue to produce through 

short-term price fluctuations. Dive companies can find a niche in platform decommissioning, 

which is sensitive to the age of structures, not the supply and demand for oil and gas. Fabricators, 

depending on their size and location, may be awarded large and lengthy contracts for deepwater

projects, other yards may suffer as smaller development programs are put on hold. Drillers, 

however, cannot drill unless the owners of leases ... initiate exploration and development (E&D) 

programs” (McGuire and Gardner 2003:219). Current high natural gas prices are good for 

drillers but devastating to petrochemical businesses that rely on gas for fuel and feedstock. This

paper uses such terms as “offshore industry” and “oil industry” to signify this large, diversely 

sectored, and variably context-responsive set of industries. This paper provides a model for 

explaining the effects of the offshore petroleum industry on the Gulf of Mexico Region. 

101 
Background 

The Gulf of Mexico offshore petroleum industry is huge. Since the 1950s, more than 5,500 

platforms have been installed in the Gulf. Currently, there are approximately 2,400 active 

platforms on the federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), which are the source of 25% of the gas 

and 30% of the oil produced in the United States. These percentages are expected to rise over the

next few years. There are more than 30,000 miles of pipeline on the federal OCS. Approximately 

1.6 million miles of seismic lines have been taken on it. There are over 3.5 million passenger 

trips to and from platforms every year. In 2000, there were 162 shipbuilding and repair facilities 

in the Gulf and 1,155 registered oil support vessels, 86% of which were based in Louisiana. Also 

in that year, oil and gas extraction, pipelines, and refining employed over 65,500 people and paid 

$3.5 billion in wages (Louis Berger Group Inc. 2004). Since 1952, there have been over 90 

federal lease sales, and there are currently over 7,500 active leases. The treasury has received 

approximately $135 billion from bonuses, rents, and royalties since 1982 (see Figure 1). 

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) was founded in 1982, created from parts of several 

governmental bodies overseeing OCS activities. The MMS is charged with leasing offshore 

petroleum reserves on the federal OCS in an environmentally safe manner. The Environmental 

Figure 1: Gulf of Mexico Region. 

102 
103 

Studies Program (ESP) was originally created under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to 

provide information and analysis in support of agency decision making and environmental 

assessments as mandated by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Under MMS, the ESP 

continues to fund a substantial quantity of research designed to improve the information on 

which decisions and assessments are made. Since 1982, the agency has invested over $650 

million on more than 900 studies of oceanography, ecology, and socioeconomics. However, 

under the BLM, the ESP conducted little socioeconomic research in the Gulf. The ESP, like 

NEPA, arose from the ferment of the 1970s energy crisis. The federal response to that crisis 

included proposals for massive developments of domestic energy sources, which precipitated an 

effort by federal resource management and science agencies to assess and mitigate the effects of 

those proposals. 

NEPA defines effects as the differences between an area’s baseline conditions and the conditions 

after project initiation. Socioeconomic effects were seen as arising from four sources: (1) 

national and regional economic inputs; (2) physical and biological impacts of new facility sitings 

and new sources of pollution, including oil spills; (3) boomtown effects from new labor demand; 

and (4) public perceptions and fears about these proposals (Pikul and Rabin 1974; NAS 1978). 

Pointing to the oil industry’s long history in the Gulf and its well-developed infrastructure and 

workforce, the BLM reasoned that regional economic impacts were certain but that any 

additional social impacts of offshore development would be difficult to identify by means of 

NEPA baseline-monitoring techniques. As a result, few socioeconomic studies were initiated in 

the Gulf despite the fact that virtually all U.S. offshore oil development was occurring in that 

region. 

At first, MMS continued the BLM’s narrow reading of NEPA and sponsored little 

socioeconomic research in the Gulf. Then, in 1986, petroleum prices collapsed, sending 

Louisiana and Texas into recession and convincing many in MMS that the socioeconomic effects 

of its leasing program were important regardless of their original reading of NEPA. In the 1990s, 

MMS contracted with the National Research Council (NRC) to examine the adequacy of ESP 

support for agency decision making and assessments. The NRC was highly critical of the 

socioeconomic component of the Gulf’s ESP, and asserted a strong rationale for conducting 

research in this area. It noted that the same 100-year history of industry operations in the Gulf 

that had been used to argue against socioeconomic research also makes the Gulf a ready-made 

“laboratory” for studying petroleum’s social and economic effect (NRC 1992). The NRC 

reasoned that because the Gulf offshore industry is homegrown, long-lived, and widespread, and 

includes a complete range of related upstream and downstream activities, most social or 

economic impacts that the industry can have are likely to be present there. At the same time that 

the NRC was issuing its report, the MMS was holding its “Gulf of Mexico Socioeconomic 

Agenda Setting Workshop.” The price collapse provided the impetus for the program, the NRC 

provided its justification, and the 1992 workshop began to define its content (Gramling and 

Laska 1993; see Luton and Austin 2004 for a discussion of these developments in the ESP). 

Since 1992, the socioeconomic component of the Gulf’s ESP has grown substantially in size and 

scope. Over 40 research reports are completed; about 25 projects are ongoing, and more will 

begin in 2004 and beyond. This paper, however, does not describe the program’s growth or 
104 

content. Instead, it addresses issues that arose as MMS followed the NRC rationale and applied 

social impact assessment (SIA) logic to the Gulf’s offshore oil industry.1

 This paper is divided 

into four sections. The first discusses what we term the “classic SIA model,” the underlying 

issues, questions, and logic that shape most energy-related socioeconomic assessments, including 

MMS’s. The second uses demography to illustrate differences between the paradigm and the 

Gulf. What we say builds on other work (e.g., Wilkinson et al. 1982; Gramling and Brabant 

1986), and provides a fresh perspective. The third section describes a larger set of problems 

associated with applying the classic model to the Gulf. The paper concludes with a few 

comments on where MMS might go from here. 

Classic SIA

SIA has evolved in many directions over the years. However, we label as “classic SIA” the 

model that emerged from a group of impact studies conducted in the 1970s and early 1980s that 

addressed large, government-regulated projects such as coal-fired generating plants, strip mines, 

and hydroelectric dams, mostly in rural areas of the western United States (Murdock et al. 1984; 

for examples of early methodologies, cf.: Wolf 1974; McEvoy 1977; Murdock and Leistritz 

1979; Finsterbusch 1980; Finsterbusch and Wolf 1981; Leistritz and Murdock 1981; and Weber 

and Howell 1982). While this model is often called the boomtown model, we label it classic 

because it was the first SIA model, the root from which later versions grew, and because it 

established an underlying logic, set of goals, and list of concerns that still resonate in SIAs that 

later emerged. Its longevity also makes it classic; for 20 years it has remained a frequently used 

approach and the predominate model for energy-related projects (e.g., Gilmore and Coddington 

1981; Chase and Leistritz 1982; Summers and Selvik 1982; Walsh 1985; Guilford 1989; 

Ringholz 1989; Vanclay and Bronstein 1995; Luke et al. 2002). As such, it is the approach on 

which the BLM and MMS began to build their assessments of the social and economic effects of 

the OCS leasing program (e.g., CEQ 1974; Williams and Horn 1979; Executive Resource 

Associates Inc. 1984). 

As is often noted, this SIA model reflects the conditions from which it emerged, most notably, 

concerns about boomtowns (Wilkinson et al. 1982; Albrecht 1982). As contemporaries wrote, 

studies of Gillette and Rock Springs, Wyoming (Kohrs 1974; Gilmore and Duff 1975; Brown 

1977; Lovejoy 1977), and, later, of Forsyth and Colstrip, Montana (Blevins et al. 1974; Gold 

1974), Craig, Colorado (McKeown and Lantz 1977), Page, Arizona (Ives and Schulze 1976; 

Little 1977), and Fairbanks, Alaska (Dixon 1978) rejuvenated interest in boomtowns. The basic 

theme of this literature “is that rapid population growth associated with energy development 

creates social disruptions, cultural conflict, and pathological behaviors among residents of 

boomtowns” (Summers and Branch 1982:34–35). These community studies, and others that 

followed, express a deep concern for a way of life being forever altered—they ask, “Whatever 

happened to Fairbanks?” They raise issues about local control, about townspeople having little 

say regarding new forms of industry appearing “on their village green” (Summers and Selvik 

1982:vii), about the rural towns becoming dependent on “extra-local decision-making 

organizations” (Summers and Branch 1982:24), about the idea that mineral exploitation 

introduces organizational forms that demand changes to the existing social organization, about 

land-use conflicts and competition for scarce water, about the benefits and uncertainties created 
105 

for local businesses, about new demands on public infrastructure and services, and about taxes 

and fiscal policy. They raise issues about large but short-lived labor demand, about the inflow of 

workers not rooted in the community, and about increasing crime, alcoholism, drug abuse, 

mental illness, divorce, social isolation, and alienation (Summers and Branch 1982). 

Classic Equation: Jobs = People = Effects 

While concern about the unique features of communities energized these early impact studies, 

the recognition of shared characteristics and situations shaped the SIA model. Large, 

managerially complex, technologically sophisticated, industrial projects designed to exploit a 

natural resource were constructed near small, rural, isolated, homogeneous, often declining, 

agriculture-based communities. Project-related decision making was external to the community 

and foreign to its systems of leadership or governance. Project-related technology, goods and 

services needs, and labor demands were well beyond the community’s capacity to supply. 

Projects were, essentially, foreign transplants that would exist for a limited time period, divisible 

into three distinct phases. A short-lived construction phase with high levels of employment and 

heavy demands on the community and its infrastructure and leadership was followed by a longer 

operations phase that used fewer, more specialized workers and made lighter, more constant 

demands. The final phase, decommissioning, brought the project to its inevitable close. 

In the classic SIA model, new project labor demand is the primary cause of positive and negative 

socioeconomic impacts. New jobs increase household income and expenditures, which stimulate 

local business activity and generate more government revenue through taxes and fees. While 

higher labor demand always means positive economic effects, the model’s strength comes from 

locating these benefits in their rural context. Because these communities are small and 

agricultural and the projects are large, industrial, and foreign; because the local labor force lacks 

the size and skills necessary to fill most of the new jobs; and because these communities are far 

from any population centers, new jobs will not be filled by commuters already living nearby. 

New workers must come from elsewhere. This means that inserting large projects into rural 

communities will cause rapid population growth as outsiders arrive seeking work. Other factors 

amplify this process. Rural environs compress the new population in space because services like 

water, electricity, and schools are found only in towns, limiting where in-migrants might live. In 

addition, the short lifespan of the projects and, especially, of their construction phase compress 

the new population in time. These communities will experience rapid population growth because 

new labor is drawn from elsewhere and demand is front-loaded. For the same reasons, these 

communities will also face rapid population decline. Construction workers who in-migrate will 

out-migrate when their jobs end, although operations-phase employment may slow this decline. 

Again, other factors accentuate the ups and downs. Many workers arrive with families, inflating 

the new population’s size and diversity. Since the new households stimulate local business 

growth, local businesses may also outrun their local labor supply, creating additional inmigration. These jobs, too, will be lost as the project-related population decreases. 

An emphasis on links between rapid population change and other effects, such as the fate of local 

business, is a characteristic of this model that recapitulates its boomtown genesis. While 
106 

demographic change concentrated in time and space would be an important impact in its own 

right, in the classic SIA model it is fundamental: it is the first and most germane cause of a wide 

range of other socioeconomic effects, and it is the point where impact theory, assessment 

practice, and the original boomtown concerns all meet. As one pioneer practitioner warns, 

“Determining demographic effects of project development is one of the most important steps in 

the socioeconomic assessment process because estimating demographic impacts is essential for 

assessing other population-related effects such as public service demands and fiscal impacts. In 

fact, too many planners and decisionmakers assume the magnitude of population impacts is 

synonymous with the magnitude of all impacts” (Leistritz 1992:212). 

Socioeconomic Impacts and Their Causes 

The classic SIA model addresses several categories of impacts. Demographic effects come first, 

as products of new labor demand. Economic impacts come second, as products of labor demand 

and the demographic effects. As already noted, economic impacts amplify the demographic 

effects (e.g., via secondary or tertiary demand). Infrastructure and public service effects come 

next. These can include new demands for private and public housing, and for infrastructure and 

services associated with education, police, fire and emergency services, transportation, water, 

sewer and sanitation, health and social services, criminal justice, recreation, and libraries. In 

classic SIA, these effects are due primarily to demographic changes, although some interactions 

are seen as more complicated. For example, rapid in-migration may create housing booms that 

increase the tax base along with demands for roads, schools, and police protection. Conversely, 

the bust brings empty housing, a shrinking tax base, overbuilt schools, and lingering bonded 

indebtedness. 

This housing example raises a fourth category: fiscal impacts. Fiscal impacts are products of 

project activities, labor demand, and demographic effects. On the positive side, these impacts 

include increased local revenues (e.g., fees and property and sales taxes). On the negative side, 

they include increased expenditures to meet new infrastructure and public service demands. 

Again, this focus on housing, public infrastructure, roads, schools, social services, and public 

safety parallels concerns endemic to boomtown literature, concerns that also shape classic SIA’s 

basic instrumental goals. Both boomtown literature and the SIA model share the concern that the 

community and its leadership might be overwhelmed by its swelling population and burdened 

afterward by an overly optimistic response to it. For this reason, the goal of classic SIA is to 

produce assessments akin to city planning documents that can be used by affected communities 

and other relevant jurisdictions (e.g., school districts) to balance responses to the opportunities 

and difficulties of the economic boom against the realities of the inevitable bust. 

The last category generally addressed is social and cultural impacts, which include such topics as 

the distribution of effects within the community (e.g., who benefits and who is burdened), 

impacts to specific populations (e.g., effects of inflation on the elderly, the alienation of youth, 

the isolation of trailer park life), impacts on community cohesion or identification, effects on 

crime and other dysfunctional behaviors (both actual rates and fear), and effects on 

environmental attitudes. While some effects in this category may be positive, such as the 
107 

introduction of new ideas or the increase of what Summers and Branch (1982:39) call “perceived 

freedom” (e.g., the introduction of alternative pathways to social status), most of them are 

negative. Social and cultural impacts actually constitute a residual category comprising a variety 

of topics that share few methodological or subject-area similarities, and that are sometimes 

considered in an assessment and sometimes not. However, these topics do share one 

commonality; none fits easily into other classic SIA impact categories because each has a 

complex and, often, unclear or uncertain relationship to demographic change, a defining 

characteristic of the other impact categories.2

The fact that central boomtown issues, even ones that remain public concerns, are relegated to a 

residual category illustrates the importance of demographics in defining classic SIA’s relevant 

questions, information, and procedures. However, it also underscores the influence that the 

model’s boomtown origins continue to exert from within. The topic of crime is a case in point. 

While violent crime is a cause célèbre in boomtown literature, its validity as a contemporary 

impact has been argued for decades. The debate’s very robustness in the face of inconclusive 

evidence and its marginality to the assessment process may indicate the enduring force of 

boomtown concerns. More telling, though, is its habitual invocation of Durkheim and anomie, a 

concept he coined to address social alienation appearing as a rural peasantry was being uprooted 

into cities that had yet to develop modern structures of social control. In the 100 years since 

Durkheim’s Suicide, criminologists have developed alternative explanations of crime rates that 

are simpler and more directly related to what is known about crime and criminals. Anomie’s 

charm lies not in its simplicity, or elegance, or obvious empirical might but rather in its recourse 

to an organic community and its breakdown, and to the disorder that must surely follow, and to 

our gnawing concerns about boomtowns and the worlds we have lost (Summers and Branch 

1982; Wilkenson et al. 1982). 

Classic SIA as Paradigm 

We have labeled the boomtown model as classic SIA because it is the root from which other 

approaches have sprung. It also fits Thomas Kuhn’s famous formulation of a paradigm. Kuhn 

(1970:10) describes scientific paradigms as models that organize “law, theory, application and 

instrumentation” into “coherent traditions of scientific research.” We identify the classic SIA 

model as paradigmatic to underscore its importance in shaping theory, application, and technique 

into just such a coherent tradition. We have already discussed its role in organizing original 

boomtown concerns, a theory of effects, and the practices and goals of assessment all around the 

demographic impacts of a project’s labor demand. We have also noted that the model defines 

assessment’s salient questions, hence, the salient evidence. The hierarchy of impact categories 

shaped by their relationships to demography is one example; the issues surrounding criminal 

behavior are another. Definitions of salience push inquiry in some directions and not others. 

Studies focus on population-induced demand and, almost in passing, note that petroleum’s big 

infrastructural effect in North Dakota was road wear from truck traffic (Chase and Leistritz 

1982). Studies assume a causal nexus between social disruption and a fear of crime most evident 

in women, while failing to consider a sizable body of literature on the macho, male-centered 

culture of oil drillers (e.g., Affleck and Eakes 1976; Moen 1986). Finally, we note that, as in 
108 

Kuhn’s definition of paradigm, this model has shaped SIA’s instrumentation. For example, the 

development of regional input-output (I/O) models is one of the notable achievements under 

classic SIA (Jones et al. 1988). These I/O models tend to be “static,” that is, they assume that 

relationships among different economic sectors remain constant over time. This assumption fits 

well with a scenario in which a massive, short-lived project is inserted into a small, rural, 

agricultural economy. Most goods and services demanded by the project will be imported from 

elsewhere. However, most contemporary communities are situated in more dynamic economies. 

Static models are less appropriate when local labor and local enterprises will respond to new 

project demands. 

We also raise the issue of classic SIA as a paradigm to emphasize the large shadow it casts on 

the entire field of social impact assessment—a wide-ranging but variable influence that is 

manifested, for example, in the impact categories addressed and their processional order, in an 

emphasis on demographic effects whatever their magnitude and significance, in the ad hoc and 

residual character of social and cultural effects even when these are noteworthy public concerns, 

in the use of fear and anomie and in the general dearth of causal explanations except those rooted 

in demography or subjectivity, in the focus on communities and local areas and their dynamics 

almost to the exclusion of larger contexts, and in the focus on projects, the early phases of 

projects, and construction rather than on the effects of the subject industry (e.g., electric power 

industry). However, considering this point is not our goal here. Whether one accepts or rejects 

such family resemblance as evidence of the classic model’s wide-ranging influence on the 

current variants of SIA, it does still seem to dominate the assessment of natural resource 

extraction and energy projects, and its influence can certainly be found in assessments of the 

OCS leasing program. We will note several of the many examples of its influence drawn from 

MMS-sponsored research in the Gulf of Mexico. First, demography tends to be emphasized even 

when there are virtually no population effects. The Mobile, Alabama, area hosts a large urban 

and suburban population and complex economy, just the type of context in which many of the 

OCS program’s socioeconomic effects occur. An excellent and detailed study of Alabama’s 

offshore gas industry carefully reports its annual demographic impacts to the tenth of a person, 

even though these numbers are only artifacts of an economic projection and even though the 

projected in-migration is inconsequential (Wade et al. 1999). Similarly, a report on the rapid 

growth of offshore support activity at Port Fourchon was delayed as its author searched in vain 

for demographic effects that he simply knew must be substantial but, in fact, were hardly there 

(Hughes et al. 2002). Second, analysis sometimes directly equates demographic impacts with 

social ones. Not heeding Leistritz’s warning, an MMS study of the social costs of the five-year 

OCS Leasing Program argues that, since the program has no population effects, it has no 

infrastructural costs (Plater and Wade 2001). These are subtle examples of the influence of the 

classic model. A spate of research funded by MMS immediately in response to the oil price 

collapse used the boomtown assumptions explicitly (e.g., Laska 1993; Seydlitz et al. 1993). 

Demographics, Offshore Oil, and Classic SIA 

The classic approach to SIA grew out of rural Americans’ sudden introduction to large, new, 

energy projects. This approach morphed concerns about small towns and boomtowns into a 
109 

systematic analysis of socioeconomic impacts. This model may be valid under conditions like 

those from which it arose. However, like any paradigm, the classic model is a very strong lens 

that throws the world into a particular focus. Our question is whether this focus is appropriate for 

viewing the OCS program’s social and economic effects in the Gulf of Mexico. We have 

examined the demographic assumptions that lie at the model’s heart. Next, we look at the 

petroleum industry’s demographic effects on Louisiana, particularly from 1960 through the 

1980s, to show the marked differences between Gulf realities and the model’s paradigmatic 

assumptions. While the model assumes that affected communities go through similar patterns of 

in- and out-migration, from early on the demography of south Louisiana petroleum-affected 

communities exhibited a pattern of stability and geographic differentiation very unlike this 

scenario. Second, while the model assumes that this pattern will be localized in affected 

communities, by the end of the 1960s, the Gulf oil industry’s demographic consequences were 

sufficiently dispersed to be systemic; that is, the industry influenced population patterns across 

the state. Finally, while the model assumes that boomtowns are a consequence of the sudden 

importation of industrialized processes into nonindustrialized communities, in the late 1970s 

when southern Louisiana towns boomed, and in the mid-1980s when they busted, these effects 

occurred in highly industrialized communities with long and strong links to a regional, oilcentered economy (Gramling and Freudenburg 1990a). 

Petroleum and Community Effects 

The early oil industry certainly contributed to our images of boomtowns. Its Pennsylvania birth 

gave us the thriving town of Pithole overnight, which now exists only as memory and a roadside 

marker (Darrah 1972; Gramling 1996). The 1900 discovery at Spindletop and discoveries that 

followed were marked by a progression of boomtowns—Jennings, Beaumont, Oil City, Vivian, 

Smackover, and others (Franks and Lambert: 1982). Kilgore, Texas, provoked a classic piece of 

boomtown literature (Chambers 1933). For the first two decades, discoveries tended to follow 

the same general pattern. Flush production, the rush to capture oil, and cheek-to-jowl derricks 

generated booms and busts in nearby towns (Bertrand 1952; Franks and Lambert 1982). 

However, even during these decades, changes afoot were weakening the forces feeding 

boomtown growth. Within the industry, technological advances reduced labor demands and 

lengthened field life while managerial and legal changes tended to stabilize production and the 

workforce. Outside the industry, ongoing industrialization and specialization, growing regional 

populations and economies, and improving transportation systems lowered local labor demand, 

increased locally available labor, and created alternatives for people seeking work while the 

transformation of U.S. bureaucracies tended to make population movements more manageable 

(Stein 1964). In oral histories, early industry participants identified Kilgore as possibly the last 

“real boomtown” (Boatright and Owens 1982), and research on Permian Basin oil booms 

presents a similar view. It finds that short-lived boomtowns were the exception after World War 

II. Most places experienced long-term benefits, growing with the boom and then declining, but 

not to pre-boom levels (Olien and Olien 1982). Postwar America has had its share of booms and 

busts, but they have been mostly in cities and suburbs, and their causes and consequences are 

viewed as multidimensional, complex, and, for better or worse, indicative of the country’s future 

rather than as an assault on its past. The 1970s and 1980s phenomena addressed by classic SIA 
110 

were striking because they moved against the flow of this rapidly urbanizing world, because 

government energy policies brought a new kind of growth to rural communities that had been in 

decline for a half century or so. 

The petroleum industry that began to develop in Louisiana’s coastal wetlands in 1900 and that 

moved offshore in 1947 was subject to the same trends affecting the rest of the industry. During 

its formative years and into the 1930s and 1940s, it, too, stimulated the in-migration of 

“Texicans” and “Americans” and led to boomtown conditions (e.g., Golden Meadow). However, 

its need to operate in wetlands and over water also made it different. One difference is that oil 

workers and their families could not live near the fields. Workers had to commute from terra 

firma to their jobs, and the time and costs involved led to a system of concentrated work 

schedules. Men worked 12-hour shifts for 7, 14, or 21 days straight and then had an equal 

number of days off. Concentrated work schedules affected the industry’s demographic outcomes 

in two ways. First, they stabilized the residences of the workforce associated with oil exploration 

and development. While onshore seismic crews, drillers and pipeliners, and their families moved 

from field to field, in the offshore industry these workers could live in one community and be 

transported to the various fields. Thus, forces within the industry encouraging a more settled 

workforce arose earlier and more strongly in south Louisiana than in the industry in general 

(Austin et al. 2002). Concentrated work schedules also encouraged geographic dispersal of 

offshore worker residences. Since workers commuted only once every 2, 4, or 6 weeks, they 

could live relatively far from their point of embarkation (Aratame and Singelmann 2002; 

Gramling 1980a). This meant that “occupational communities” and occupational segregation 

found elsewhere in the industry were not as notable in south Louisiana (Affleck and Eakes 

1976). Worker households were dispersed within communities, and workers could more easily 

participate in such “traditional” activities as trapping and fishing (Gramling 1983). This pattern 

of dispersed worker settlement patterns associated with the maintenance of more rural lifestyles 

and long commutes to work to nonurban job sites reflects a general southern pattern of 

industrialization that differed from the earlier northern norm because it occurred in the age of 

electric power and as road systems began to improve. In the south, industrialization was not 

synonymous with urbanization. Factories were built outside of cities, and workers settled in more 

rural areas such as “ribbon” developments along connecting roads. By the 1940s, this pattern was 

“particularly pronounced” in basic industries in south Louisiana, an area where the petroleum 

and petrochemical industries and rural communities had already had almost a half-century of 

interactions (Heberle 1948:34). 

Operations in wetlands and over water also required a much larger, more complex, and 

industrialized support structure than was needed by the rest of the industry to build, operate, and 

maintain the platforms, exploratory rigs, seismic vessels, pipelaying barges, and various supply 

and support boats required. It also made many more demands for goods and services generally. 

Thus, on one hand, compared to its onshore relative, the offshore industry involves many more 

sectors of the economy and requires a much larger and more diverse labor force. On the other, 

the offshore industry served to stabilize the residences of this worker population. In classic SIA, 

the construction workers move from job to job, thus creating the boom phase of projects. 

Offshore oil development requires much more front-loaded labor than do onshore projects. 

However, while this labor force may be analogous to construction workers in classic SIA, 
111 

fabrication yards, shipyards, and ports are geographically fixed, and their workforce lives nearby, 

weakening any tendencies to create boomtowns, at least as envisioned by classic SIA. This 

analysis also highlights a second aspect of the infrastructure needed to work offshore that, in the 

long run, proved to be even more significant in shaping the industry’s demographic effects—its 

enormous size and complexity. 

To summarize, even early on, oil industry operations in wetlands and over water led to a larger, 

more diverse, and more settled workforce in southern Louisiana than was typical for the industry 

at large. Also, early on, these differences led to community-level demographic consequences that 

differed markedly from the classic SIA boomtown scenario. The 1900 discovery at Jennings, on 

the heels of Spindletop, and the discoveries that followed at Vinton, Walsh, Iowa, Hackberry, 

and other communities were marked by a rush to production and rapidly increasing and 

decreasing populations. The Jennings salt dome, however, has now been producing for over 100 

years. It exemplifies the changes in technology and strategy that have led to more stability within 

the industry in general (see Forbes 1946). More relevant here are the changes specifically related 

to operating in wetlands and over water. Already by the 1920s, several larger southern Louisiana 

towns such as Morgan City, Lafayette, and Lake Charles had become oil supply centers, 

providing labor, services, and fabricated equipment to oil fields over a wide territory, and some 

companies also located their main administrative centers near the action. As this diversification 

occurred, their population growth became more robust and showed a diminished sensitivity to 

drilling activities in nearby fields. This was a process of industrial aggregation (Heberle 1948). 

These communities were strategically located to serve the oil industry because of their railroad 

connections and their access to water transport, and because they were already serving as centers 

for trade and manufacturing. Also, by the 1920s, several smaller but strategically located 

southern Louisiana communities such as Golden Meadow were already serving as bedroom 

communities for rig workers commuting to platforms located in the area’s uninhabitable 

wetlands (Bertrand 1952). Even before classic SIA scenario had been written, the dynamics of 

the southern Louisiana oil industry were undermining its validity. 

Petroleum and Systemic Effects 

In 1947, drilling moved from near shore into the open ocean, and as the offshore industry grew, 

so too did its needs for onshore support. Within two decades, it had transformed itself into the 

economic motor behind Louisiana’s expanding economy (Scott 1978), so much so that, even 

after its downturn in the 1980s, about 3,800 contractors and vendors in 47 parishes were still 

providing about $4 billion in goods and services to OCS operations (Applied Technology 

Research Corp. 1994). 

Local specialization and its demographic effects were already evident in the 1920s (Bertrand 

1952). By the 1960s, the size and spread of the industry and its enormous demands for goods and 

services affected economic opportunities and demographic outcomes statewide. These effects 

appeared against the backdrop of a declining, traditional, agricultural-based, Southern economy. 

Except for three decades, Louisiana experienced net out-migration from the Civil War until the 

1970s. This means, more people left the state than moved to it except when the recessions and 
112 

depressions of the 1890s, 1900s, and 1930s limited economic opportunities elsewhere. This 

relocation from agrarian rural areas to more industrialized urban centers disproportionately 

affected Louisiana’s blacks, who have shown net out-migration for every post-Civil War decade 

except the 1870s (Maruggi and Wartenberg 1996). These differences indicate differences in 

opportunities. During the decade of the 1960s, as southern Louisiana’s oil industry began to 

grow, the state’s pattern of out-migration began to change. There was still a steady net outmigration from rural areas and blacks continued to leave at higher rates than they entered, but the 

net migration rate for whites became slightly positive. Moreover, the growing presence of the oil 

industry and its role in making the state more economically attractive to white immigrants are 

evident in the geographic distribution of the shifts. In the 1960s, 13 of Louisiana’s 64 parishes 

experienced net in-migration and all but two of these were in the urbanized, industrialized, and 

oil-influenced southern half of the state. One exception was due to a military buildup at Fort 

Polk; the other was a northern urban center (Christou 1972; Maruggi and Wartenberg 1996). In 

Louisiana’s southern half, parishes experienced net in-migration due to a white flight to suburbia 

and to real economic growth in the New Orleans and Baton Rouge metropolitan areas and the 

industrial strip stretching between the two. This real economic growth was driven in large 

measure by growth of the oil industry and associated refining and petrochemical industries. Also 

telegraphing the industry’s emerging regional demographic effects was the growth of the coastal 

parishes of St. Mary and Lafourche, which were heavily involved with supporting its offshore 

activities (Burford and Murzyn 1972). Thus, by the end of the 1960s, the oil industry’s 

demographic consequences had ceased to be the kind of localized or community-centered 

phenomena addressed by classic SIA. Its imprint was found on the growth of cities and their 

suburbs, on the growth of industrialized regions, and on the general pattern of growth and 

decline throughout the state of Louisiana. 

While the petroleum industry is known for its volatility, the 1960s began a decades-long period 

of a generally upward movement as the country’s demand for oil and gas grew. This upward 

movement accelerated in the 1970s, particularly after the Arab oil embargo and U.S. policy 

responses to the crisis, and continued to accelerate into the 1980s (Baxter 1993; Wallace et al. 

2003). During the 1970s, offshore production outpaced that of onshore (Lindstedt et al. 1991), 

and this powerful economic force and the myriad opportunities it was generating were strongly 

evidenced in the patterns of demographic change throughout the state (Scott 1981). The 1970s 

was the first decade since the great European immigration of the 1870s in which Louisiana 

experienced substantial net in-migration; 32 parishes—half of all parishes—showed net inmigration, and even black out-migration slowed. This growth occurred against the backdrop of a 

still-declining rural Southern economy. While all areas of the state performed well, continued 

weakness in the northeast and along the Mississippi “indicate that agriculture and forestry based 

economies in the 1970’s fared worse than the petroleum and manufacturing based areas” 

(Maruggi and Wartenberg 1996:39, 41). Also, certain national demographic trends were more in 

evidence than in previous decades. For example, as elsewhere in the country, suburbanization 

was a dominant factor in 1970s population growth. However, net in-migration was clearly 

related to the oil boom and the accelerated job growth that began in the early 1970s, and that 

accelerated after 1974 with the Arab oil embargo and the federal policy responses to it (Maruggi 

and Saussy 1985). The shift in Louisiana’s patterns of demographic growth during this era was a 

product of forces affecting economics at many levels. First, this shift still should be seen against 
113 

the backdrop of a declining, traditional, agriculture-based economy for it was due to increased 

in-migration rather than to decreased out-migration. Also, this shift should be seen in the light of 

the national economy, for it was pushed along by considerably slower employment growth 

elsewhere (Maruggi and Wartenberg 1996). Finally, it should be seen in the light of wider 

national and international conditions that helped deepen the country’s recession and drive up the 

price of oil to levels that were to prove untenable (Baxter 1993). 

Net in-migration continued to accelerate into the early 1980s until oil prices began to fall and, 

then, to drop dramatically. By 1986, the oil industry had gone bust. Again, the industry’s 

demographic effects were felt throughout the state. In the 1980s, only four parishes experienced 

net in-migration, and these resulted from the continued trend toward suburbanization, not from 

economic growth. St. Tammany had the only significant amount of net in-migration, and that 

was due to an equally significant out-migration from New Orleans. In the 1980s, 60 parishes and 

all metropolitan areas experienced net out-migration. As in the preceding decade, the 

demographic consequences of the industry were statewide and should be viewed against the 

backdrop of other regional and national trends. Again, the cause of net out-migration was not as 

much from an increase of people leaving Louisiana so much as from a virtual cessation of people 

moving into it. Again, the rate of in-migration was strongly influenced by the national economy. 

“The Louisiana economy again moved in the opposite direction of the national economy in the 

1980s. Oil prices plummeted in 1981, triggering the oil-bust economic recession that lasted 

through most of the decade. In contrast, the United States enjoyed solid economic growth in 

nearly every year of the 1980s. Thus, the loss of the high-paying oil patch jobs that attracted 

workers to Louisiana in the 1970s resulted in an unprecedented out-migration of 411,099 persons 

in the 1980s” (Maruggi and Wartenberg 1996:11). 

The industry’s internal dynamics (e.g., technology intensiveness), coupled with its unique mix of 

economic and geopolitical issues (e.g., elasticity of demand, OPEC influence on supply), make it 

more volatile than many, and one might assess how its unpredictability impacts states, 

communities, and individuals. Clearly, the ramping up of offshore activities in the 1960s and 

1970s, and their spike and dive in the 1970s and 1980s, had marked demographic outcomes that 

overlaid and intertwined with the other demographic trends that defined these decades—the 

decline of rural southern agriculture and suburbanization, for example. Just as clearly, the classic 

SIA model sheds little light on these salient industry effects. The model simply cannot illuminate 

because of its narrow geographic and temporal focus; because of its emphasis on the construction 

phase of projects to the neglect of other activities, agents, and processes; and because of its 

attempts to explain the effects of the offshore petroleum industry without recourse to an 

understanding of that industry’s organization, scale, geography, and rhythms. 

In the heady days of the late 1970s and early 1980s, times were flush, and the national news was 

quick to identify south Louisiana boomtowns with their flocks of jobseekers living in labor 

camps and cars. Then, during the traumatic mid-1980s oil crash, the same media reported on 

people fleeing, businesses failing, and houses being repossessed (e.g., Trillin 1979; Schweid 

1989).3

 Classic SIA arose from the empirical grounding of case studies of project-induced 

boomtowns. Below, we examine Louisiana’s reported oil boomtowns, focusing on Morgan City 
114 

as the most notorious example, to show that these events differ sharply from the SIA model and 

are best explained as local manifestations of larger, industry-wide changes. 

Louisiana Boomtowns circa 1980 

The offshore industry is large, complex, and unevenly distributed among communities. As we 

have seen, this differentiation was evident by the 1920s. Oil-involved towns were becoming 

supply bases, equipment fabricators, bedroom communities, refining centers, banking and 

service centers, or combinations of these. By the 1960s, the oil industry had also grown 

sufficiently large to have demographic consequences across the state. These two trends are 

obviously related. As the oil industry grew, so too did its role in the state and regional 

economies. Also, as its economic role grew, so too did the importance of its uneven distribution 

in shaping its local-level social and economic effects. This issue of distribution involves both 

quantity and mix. With regard to quantity, when offshore exploration increases, all involved 

communities should experience increases in local business activities, but communities with many 

oil-related businesses should benefit more than those with few. The local mix of oil-involved 

businesses is important in shaping benefits because the offshore industry is composed of many 

different types of businesses, each of which responds differently to any given change. Therefore, 

if offshore exploration and development increases significantly, communities that host a mix that 

is heavily involved in drilling or new platform fabrication should benefit more than those with a 

mix primarily related to production or refining. The opposite is also true. Should offshore 

exploration decline, communities most involved with exploration and development should suffer 

most. 

This interplay between offshore exploration and development and the local industry mix 

highlights the differences between the role of labor demand and demographic change in classic 

SIA and their actual relationship in the Gulf. In both, early project phases generate high levels of 

blue-collar labor demand, perhaps more so in the Gulf since labor-intensive activities associated 

with drilling and fabrication form large sectors of offshore industry employment and are in 

highest demand during exploration and development. Blue-collar labor is generally more 

sensitive to industrial fluctuations than is white-collar. Thus, in classic SIA, tenure is short for 

construction workers and long for production workers. Similarly for the offshore industry, its 

large blue-collar workforce is concentrated in such activities as fabrication and drilling, all of 

which are in high demand during exploration and development but not during production. 

Exploration- and development-related jobs are particularly sensitive to offshore ups and downs 

because, compared to production, the costs of these activities are higher and more discretionary, 

and their returns less immediate and predictable. In classic SIA, the workforce is external to the 

impacted community, and project phases are discontinuous; hence, these phases are expressed as 

the comings and goings of workers. In the Gulf, discontinuous phases also employ an enormous 

blue-collar workforce. However, unlike that in classic SIA, this workforce is already resident in 

the affected communities. Moreover, while offshore projects are discontinuous, they do not 

produce discontinuities in local labor demand onshore for two basic reasons. First, oil-involved 

communities serve multiple projects in various phases in multiple fields of varying maturity. 

Thus, communities experience the labor demands of various projects and project phases as a 
115 

blend. Second, the separation of labor into phases is anything but clear-cut. Fabrication and 

drilling are strongly associated with exploration and development, but fabricated ships support 

production platforms and need refitting, exploration and maintenance drilling occurs on 

production platforms, and most workers are welders, crane operators, crewmen, or are in other 

non-phase-specific jobs. Southern Louisiana has a higher percentage of jobs in mining, 

transportation, and fabrication than the U.S. average (Manuel 1980; 1997), but the workers look 

like workers anywhere; most live at home, commute to work, and work onshore. For 

communities, their residents, and the local mix of businesses, the demands from exploration and 

development are experienced as part of the general demands of the offshore industry for goods 

and services and not as identifiable phases. Under most conditions, changes in the level of these 

activities are experienced as normal ups and downs in the local demand for goods and services. 

As in many U.S. industries, in good times, jobs segue into the next; in bad times, workers may be 

laid off. 

Morgan City, in St. Mary Parish, like other southern Louisiana boomtowns of the 1980s, is an 

example of the interplay between local industry mix and offshore exploration and development 

under extreme conditions. Morgan City, particularly, was a lightning rod for these dynamics 

because of its concentration of the most blue-collar, labor-intensive, and activity-sensitive 

businesses in the industry (Gramling and Freudenburg 1990b; Manual 1985). This evolution 

began as a lumber town with transportation advantages. Morgan City emerged in the 1850s as a 

residential and commercial area because of its railroad connections to New Orleans and steamer 

service to Galveston (Broussard 1977). Its first boom came when the northern investor Charles 

Morgan built a port and dredged a channel to the ocean to avoid the unionized facilities in New 

Orleans. By the early 1900s, it was already an important inland port hosting commercial fishing 

and shipbuilding industries (Baughman 1968). This pattern of aggregation typifies industrial 

growth in rural Louisiana; new industries were attracted to established ones because of shared 

transportation, infrastructure, and labor needs (Heberle 1948). In Morgan City, oil was a part of 

this aggregation. The town caught oil fever in 1901 even before a well was produced in the state 

(Broussard 1977), but it became an operations center for the coastal wetlands because it was a 

port and transportation hub with a shipbuilding industry, a blue-collar labor force, and access to 

the oil fields (Gramling 1984a; Davis 1990). Later events reinforced these advantages. The 1905 

development of the Intracoastal Waterway extended the port’s inland reach (Franz and Durio 

1977). The 1935 discovery of the Jeanerette field put Morgan City in the center of the state’s top 

petroleum-producing parish. A 1930s offshore shrimping boom also added to the port’s 

transportation and shipbuilding capacities. World War II brought more shipbuilding and another 

boom, further solidifying the town’s identity as an oil and fabrication center. Then, in 1947, 

Kerr-McGee completed a well on nearby Ship Shoal, often considered the first successful 

offshore well. At that moment, Morgan City already was a supply base and fabrication center 

and was poised to meet the emerging demands of the offshore industry and to grow as that 

industry grew. 

Morgan City’s 150-year life as a port and industrial center includes several periods of rapid 

growth and three with reported housing shortages which all occurred in a wider social context 

that made the problem look similar to ones in other places. In the early 1900s, its bustling port 

attracted a “floating population” of Norwegians, Swedes, Poles, Greeks, Italians, Portuguese, and 
116 

Filipinos (Baughman 1968). A wave of European immigration in the 1900s put similar but larger 

foreign populations in such southern port cities as New Orleans and Galveston (Maruggi and 

Wartenberg 1996; Donato 2004). During WWII, its shipbuilding industry attracted depressiondisplaced people seeking war-related marine construction work (Broussard 1977). The war began 

a demographic revolution as sharecroppers fled rural depression for the rapidly industrializing 

cities (Daniel 1990). Morgan City’s 1980s boomtown experience follows a similar path. As 

noted, the city was positioned to benefit from the development of the offshore industry. 

Increased job opportunities in the area “brought a rapidly growing population and increased 

permanent settlement particularly during the 1950s and 1960s. Entire communities such as 

Bayou Vista sprang into being” (Gramling 1984b:134). By the mid-1970s, Morgan City lay at 

the center of an enormous collection of industry-related enterprises. Traveling east from the town 

was “a seemingly never-ending galaxy of industries, including the sprawling McDermott and 

Avondale Shipyards, which employed literally thousands of men and women from throughout St. 

Mary, and even as far as St. Martin Parish.” For miles there was “an immense diversity of 

industries: shipyards, oil field helicopter operations, supply houses, and a plethora of other 

businesses all catering to the needs of the gargantuan oil companies” (Broussard 1977). Thus, 

Morgan City grew rapidly throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s as part of a much larger 

offshore-oriented industrial expansion. However, despite its concentration of developmentstimulated businesses, at no time during this economic boom did it, or similar communities, 

become a boomtown. Gramling (1983) examines this period and finds that Morgan City did not 

because the local evolution of the offshore industry and the pace of population growth gave the 

community time to adjust (see also Gramling and Brabant 1986). While he found that offshore 

growth kept Morgan City’s property values and rents relatively high from the 1940s into the 

1980s, any housing shortage in the immediate environs of Morgan City was due to land 

availability problems because of the surrounding wetlands and competition from agriculture, and 

it was mitigated by longer commutes to work. He also argues that, during the 1960s and 1970s, 

the industry’s high wages allowed south Louisianans to achieve a middle-class lifestyle 

(Gramling 1980b, 1984a; Manuel 1997). 

Despite three decades of sometimes rapid growth in the industry, the surrounding parishes, and 

the town, Morgan City achieved its supposed boom- and bust-town status only within the first 

few years of the 1980s, and this status again reflected current events elsewhere. The “boom” 

came after the Arab embargo, the superheated oil industry, a credit crunch from the savings-andloan collapse, and a deep recession devastating much of the rest of the country’s industries, and 

after newspaper hype about plentiful jobs and easy wealth in the oil patch sent recessiondisplaced workers from across the country flocking southward, sometimes with their families 

and sometimes alone and with only what their cars could carry. Many of the earlier arrivals did 

find jobs, but insufficient work for all placed great burdens on shelters, soup kitchens, and local 

helping institutions in general (Brabant 1993). But even these problems may have been 

somewhat overstated, described as they were in the immediate aftermath of the oil-price crash 

and in the light of the boomtown model. For example, the presence of camps for offshore oilrelated support workers was used as evidence of a boomtown housing shortage in the 1980s 

(Brabant 1993). However, while a housing shortage may have existed and the labor camps no 

doubt grew larger as the industry boomed, these camps exist in good times and bad for they serve 

day-labor recruited for the lowest paid types of oil-related work. They are analogous to migrant 
117 

labor housing, not indicators of local housing availability (Higgins 1999).4

 Then, world oil prices 

began to fall precipitously and, for a time, exploration and development virtually ceased. The oil 

crash devastated the economies of Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, but communities like 

Morgan City were most hurt. By the mid-1980s, businesses were closing, workers were losing 

jobs or taking pay cuts, and people were leaving, mostly newer arrivals but also locally-born 

residents. What once had been viewed as a vehicle carrying blue-collar workers into the middle 

class was now a community’s “overadaption” to an inherently cyclic extractive economy 

(Gramling and Freudenburg 1990b). 

Morgan City is no more a classic boomtown than is Flint, Michigan, which suffered through 

plant closures when the regionally dominant automobile industry reorganized in the face of 

Japanese competition. The 1980s oil-price crash came at the end of a decades-long expansion of 

a massive industry that extended from Texas to Alabama, after OPEC actions had heated that 

expansion to a boiling point, and after a growing recession elsewhere in the country set droves of 

laid-off workers south to find work. These events were not the result of the completion of a 

project or a group of projects, or of happenings in Morgan City, but rather occurred because the 

town lay at the heart of a regionally dominant industry suffering a regionwide economic 

depression that rolled through Louisiana, Texas, and Oklahoma as oil prices collapsed and 

exploration almost stopped. Actually, the 1980s oil price bust inverts the causal relationships 

postulated by the classic SIA. Effects occurred because the industry labor demand was long term 

and widespread and was not compressed in time and was not within only one or a few 

communities. Out-migration was not the cause of this downturn; rather, it occurred as oil’s 

downturn brought down other sectors of the economy, and it was countercyclic, stimulated by 

economic expansion elsewhere in the country. Similarly, social services were overloaded 

because of a shrinking state tax base, not because of local demand. Causes were manifestations 

of larger-scale processes and of exceptional combinations of oil- and non-oil-related factors, 

such as an unusual concentration of fabrication jobs, an offshore industry overheated by an 

OPEC embargo, an economic recession elsewhere sending workers south to seek jobs, and a city 

growth limited by wetlands. 

Demography Modeled; the Gulf Summarized 

The demographic consequences of Louisiana’s petroleum industry contradict the core 

assumptions of the classic SIA model—that new project labor demand causes demographic 

change that causes other project-related socioeconomic effects. The 100 years of experience with 

oil operations in coastal wetlands and the 50 years of experience with offshore operations mean 

that the ongoing development and operation of existing offshore projects, the initiation of new 

ones, and a labor force poised to meet the demands of both are part of Gulf baseline conditions. 

The industry does not appear in communities as something new with discrete phases but rather as 

a continuation of business, and social and economic effects relate to changes in the magnitude 

and mix of this commercial continuity. 

Morgan City during the crash is an extreme example of an extreme event since its concentration 

of exploration- and development-oriented industries was unusual even for the oil patch. During 
118 

the bust, nearby Abbeville performed better despite its similar dependence on offshore work, due 

in part to a greater proportion of this work being in the less-volatile production side of the 

industry. Similarly, New Iberia’s better performance and quicker recovery were helped by its 

more white-collar mix of oil-related industries and by its role as a bedroom community for 

Lafayette (Tolbert 1995; Tolbert and Beggs 2004). While the bust staggered all Louisiana, 

significant differences in community-level effects were generated by differences in the local 

configurations of oil-related businesses—that is, by each community’s oil industry mix. 

The crash was an historic upheaval, but the relationship it exposes between the industry, its local 

industrial mix, and its social and economic effects holds true generally. Simply stated, change in 

the offshore oil industry affects each of its sectors differently. A change in the offshore industry 

is expressed in each involved community through changes in its oil-involved businesses. Since 

each community hosts a different mix of oil-related businesses, each is differently affected by a 

change. One caveat must be made—the local conditions that amplify and mitigate effects also 

differ among communities. As a contemporary example of this process, the ongoing restructuring 

of the oil industry is concentrating white-collar jobs in Houston. This advantages Houston and 

disadvantages New Orleans regardless of the ups and downs in overall white-collar employment 

levels, and its demographic impacts are more concentrated in the New Orleans middle-class 

suburb of Mandeville than in blue-collar Morgan City, regardless of the latter’s greater 

dependence on the offshore industry. 

To conclude, as the industry grew into a driver of the state’s economy, the local specialization 

already apparent by the 1920s became a template by which the larger industry wrote its effects 

on involved communities. In principle, any change to the industry should have locally differing 

effects. Oil-involved communities may be tied to the industry’s fate, but each is tied to it in a 

very specific way. Thus, while the classic SIA model begins with a community and a new project 

that will generate a certain magnitude and pattern of demographic effects, Gulf realities begin 

outside of the community, and by linking community-level outcomes to larger industry changes, 

these realities seriously complicate the assessment of demographic effects. Below, we compare 

and contrast classic SIA and the Gulf to illustrate these complications. 

Figure 2a is a generic representation of classic SIA and a Gulf model. In it, a change at A 

generates effects at B, C, and D, and a larger change at A means larger effects at D. The 

hexagram A is the initiating cause. In both models, the B-C interface is where economic inputs 

transform into socioeconomic effects. In this schematic, D is the “community in general.” It is 

represented by a trapezoid to emphasize that its existing conditions shape the effects of A. Both 

models assume that these conditions at D are products of past and current social and economic 

trends, and both call these conditions the “baseline,” here represented by the circle “base.” Both 

models view baseline conditions as exogenous variables that may entail opportunity costs. 

Figures 2b and 2c represent classic SIA and the Gulf, respectively. In Figure 2b, a new project 

(A) creates new labor demand (B), which generates demographic effects (C), which produce 

other socioeconomic effects within a community (D). The initiating cause (A) triggering this 

chain of effects is a NEPA-related event such as a new generating plant. The B-C economic-tosocial interface translates labor demand (B) into population change (C). Relevance for baseline 
Figure 2: General model.

conditions at D is determined by the content of this interface. For example, in classic SIA, a large

labor force at D is relevant because it limits the effect of A by reducing in-migration at C. 

In Figure 2c, oil industry trends and events (A) affect Gulf oil activities (B), which impact the 

local oil industry mix (C), which leads to other socioeconomic effects within a community (D). 

In this model, the initiating cause (A) may or may not relate to NEPA-triggering events. Thus, 

compared to Figure 2b, the initiating cause in the Gulf is less easily specified, understood, or 

linked to government actions. In Figure 2b, demography is not a determining part of the causal 

chain. Instead, these effects are included as one of many possible community-level outcomes at 

D. In the Gulf, the B-C interface translates changes in industry organization, strategies,

technologies, and demand (B) into changes in local business practices (C). Again, the B-C 

interface is difficult to specify, a condition mirrored in the wide range of relevant baseline

conditions. For example, in some Gulf communities, the sugar industry buffers petroleum’s 

fluctuations. There, an assessment of the future of federal sugar supports is relevant (Tobin 2001; 

Wallace et al. 2001). 

Figure 3 further develops the Gulf model and the issues of scale, timeframe, and causal 

complexity that render classic SIA inappropriate. While classic SIA is designed for a project in a 

community and resides entirely within that community, Gulf effects originate outside the 

community and cannot be explained by community-level events. In the Gulf, petroleum industry 

trends and events (A) are geographically unspecified; impacts on the Gulf’s petroleum industry 

(B) can originate anywhere. In Figure 3, B lies within the line labeled “region,” which includes 

119 
Figure 3: Gulf model.

parts or all of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. In this model, only C and D

reside in the community. In Figure 3, the line “comm” designates one or several jurisdictions, 

towns, or parishes. 

The Gulf’s extensive geography makes problems for data acquisition and analysis but more 

intractable ones regarding causation. In classic SIA, specifying relationships within its causal 

structure is straightforward. Labor demand of planned project A minus available labor in

community D equals unmet labor demand at B. Unmet labor demand times average new laborer 

household size equals in-migration at C. In the Gulf, a change in OPEC production at A will 

affect industry behavior at B and C, which can have demographic effects at D, but identifying 

these casual links and their values is neither straightforward nor certain. Difficulties multiply for

C and D. The five-state Gulf Region includes hundreds of counties, parishes, communities, and 

relevant jurisdictions (e.g., school districts). In Figure 3, multiple industry mixes are designated 

as c1, c2, ... cn and multiple communities as d1, d2, ... dn. Even if the effect of A on B can be

estimated, the problems of distributing this value among the numerous industry mixes and of

estimating its effects on the associated communities remain.5

Timeframes raise other difficulties. Classic SIA assesses projects and effects with relatively short 

and predictable life spans; indeed, a key characteristic of demographic effects is temporal 

compression. In classic SIA, only community trends and conditions (D) have long life spans, and

these complications are part of its baseline. In the Gulf, timeframes are generally long with 

indeterminate beginnings and endings. Ramifications of events at A like the oil embargo or the

emergence of deepwater exploration reverberate far into an unknown future, as do outcomes at B 

120 
121 

like the growth of Port Fourchon (Hughes et al. 2002). The lease sales MMS assesses are serial 

events in an areawide leasing policy that helped shape Louisiana’s offshore oil industry over 

decades (Priest 2003). Long timeframes mean that industry events and trends, the Gulf oil 

industry, and the community all have relevant baselines, as represented in Figure 3 by the circle 

“base” with causal arrows pointing to A, B, and D. (Current conditions at C are products of the 

effects of B as mitigated by D.) These baselines add difficulties to specifying model components, 

assessing relationships among them, and to distinguishing petroleum’s effects from other 

historical trends as rural decline or suburbanization.

This issue recalls another. In the Gulf, the NEPA-triggering action being assessed plays only a 

minor role in the industry trends and events that generate offshore oil’s onshore effects. Figure 3 

represents the NEPA-triggering action (e.g., a lease sale) with the parallelogram labeled “act” 

which lies within the region but to the side of the main A-D causal chain. A lease sale might 

amplify or mitigate trends at B and C, including effects of the ongoing OCS program, but a sale 

is not their primary cause. In Figure 3, arrow act 1 designates region-level lease sale effects. The 

MMS projects a lease sale’s future employment effects based on oil prices and past industry 

behavior. Arrow act 2 designates local-level lease sale effects. Project sizes and locations 

become known as companies submit development plans. These are not estimated at the time of 

the lease sale. 

Figure 3 highlights another difficulty with causation. In both models, effects move through a 

causal chain from A to D. However, in Louisiana, the oil industry looms sufficiently large in the 

state’s economic, tax, and fiscal systems that a change in its fortunes has an effect on all its 

communities that is independent of, and in addition to, the more direct effects from local industry 

involvement (Brabant 1994; Scott 1978; 1981). Figure 3 represents this situation with a causal 

arrow labeled “system” pointing from B to D. System effects also vary geographically because 

of local conditions and tax and fiscal policies. 

A New Approach to Understanding Socioeconomic Impacts in the Gulf 

Early BLM planners were not far off when, based on their narrow reading of NEPA, they 

eschewed consideration of most socioeconomic effects in the Gulf. They were wedded to a 

model that focused on community-level effects of a government action and that assumed 

demographic impacts substantially determined other socioeconomic consequences (e.g., CEQ 

1974; Pikul and Rabin 1974). Examples of such effects resulting from a specific OCS lease sale 

are rare indeed. The NRC call to use the Gulf as a “natural laboratory” for the study of the 

industry’s socioeconomic effects was intended to broaden this approach, not to challenge the SIA 

paradigm. Nevertheless, to use this natural laboratory, the agency had to adopt a more eclectic 

approach to petroleum’s effects, and one that recognized oil’s effects are interwoven with other 

local, regional, and national trends in a “dynamic baseline” (Smith 2000). One unforeseen 

consequence of this change was that MMS began to confront, head on, previously latent 

challenges to the application of classic SIA analysis to Gulf lease sales. Five of these challenges 

are listed below. 
122 

Assessment Challenges 

(1) Challenge of Defining the Affected Area: The first task in socioeconomic assessment is to 

define the affected area. This raises the question of scale. The area must be large enough to 

include the significant impacts yet small enough not to dilute them. The MMS assesses the OCS 

program’s socioeconomic effects on the Gulf Region, which includes Texas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. This encompasses all relevant effects but dilutes many. It 

also raises the problem of variation within the study area. The OCS effects are shaped by each 

state’s fiscal and tax policies, the distribution of other industries, and the industry’s own 

purchasing and hiring patterns (Plater et al. 2000; Luke et al. 2002; Hughes et al. 2002; 

Dismukes et al. 2003). The Coastal Zone within these states is a smaller affected area, but it, too, 

includes some effects while diluting others, and its 56 counties and parishes also include the 

extremes of social, economic, cultural, and institutional variation. The Coastal Zone is comprised 

of literally hundreds of cities, towns, school districts, port authorities, levee boards, special tax 

regions, and other tax jurisdictions that separate and join the parishes and counties in different 

ways. Social and infrastructural effects are often defined by specific local conditions—the 

unused capacity of a certain school district, the growing demands on a particular water system, 

or the condition of a specific road connecting a port and highway (Keithley 2001). Defining the 

boundaries of states and coastal zone counties and communities may be simple, but identifying 

and describing the salient variation within such wide-ranging “affected areas” is not. 

(2) Challenge of the Baseline: Under NEPA, the difference between an area with and without the 

proposed action is the proposal’s effects. The area sans proposal is the “baseline.” However, 

since the industry has operated in the Gulf for decades, there is no “unaffected environment,” 

hence no baseline as originally envisioned by NEPA. While this has led some assessments to 

conclude that the program has no socioeconomic effects to be addressed, it has led others to 

ascribe all problems faced by oil-involved Gulf communities to the industry. This tendency is 

evident in much of the research MMS funded in its immediate response to the 1980s oil price 

bust, leading one frustrated oil executive to observe that even if southern Louisiana had never 

had oil, it would not, today, be an untouched Acadiana of happy fisher folk and trappers (Porter 

1992; Seydlitz and Laska 1994). The task of separating the effects of oil from other regional 

influences and from larger national and worldwide trends is neither easy nor certain. Past effects 

of oil and gas development on communities, families, and individuals are bound up in other 

“baseline” trends.6

 Many social forces impinge on communities, families, and individuals such 

as mass communication, changes in education, and increasing community heterogeneity. Even in 

oil-involved areas, the industry is just one of many causes of most effects (Wallace et al. 2001). 

Identifying oil’s share of an impact is made more difficult because most of its impacts are not 

unique to that industry (Shrimpton and Storey 2001). 

(3) Challenge of Identifying the Offshore Oil Industry: SIA addresses the effects of an offshore 

petroleum industry which itself lacks clear boundaries. This industry is actually composed of 

many types of enterprises involved in the processes of finding, extracting, refining, and bringing 

petroleum-based products to market. Even the basic activity of drilling a well is usually 

undertaken by a number of firms and individuals interacting through contracts and subcontracts 

and supported by a myriad of other firms and individuals involved in such activities as legal or 
123 

insurance work, trucking materials, and providing food. Even in onshore areas where the oil 

industry is relatively small and where many of its sectors are not present, as in North Dakota, the 

numbers of enterprises required and the variability in their sizes, organization, and interactions 

make projecting the effects of onshore oil development extremely difficult (Chase and Leistritz 

1982). In the Gulf, the challenge is immeasurably greater because of the size and complexity of 

this industry, because the full spectrum of enterprises involved in finding, extracting, processing, 

storing, and bringing petroleum-based products to market is present (Louis Berger Group Inc. 

2004), because the support and transportation requirements of offshore operations add 

substantially to the complexities and variabilities of the oil industry (Manuel 1983; Gramling and 

Brabant 1984), and because of its uneven distribution across the Gulf. Each type of industry has 

its own structure, dynamics, technologies, infrastructural requirements, labor organization and 

demands, and links to communities and the economy, and for each industry, these attributes are 

changing over time (Wallace et al. 2003). The fabrication, pipe-laying, drilling, diving, trucking, 

and supply boat industries all face different demands from the industry move to deep water, and 

they also face different demands and opportunities onshore (Austin and McGuire 2000; Wallace 

et al. 2001). Finally, the situation is complicated because only portions of many of these 

industries are oil-related. For example, questions about banking services, trucking, or port 

activities become particularly difficult since their relationships to the petroleum industry vary 

from place to place in ways that noticeably affect local socioeconomic outcomes (Tobin 2001; 

Tolbert 1995; Tolbert and Beggs 2004). 

(4) Challenge of Addressing Local Effects: The MMS assesses socioeconomic effects for lease 

sales. However, its EISs do not address the act of leasing but, rather, the effects of future 

industry actions that may result from sales. The EISs assume that all industry activity that occurs 

on a lease is caused by the lease sale, a useful assumption, but not literally true since leases only 

create opportunities for actions while the actions are undertaken based on economic and business 

considerations that change over time. Thus, to analyze a sale’s potential effects, MMS must 

develop a scenario that estimates the activities that will occur on leased blocks that is much 

removed from any actual project plan. Using the scenario, and based on past industry behavior, 

MMS then projects economic and employment impacts for large, multi-county “subareas.” Salelevel scenarios are necessarily general and lack the geographic specificity that would support 

projecting sale effects at county or community levels. However, many types of social and 

infrastructural effects only occur in the context of local conditions—the unused capacity of a 

certain school district, the growing demands on a particular water system, or the condition of a 

specific road connecting a port and highway. Thus, MMS faces the question of how to relate 

multi-county projections necessitated by sale-level assessments to an assessment of local-level 

effects. Just as the baseline challenge implies that onshore effects cannot be linked to specific 

sales, this challenge questions the possibility of linking effects of a sale to specific onshore 

locations. 

(5) Challenge of Addressing Cumulative Effects: The challenge of cumulative effects relates to 

the baseline challenge. Since the industry is already in place, a lease sale’s primary 

socioeconomic effect is to continue the status quo by maintaining the arena in which the industry 

operates. The state of Louisiana has repeatedly complained that sale-level assessments do not 

adequately address the real effects of the OCS program because its real effects are cumulative. 
124 

While the baseline challenge addressed the problem of separating oil’s effects from other 

regional influences and from broader national and worldwide trends, the state of Louisiana raises 

the issue of whether sale-level effects can be meaningfully separated from ongoing effects and 

assessed independently when past industry outcomes are actually conditioning the expression of 

the new ones. For example, one reason boomtowns are unlikely in the Gulf is that the local labor 

force has already been strongly shaped by the industry. This does not mean that all effects lie in 

the past but, rather, that the industry’s current fluctuations are expressed in such terms as job 

insecurity rather than by migration (Austin et al. 2002; Donato 2004). 

Classic Model Revisited 

This list developed piecemeal during attempts to apply classic SIA, yet it raises problems with 

the entire classic approach, from defining the study area to considering cumulative effects. Gulf 

problems with the paradigm’s demographic heart are part of a wider and more widely relevant 

disconnect. Below we contrast SIA and the Gulf Region (see Table 1), but the “Gulf Region” 

could be any agency that must assess social impacts of complex causes in complex situations. 

Classic SIA assesses the effects of a project while the Gulf Region assesses the effects of a 

program. Under classic SIA, projects are relatively simple, and key variables (e.g., type, location, 

size, and labor demand) are derived from project plans; thus, they are action-related and 

localized. In the Gulf Region, the petroleum industry is the affecting agent. It is extremely 

complex, and key variables must be estimated using scenarios based on resource estimates and 

past industry behavior; thus, key variables are hypothetical and general. Classic SIA addresses 

projects in one or several communities while the Gulf Region addresses a program in five states. 

Classic SIA addresses project effects in small, rural, isolated places while the Gulf Region 

addresses program effects that occur primarily in urban settings or in long-industrialized rural 

ones. These differences mean that classic SIA confronts processes akin to industrialization or 

modernization while the Gulf Region considers ones akin to regional growth and decline. 

Contrasts in study areas are mirrored in equally striking ones concerning effects. In classic SIA, 

projects are new and foreign to the impact area while, in the Gulf Region, the oil industry is 

decades old and familiar. In classic SIA, projects have discontinuous life spans with planned 

beginnings and foreseeable ends. In the Gulf, even though oil is a nonrenewable resource, 

industry effects are ongoing and will continue for decades. In classic SIA, the limited lifespan of 

a project heightens effects by compressing them in time. In the Gulf, activities rise and fall, but 

industry effects are not compressed in time. In classic SIA, project life spans are experienced as 

phases (e.g., construction, operations, and decommissioning), each with its own spectrum of 

effects. While the Gulf Region uses phases to project the industries’ economic effects, all 

onshore activities are ongoing and overlapping and phases are indistinguishable. In classic SIA, 

community experiences vary by phase, while in the Gulf, they vary by industry mix and activity 

levels. While classic SIA addresses large-scale energy projects, the compression and 

segmentation of time lead to a focus on the construction phase and construction trades. In the 

Gulf, fabrication is one piece of an entire industry that is the focus. 
125 

Table 1: Differences between the SIA paradigm and Gulf realities. 

SIA GOMR 

Assesses a project Assesses a program 

Project simple and key variables specific to 

plan and geography 

Industry complex and key variables 

hypothetical and general 

Assessment area = the community Assessment area = five states 

Community small, rural & isolated Affected areas include urban and/or 

industrialized 

Processes related to industrialization Processes related to regional development 

Project new to area Program (and industry) developed in area 

Project timeframe discontinuous Program timeframe ongoing 

Time compression highlights effects Timelines not compressed 

Timeframe segmented Timeframe segments all ongoing & 

overlapping 

Effects vary by project phase Effects vary by industry mix and activity 

level 

Effects concentrated in construction Effects of segments indistinct 

Project imposed from without Program (industry) evolved in area 

Project organization unfamiliar Industry tied to local entrepreneurship 

Project technology unfamiliar Project technology locally developed 

Project scale massive & unfamiliar Project scale typical and familiar 

Labor demand greater than supply Local labor supply matched to industry 

Labor demand compressed in time Labor demand continuous 

“Boom and bust” concerns Market fluctuation concerns 

Cumulative effects = other projects Cumulative effects = ongoing program 

Effects decision driven Effects economically driven 

Assessment rationalistic Assessment probabilistic 

Outcomes more “predictable” Outcomes less “predictable” 

EIS stresses planning EIS stresses documentation 

In classic SIA, a project is imposed from without, and project organization and technology are 

unfamiliar, while, in the Gulf Region, the offshore industry developed over decades, and its 

organizations and technologies are familiar. In classic SIA, this imposition raises issues about the 

adequacy of local responses and, particularly, about the adequacy of the labor force. In the Gulf 

Region, communities and their labor forces have adapted to the industry. In Classic SIA, new 

labor demand compressed in time raises the specter of booms and busts. In the Gulf, new 

projects do not normally lead to unusual labor demands; instead, fluctuating activity levels affect 

communities. Reflecting its concern with the new and imposed, classic SIA defines cumulative 

effects in terms of other foreseeable future projects. In the Gulf, sales are serial events, and 

cumulative effects are defined in terms of the ongoing leasing program. 

In classic SIA, effects flow from the decision to allow a project to proceed, while, in the Gulf, 

lease sale decisions play a minor role in generating industry effects. This means that the 
126 

assessment process for classic SIA can be rationalistic and deductive and based on project 

variables, while, in the Gulf, assessment builds on scenarios and complex industry interactions 

and must be more inductive and probabilistic. This also means that outcomes of the NEPArelated analysis are more predictable under classic SIA than they are for the Gulf Region. 

Finally, reflecting differences in familiarity, the meaning of cumulative effects, and 

predictability, classic SIA stresses the usefulness of assessments as planning documents while 

Gulf Region stakeholders see their use as official documentation of the OCS program’s effects. 

Conclusions 

The SIA methods discussed here were formulated to measure impacts from single, often onedimensional causes (e.g., a generating plant), of relatively short duration (e.g., several years), in 

small and easily definable areas (e.g., communities), where the impacting agent is externally 

imposed and where this agent overwhelms the community’s institutional structures, 

infrastructural capacities, and labor force. Oil development in the Gulf lies at the opposite end of 

the continuum for each of these qualities. The industry is immensely varied and complex; it has 

evolved over generations and in concert with other social, political, economic, and technological 

changes that often dwarf, mask, inspire, and mitigate the more conspicuously oil-related ones; 

and it has grown enormously. Its influence has reached across the seas, its end is not in sight, and 

no final tally of impacts is possible. 

Our overview of the industry’s demographic effects shows traditional NEPA-style analysis to be 

woefully inadequate to the task of addressing their scale, complexity, and duration and that the 

classic SIA paradigm, because of its community- and project-level focus, cannot provide the 

needed conceptual framework or methodological tools. Moreover, the problems identified in the 

Gulf are characteristic of many assessment situations faced today. Most impacts are not rural; 

most impacted communities are not physically or culturally isolated; most impacted economies 

are not agricultural; and most impacts are not caused by demographic change. Agencies assess 

ongoing policies and programs, multiple and difficult-to-isolate causes, and varied and complex 

impact areas. Indeed, as with the thousands-of-year-long timeframes of nuclear waste disposal 

sites, some projects may fit the classic paradigm but raise issues that do not. The question is, 

“What is to be done?” 

We suggest a strategy for answering this question rather than a new conceptual model. NEPA 

and classic SIA emerged together, but one does not require the other. Classic SIA’s advantage is 

a coherent analytic framework, built around a NEPA event, that logically relates assessments of 

one type of effect to the others. Our strategy sacrifices this coherence for a more empirical 

approach. No single explanatory model should be expected to best suit the varied assessment 

situations agencies face. In complex situations like the Gulf, a model for assessing state-level 

impacts would not necessarily be useful for local-level ones. Models, like any form of 

explanation, should reflect available data and scientific practice. 

The same may be said about the topics addressed. Lists of topics are essentially ad hoc, drawn 

from NEPA scoping, other agency information-gathering efforts, and existing SIA literature. 
127 

Classic SIA assumes, with little evidence, that assessed topics form an interacting system of 

effects and causes. We suggest that a strategy begin by addressing each of topic separately, while 

accepting that the mechanisms by which it is affected, the degree to which it is affected, how 

these effects relate to others, and whether they merit inclusion in the final assessment are all 

empirical questions. For each topic, analytic coherence will come from the logic and findings of 

relevant academic fields—from criminology when looking at crime, for example—and not from 

the topic’s role in an a priori model. The classic model defined some relationships as important 

and others as not. An empirical approach to impact topics may provide a more useful foundation 

on which to build future monitoring and mitigation efforts. 

Topic selection has always recognized differences in assessment situations. Analytical strategies 

should also reflect such differences. For example, in the Gulf the complexities of the petroleum 

industry necessitate the agency’s very substantial effort to understand it, and its long-lived 

operations magnify the importance of cumulative effects for the assessment process. Similarly, 

the need to assess sale-level effects turns the problem of linking regional- and local-level effects 

into a strategic one. 

While this strategy will not draw the picture of tightly linked effects provided by classic SIA, it 

will produce one that is more complete and is coherent enough. Consistency will come from the 

need to assess each topic in terms of its role in overall effects and from addressing the 

peculiarities of the assessment situation—the need to link regional-level effects to local-level 

ones, for example. While the EIS is the legal vehicle for reporting findings, supplementary 

reporting methods should also be explored. While classic SIA presents a simple explanatory 

scheme that can be encompassed between the covers of an EIS, our strategy may produce 

material inappropriately massive or technical for that setting. 

We have described the reasons MMS will continue to pursue a more realistic and robust 

approach to evaluating social and economic changes associated with the Gulf Region’s OCS 

leasing program. We have also begun to outline a strategy this pursuit might take. To the extent 

this strategy reflects a shift away from the traditional SIA paradigm, we believe it is well 

founded and long overdue. 

References 

Affleck, M. and R. Eakes. 1976. Oklahoma Roughnecks: The Case for an Occupational 

Community. Free Inquiry 4(2):114–151. 

Albrecht, S.L. 1982. Empirical Evidence for Community Disruptions. Pacific Sociological 

Review 25:297–306. 

Applied Technology Research Corporation. 1994. Louisiana, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental 

Shelf offshore Oil and Gas Activity: Impacts. Baton Rouge, LA: Mid-Continent Oil and 

Gas Association. 
128 

Aratame, N. and J. Singelmann. 2002. Effect of the Oil and Gas Industry on Commuting and 

Migration Patterns in Louisiana: 1960 to 1990. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2002-072. 

Austin, D., K. Coelho, A. Gardner, R. Higgins, T. McGuire, J. Schrag-James, S. Sparks, and L. 

Stauber. 2002. Social and Economic Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Activity on 

Individuals and Families, Volume 1: Final Report; Volume 2: Case Studies of Morgan 

City and New Iberia, Louisiana. Prepared by the University of Arizona, Bureau of 

Applied Research in Anthropology. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2002-22 

and 2002-023. 

Austin, D.E. and T.R. McGuire, eds. 2000. Social and Economic Impacts of OCS Activities on 

Individuals and Families: A Report for the Participating Communities. Tucson, AZ: 

University of Arizona, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. 

Baughman, J. 1968. Charles Morgan and the Development of Southern Transportation. 

Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. 

Baxter, V.K. 1993. Political Economy of Oil and Exploitation of Offshore Oil. In Impact of 

Offshore Petroleum and Production on the Social Institutions of Coastal Louisiana. 

Laska, S.B., K.B. Vern, R. Seydlitz, R.E. Thayer, S. Barbant, and D.J. Forsyth, eds. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 93-0007. Pp. 15–42. 

Bertrand, J.A. 1952. Oil and Population in Southern Louisiana: 1901–1935. Master’s thesis. 

Baton Rouge, LA: Department of Geography, Louisiana State University. 

Blevins, A.L., J.G. Thompson, and C. Ellis. 1974. Social Impact Analysis of Campbell County, 

Wyoming. Laramie, WY: Wyoming Environmental Institute. 

Boatright, M.C. and W.A. Owens. 1982 [1970]. Tales from the Derrick Floor: A People’s 

History of the Oil Industry. Lincoln: NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

Brabant, S. 1993. From Boom to Bust: Community Response to Basic Human Need. In Impact 

of Offshore Petroleum and Production on the Social Institutions of Coastal Louisiana. 

Laska, S.B., K.B. Vern, R. Seydlitz, R.E. Thayer, S. Barbant, and D.J. Forsyth, eds. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 93-0007. Pp. 195–208. 

Brabant, S. 1994. The Ripple Effect of Resource Development: Ouachita Parish as Case Study. 

Impact Assessment 12:59–74. 

Broussard, B. 1977. A History of St. Mary Parish. Franklin, LA: Self-published. 
129 

Brown, B.S. 1977. The Impact of the New Boomtowns: The Lessons of Gillette and the Powder 

River Basin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Burford, R.L. and S.G. Murzyn. 1972. Net Migration for Louisiana and its Parishes, 1960–1970. 

Division of Research Occasional Paper No. 8. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State 

University, Division of Research College of Business Administration. 

Chambers, W.T. 1933. Kilgore, Texas: An Oil Boom Town. Economic Geography 9:72–84. 

Chase, R.A. and F.L. Leistritz. 1982. Socioeconomic Impact Assessment of Onshore Petroleum 

Activity. Paper presented at Second International Conference on Oil and the 

Environment, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 

Christou, G.C. 1972. Migration in Louisiana, 1960–1970. Research Study No 17. New Orleans, 

LA: Louisiana State University, College of Business Administration, Division of 

Business and Economic Research. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1974. OCS Oil and Gas: An Environmental 

Assessment. A Report to the President by the Council on Environmental Quality. 5 vols. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Daniel, P. 1990. Going Among Strangers: Southern Reactions to World War II. Journal of 

American History 77 (December):886–911. 

Darrah, W.C. 1972. Pithole, the Vanished City. Washington, DC: Library of Congress. 

Davis, D.W. 1990. Living on the Edge: Louisiana’s Marsh, Estuary and Barrier Island 

Population. Louisiana Geological Survey 40:147–160. 

Dismukes, D.E., W.O. Olatubi, D.V. Mesyanzhinov, and A.G. Pulsipher. 2003. Modeling the 

Economic Impacts of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Gulf of Mexico: Methods 

and Applications. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2003-018. 

Dixon, M. 1978. What Happened to Fairbanks? The Effects of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline in 

the community of Fairbanks, Alaska. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Donato, K.M. 2004. Labor Migration and the Deepwater Industry. New Orleans, LA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS 

Region. OCS Study MMS 2004-057. 

Executive Resource Associates, Inc. 1984. Federal Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Activities: A Socioeconomic Review. Detailed data tables, 12 vols. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 
130 

Finsterbusch, K. 1980. Understanding Social Impacts: Assessing the Effects of Public Projects. 

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 

Finsterbusch, K. and C.P. Wolf, eds. 1981. Methodology of Social Impact Assessment. 2nd ed. 

Strousburg, PA: Hutchinson Press. 

Forbes, G. 1946. Jennings, First Louisiana Salt Dome Pool. Louisiana Historical Quarterly 

29(2):496–509. 

Franks, K.A. and P.F. Lambert. 1982. Early Louisiana and Arkansas Oil: A Photographic 

History, 1901–1946. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. 

Franz, R. and C. Durio. 1977. Transportation. In: E.F. Stallings and T.F. Reilly, eds. Outer 

Continental Shelf Impacts: Morgan City, Louisiana. Louisiana State Planning 

Commission, pp. 209–220. 

Gilmore, J.S. and D.C. Coddington. 1981. Socioeconomic Impacts of Power Plants. Research 

Project 1226-4. Denver, CO: University of Denver, Electric Power Research Institute, 

Industrial Economics Division. 

Gilmore, J.S. and M.K. Duff. 1975. Boom Town Growth Management: A Case Study of Rock 

Springs-Green River, Wyoming. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Gold, R.L. 1974. A Comparative Study of the Impact of Coal Development on the Way of Life 

of People in the Coal Areas of Eastern Montana and Northeastern Wyoming. Denver, 

CO: Northern Great Plains Resources Program. 

Gramling, R.B. 1980a. Labor Survey of East St. Mary Parish. In East St. Mary Parish, Economic 

Growth and Stabilization Strategies. R.B. Gramling and E.F. Stallings, eds. Baton Rouge, 

LA: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, pp. 80–108. 

Gramling, R.B. 1980b. Population Growth in East St. Mary Parish Area. In East St. Mary Parish, 

Economic Growth and Stabilization Strategies. R.B. Gramling and E.F. Stallings, eds. 

Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, pp. 65–75. 

Gramling, R.B. 1983. Sociological Analysis of Energy Activity on Lafayette, Louisiana. In

Energy and Economic Growth in Lafayette, LA: 1965–1980. D.P. Manuel, ed. Lafayette, 

LA: University of Southwestern Louisiana, pp. 167–193. 

Gramling, R.B. 1984a. East St. Mary Parish: A Case Study. In The Role of Outer Continental 

Shelf Oil and Gas Activities in the Growth and Modification of Louisiana’s Coastal 

Zone. R.B. Gramling and S. Brabant, eds. Lafayette, LA: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources, pp. 171–198. 
131 

Gramling, R.B. 1984b. Housing in the Coastal Zone Parishes. In The Role of Outer Continental 

Shelf Oil and Gas Activities in the Growth and Modification of Louisiana’s coastal zone. 

R.B. Gramling and S. Brabant, eds. Lafayette, LA: U.S. Department of Commerce, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources, pp. 127–134. 

Gramling, R.B. 1996. Oil on the Edge: Offshore Development, Conflict, Gridlock. Albany, NY: 

State University of New York Press. 

Gramling, R.B. and S. Brabant, eds. 1984. The Role of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Activities in the Growth and Modification of Louisiana’s Coastal Zone. Lafayette, LA: 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 

Gramling, R.B. and S. Brabant. 1986. Boomtowns and Offshore Energy Impact Assessment: The 

Development of a Comprehensive Model. Sociological Perspectives 29(2):177–201. 

Gramling, R.B. and W.R. Freudenburg. 1990a. A Closer Look at Local Control: Communities, 

Commodities, and the Collapse of the Coast. Rural Sociology 55(4):541–558. 

Gramling, R.B. and W.R. Freudenburg. 1990b. Opportunity-Threat, Development, and 

Adaptation: Toward a Comprehensive Framework for Social Impact Assessment. Rural 

Sociology 57(2):216–234. 

Gramling, R.B. and S.B. Laska. 1993. A Social Science Research Agenda for the Minerals 

Management Service in the Gulf of Mexico. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

93-0017. 

Gulliford, A. 1989. Boomtown Blues: Colorado Oil Shale, 1885–1985. Niwot, CO: University 

Press of Colorado. 

Heberle, R. 1948. Social Consequences of the Industrialization of Southern Cities. Social Forces 

27(October):29–37. 

Higgins, R. 1999. Labor Camping: Life in a Louisiana “Bunkhouse.” Draft manuscript on file. 

Prepared by the University of Arizona, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. 

New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf 

of Mexico OCS Region. 

Hughes, D.W., J.M. Fannin, W. Keithly, W. Olatubi, and J. Guo. 2002. Lafourche Parish and 

Port Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum Industry on 

the Economy and Public Service. Part 2. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 
132 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2001-020. 

Ives, B. and W. Schulze. 1976. Boomtown Impacts of Energy Development in the Lake Powell 

Region. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico, Resource Economics Program. 

Jones, L.L., S.H. Murdock, and F.L. Leistritz. 1988. Economic-Demographic Projection Models: 

An Overview of Recent Developments for Infrastructure Analysis. In Local Infrastructure 

Investment in Rural America. T.G. Johnson, B.J. Deaton, and E. Segarra, eds. Boulder, 

CO: Westview Press, pp. 87–97. 

Keithley, D.C. 2001. Lafourche Parish and Port Fourchon, Louisiana: Effects of the Outer 

Continental Shelf Petroleum Industry on the Economy and Public Services, Part 1. New 

Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of 

Mexico Region. OCS Study MMS 2001-019. 

 

Kohrs, E.V. 1974. Social Consequences of Boom Town Growth in Wyoming. Paper presented to 

the Regional Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 

Laramie, Wyoming. 

Kuhn, T. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago 

Press. 

Laska, S.B. ed. 1993. Impact of Offshore Oil Exploration and Production on the Social 

Institutions of Coastal Louisiana. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 93-0007. 

Leistritz, F.L. 1992. An Economic Perspective on the Theory and Practice of Social Impact 

Assessment: Economic Focus. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Gulf of Mexico 

Information Transfer Meeting. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 92-0027. 

Pp. 211–215. 

Leistritz, F.L. and S.H. Murdock. 1981. The Socioeconomic Impact of Resource Development: 

Methods for Assessment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 

Lindstedt, D.M., L.L. Nunn, J.C. Holmes, and E.E. Willis. 1991. History of Oil and Gas 

Development in Coastal Louisiana. Resource Information Series No. 7. Baton Rouge, 

LA: Louisiana Geological Survey. 

Little, R.L. 1977. Some Social Consequences of Boom Towns. North Dakota Law Review 

52:401–425. 
133 

Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2004. Deepwater Program: OCS-Related Infrastructure in the Gulf of 

Mexico. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2004-027. 

Lovejoy, S.B. 1977. Local Perceptions of Energy Development: The Case of the Kaiparowits 

Plateau. Bulletin No. 62. Los Angeles, CA: Lake Powell Research Project. 

Luke, R.T., E.S. Schubers, G. Olsson, and F.L. Leistritz. 2002. Socioeconomic Baseline and 

Projections of the Impact of an OCS Onshore Base for Selected Florida Panhandle 

Communities. Volume I: Final Report. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2002-024. 

Luton, H.H. and D.E. Austin. 2004. Gulf of Mexico Challenges. University of Arizona and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

Manuel, D.P. 1980. East St. Mary Parish in the 1970s: The Economics of a Sustained EnergyImpact. In East St. Mary Parish, Economic Growth and Stabilization Strategies. 

R.B. Gramling and E.F. Stallings, eds. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of 

Natural Resources, pp. 44–48. 

Manuel, D.P., ed. 1983. Energy and Economic Growth in Lafayette, LA: 1965–1980. Lafayette, 

LA: University of Southwestern Louisiana. 

Manuel, D.P. 1985. Unemployment and Drilling Activity in Major Energy-Producing States. 

Journal of Energy and Development 10:45–62. 

Manuel, D.P. 1997. The Role of OCS Activity in the Economic Growth of Morgan City. In

Outer Continental Shelf Impacts, Morgan City, Louisiana. E.F. Stallings and T.F. Reilly, 

eds. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, pp. 

28–105. 

Maruggi, V. and G. Saussy. 1985. Migration in Louisiana, 1970 to 1980: An Indicator of the 

State Economy’s Performance, 2 vols. Research Study 52. New Orleans, LA: University 

of New Orleans, College of Business Administration, Division of Business and Economic 

Research, 109 pp. 

Maruggi, V. and C.R. Wartenberg. 1996. Louisiana Net Migration, 1980–1990: The Oil Bust 

Reflected. Research Study No. 60. New Orleans, LA: University of New Orleans, 

College of Business Administration, Division of Business and Economic Research. 

McEvoy, J., III, ed. 1977. The Social Consequences of Environmental Change: A Handbook for 

Environmental Planning. New York, NY: John Wiley. 
134 

McGuire, T.R. and A. Gardner. 2003. Contract Drillers and Causal Histories along the Gulf of 

Mexico. Human Organization 62(3):218–228. 

McKeown, R.L. and A. Lantz. 1977. Rapid Growth and the Impact on Quality of Life in Rural 

Communities: A Case Study. Glenwood Springs, CO: Colorado West Regional Mental 

Health Center. 

Moen, E.W. 1986. Women: Gemeinschaft in Boomtowns. In Differential Social Impacts of Rural 

Resource Development. P.D. Elkind-Savatsky, ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 

161–183. 

Murdock, S.H. and F.L. Leistritz. 1979. Energy Development in the Western United States: 

Impact on Rural Areas. New York, NY: Praeger. 

Murdock, S.H., F.L. Leistritz, R.R. Hamm, and S.-S. Hwang. 1984. An Assessment of the 

Accuracy and Utility of Socioeconomic Impact Assessments. In Paradoxes of Western 

Energy Development: How Can We Maintain the Land and the People If We Develop? 

C.M. McKell, D.G. Browne, E.C. Cruze, W.R. Freudenberg, R.L. Perrine, and F. Roach, 

eds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp. 265–296. 

National Academy of Sciences. 1978. National Academy of Sciences Findings and 

Recommendations (Appendix 1). In Study Design for Resource Management Decisions: 

OCS Oil and Gas Development and the Environment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 

National Research Council. 1992. Assessment of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf 

Environmental Studies Program, III: Social and Economic Studies. Washington, DC: 

National Academy Press. 

Olien, R.M. and D.D. Olien. 1982. Oil Booms: Social Change in Five Texas Towns. Lincoln, 

NE: University of Nebraska Press. 

Pikul, R.P. and R. Rabin. 1974. Program Plan for Environmental Effects of Energy. Prepared by 

the Mitre Corporation and the National Science Foundation. Contract 74-SP-0827 

(Project 1700) MTR-6726. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Plater, J.R., J.Q. Kelley, W.W. Wade, and R.T. Mott. 2000. Economic Effects of Coastal 

Alabama and Destin Dome Offshore Natural Gas Exploration, Development, and 

Production. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2000-044. 

Plater, J.R. and W.W. Wade. 2001. Forecasting Environmental and Social Externalities 

Associated with OCS Oil and Gas Development: The Offshore Environmental Cost 
135 

Model. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. 

OCS Study MMS 2001-017. 

Porter, B.J. 1992. Socioeconomic Advantages to Outer Continental Shelf Activities in the Gulf 

of Mexico. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer 

Meeting. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 92-0027. Pp. 66–70. 

Priest, T. 2003. History and Evolution of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry in Southern 

Louisiana: Exploration technology and the Federal Lease Sales That Opened up the Gulf 

of Mexico. In Proceedings: Twenty-Second Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer 

Meeting. M. McKay and J. Nides, eds. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2003-073. Pp. 288–295. 

Ringholz, R.C. 1989. Uranium Frenzy: Boom and Bust on the Colorado Plateau. New York, NY: 

W.W. Norton. 

Schweid, R. 1989. Hot Peppers: Cajuns and Capsicum in New Iberia, Louisiana. Reprint edition. 

Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. 

Scott, L.C. 1978. The Changing Structure of the Louisiana Economy: 1940–1976. Louisiana 

Business Review (September):2–7,13. 

Scott, L.C. 1981. The Louisiana Economy in the 1970s: A Decade of Growth and Internal Shifts. 

Louisiana Business Review (Spring):8–12. 

Seydlitz, R., S. Laska, V. Baxter, S. Brabant, C. Forsyth, R. Seydlitz, and R. Thayer. 1993. 

Development and Social Problems: The Impact of the offshore Oil Industry on Suicide 

and Homicide Rates. Rural Sociology 58(1):93–110. 

Seydlitz, R. and S.B. Laska, eds. 1994. Social and Economic Impacts of Petroleum “Boom and 

Bust” Cycles. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 94-0016. 

Shrimpton, M. and K. Storey. 2001. The Effects of Offshore Employment in the Petroleum 

Industry: A Cross-National Perspective. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Minerals Management Service. OCS Study MMS 2001-041. 

Smith, M.F. 2000. Report on the 1999 Minerals Management Service Social and Economic 

Studies Conference. Herndon, VA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Environmental Studies Program. 

Stein, M.R. 1964. The Eclipse of Community. New York, NY: Harper and Row. 
136 

Summers, G.F. and K. Branch. 1982. Human Responses to Energy Development. In Energy 

Resource Communities. G.F. Summers and A. Selvik, eds. Madison, WI: MJM 

Publishing for the Institute of Industrial Economics, pp. 23–59. 

Summers, G.F. and A. Selvik, eds. 1982. Energy Resource Communities. Madison, WI: MJM 

Publishing for the Institute of Industrial Economics. 

Tobin, L.A. 2001. Post-Displacement Employment in a Rural Community: Why Can’t Women 

and Oil Mix? Ph.D. dissertation. Baton Rouge, LA: Department of Sociology, Louisiana 

State University. 

Tolbert, C.M. 1995. Oil and Gas Development and Coastal Income Inequality: A Comparative 

Analysis. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 94-005. 

Tolbert, C.M. and J. Beggs. 2003. The Coastal Division of Industrial Labor Over Time and 

Space. Baylor University and Louisiana State University. 

Trillin, C. 1979. U.S. Journal: Morgan City, La. New Yorker (January 15):90–93. 

Vanclay, F. and D.A. Bronstein, eds. 1995. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. 

Chichester, England: John Wiley. 

Wade, W.W., J.R. Plater, and J.Q. Kelley. 1999. History of Coastal Alabama Natural Gas 

Exploration and Development: Final Report. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

99-0031. 

Wallace, B., J. Kirkley, T. McGuire, D. Austin, and D. Goldfield. 2001. Assessment of 

Historical, Social, and Economic Impacts of OCS Development on Gulf Coast 

Communities. Volume 2: Narrative Report. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2001-027. 

Wallace, B., J. Duberg, and J. Kirkley. 2003. Dynamics of the Oil and Gas Industry in the Gulf 

of Mexico: 1980–2000. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals 

Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 2003-004. 

Walsh, A.C. 1985. Effects of a Boom-Bust Economy: Women in the Oil Field. Free Inquiry 

13(2):133–136. 

Weber, B.A. and R.E. Howell, eds. 1982. Coping with Rapid Growth in Rural Communities. 

Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 
137 

 

Wilkinson, K.P., J.G. Thompson, R.R. Reynolds, Jr., and L.M. Ostresh. 1982. Local Social 

Disruption and Western Energy Development: A Critical Review (and Response). Pacific 

Sociological Review 25(3):275–296, 367–376. 

Williams, D.C. and K.B. Horn. 1979. Onshore Impacts of Offshore Oil: A User’s Guide to 

Assessment Methods. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean 

Survey, Office of Coastal Zone Management, U.S. Office of Policy Analysis. 

Wolf, C.P., ed. 1974. Social Impact Assessment. Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson, Dowden and 

Ross. 

Notes

1

 For information about the Gulf ESP, see: 

<http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/environ/studiesprogram.html> 

This site contains information on Gulf Region ongoing studies, completed studies from 1993 to the present, and the 

Annual Studies Plan. It also includes PDF files of all of the more recent study reports. 

2

 Environmental justice is the exception that proves the rule. It is a newer, more narrowly defined version of the 

original NEPA issue of who benefits and who is burdened. While the assessment of the general question of the 

distribution of benefits remains inconsistent, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 1994) federal agencies are 

required to identify any disproportionate, negative impacts of their activities on minority or low-income populations. 

Therefore, environmental justice now appears regularly as a separate category of effects. 

3

 The issue of boomtowns lies dormant in coastal Louisiana during the growth of the 1960s and into the 1970s. As 

offshore activity accelerated in the late 1970s, academics began to debate the usefulness of the classic SIA model in 

the Gulf. Gramling and Brabant (1986) argued that the local evolution of the offshore industry gave communities 

time to adjust and that concentrated work schedules and long commutes to work also mitigated demographic effects 

(cf. Gale 1986 for a rejoinder). Although published later, this academic exchange occurred prior to the oil price bust. 

In the bust’s immediate aftermath, many assessments of oil’s community-level socioeconomic impacts drew on this 

model (e.g., Brabant 1994; Freudenburg 1992; Gramling 1992; Laska 1993; Seydlitz et al. 1993, 1995). 

4

 The current trend in the oil-related, labor-intensive fabrication industry toward the importation of guest workers 

from Mexico and the Caribbean must be viewed similarly. While it was first stimulated by the mini-boom of the 

1990s, it is akin to similar trends in the meat packing and nursery industries and is not driven simply by a lack of 

local labor (Deseran and Tobin 2003; Donato 2004). 

5

 Both models assume a larger A generates larger effects at D. However, this relationship is ambiguous for the Gulf 

because of local variation in industry mix (c1, c2, ... cn) and in community consequences (d1, d2, ... dn). Thus, 

while the sum of c1, c2, ... cn equals C and the sum of d1, d2, ... dn equals D, the concentration of white-collar 

employment in Houston may mean little to the Gulf industry (B) or to Morgan City (d1), but much to the commuting 

suburb of Mandeville, Louisiana (d2). 

6

 For example, consider the always-sensitive issue of race and racism. To show racial discrimination in the oil 

industry in the 1920s, 1940s, or 1960s is not to prove an effect; rather, the demonstration supports the unsurprising 

conclusion that this industry reflects imperfections of the society from which it sprang. An “effect” would be a 

change in racial outcomes. There is some evidence from the 1940s (Jones and Parenton 1951; Brasseaux et al. 1994) 

and the 1990s (Gardner 2000; Tobin 2001) that job creation by the petroleum industry opened up opportunities for 

African Americans and other minorities in south Louisiana that did not exist in other rural areas of the state. While 

this effect seems likely and is predicted by labor-queuing theory, proving it is difficult in the mishmash of history. 
139 

APPENDIX D5 

THE CULTURAL CONTEXT OF OIL DEVELOPMENT IN CALIFORNIA’S 

COASTAL REGION: CONTRASTING COMMUNITY RESPONSES 

DURING THE EXUBERANT ERA 

MICHAEL R. ADAMSON1

Petroleum development in California’s coastal region, incorporating the counties of San Luis 

Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura (see Figure 4), occurred during two cultural eras that 

conditioned local perceptions of the oil industry and the socioeconomic changes that their 

activities produced. Cultural exuberance characterized the pre–1965 period of development.2

Thereafter, oil activity took place during an environmentalist era. Local responses to oil 

development occurred within these larger cultural contexts. Yet within these cultural eras, 

community responses differed, depending on their urban growth preferences. This paper presents 

an overview of the national cultural contexts within which coastal oil development occurred and 

illustrates how local responses differed during the period of cultural exuberance, using the cases 

of Santa Barbara and Ventura. In Santa Barbara, oil development was not a “fit” within a 

qualitative growth strategy. At the same time, Ventura pursued a quantitative growth strategy 

that welcomed oil development and its contributions to its economy and society, even as oil 

activity produced short-term social stresses during booms.3

The period before 1965, was a time of unprecedented cultural enthusiasm nationally for 

technology, technological transformation, and modern times. As Thomas P. Hughes has 

observed, during this period, “Americans created the modern technological nation,” and, he 

argues, “the century of technological enthusiasm [which he locates from 1870–1970] was the 

most characteristic and impressively achieving century in the nation’s history.” Technological 

advances that were cause for national celebration became embedded in systems that included 

machines, processes, transportation and communications networks, organizations, and people. 

The culture supported the building of systems that people understood as the foundation of 

modern life. Few observers imagined any limits on what might be achieved. This cultural 

exuberance peaked during the interwar period. In the wake of the dropping of the atomic bombs 

on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a countercultural movement that cast doubt on the perceived 

positive impacts of technological invention and improvement began to emerge. But it was only 

in the 1970s that this movement gained political traction and social momentum, spurred by such 

events as the Santa Barbara oil spill (Akin 1977; Hart 1998; Hughes 1989; Jordan 1994; Sarewitz 

1996). 

During the exuberant era, there were few legal restrictions on the development of oil resources in 

the coastal region, especially in onshore areas where most of the exploration and production 

occurred. (Most downstream activities occurred in Los Angeles or San Francisco, where 

operators shipped the crude oil and natural gas that they produced.) Where operators found oil 
onshore, they generally developed it to the maximum extent possible, given geological and 

market conditions, technological capacity, managerial expertise, and capital availability (see 

Figure 4: County oil and gas fields by group.

Source: California Division of Oil and Gas 1982. 

Figures 5 and 6). The tidelands and offshore stories are rather more complicated, involving 

disputes with the federal government, but prior to 1965, the state of California supported the 

orderly development of oil and gas reserves under its jurisdiction. In general, the location of 

reserves, technology, and market conditions determined the character and extent of local oil and 

gas exploration and production (Schmitt et al. 2003). 

By contrast, after 1965 oil activity in the coastal region took place during an environmental era 

when many people discounted the purported positive impacts of technological invention and

improvement, questioned the values of the technological society, and scrutinized its effects on 

the natural environment. Distrust of technology, and the institutions that deployed it, replaced the 

enthusiasm that had prevailed (Hughes 1989). The movement gained crucial political and social 

momentum, especially as it concerned local offshore oil development, after the 1969 Santa 

Barbara oil spill convinced many coastal residents that ocean, marine, and urban environments

were particularly vulnerable to oil development along the California coast. 

140 
-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

187619011905190919131917192119251929193319371941194519491953195719611965

Ye ar

Ventura

Santa Barbara

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

187619011905190919131917192119251929193319371941194519491953195719611965

Ye ar

Ventura

Santa Barbara

Figure 5: Crude Oil Production: Santa Barbara and Ventura Groups, 1876–1965. 

Sources: California Division of Mines and Mining 1927–1929; California Division of

Oil and Gas 1929–1966; California State Mining Bureau 1915–1927; Petroleum 

World 1925. 

Community anti-oil backlash to the Santa Barbara oil spill was immediate and sustained, as

civic, non-oil-related business, and citizens’ organizations called for new restrictions on offshore 

oil activity, or its termination. New regulations and moratoria on offshore activity raised costs, 

delayed development projects that were in process or in the proposal stage, and restricted 

available locations for new leasing. As a result, the level of offshore oil development in the Santa 

Barbara channel was much lower than industry executives and federal government officials 

predicted it would be during the 1960s (Schmitt et al. 2003; Lima 1994; Paulsen et al. 1996; 

Molotch and Freudenburg 1996; Nevarez et al. 1996; Gramling 1996; Sollen 1998). 

During the environmental era, onshore activity was increasingly regulated. However, the impact 

on actual production during this period was slight, since most development occurred on 

producing properties that were exempt from many regulations. Operators discovered no 

141 
-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

187619011905190919131917192119251929193319371941194519491953195719611965

Year

Millions o

f B

a

r

r

els p

e

r Y

ear

Santa Maria

Cuyama Valley

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

187619011905190919131917192119251929193319371941194519491953195719611965

Ye ar

Ventura

Santa Barbara

Figure 6: Crude Oil Production: Cuyama Valley and Santa Maria Groups, 1876–1965. 

Sources: California Division of Mines and Mining 1927–1929; California Division of

Oil and Gas 1929–1966; California State Mining Bureau 1915–1927; Petroleum 

World 1925. 

significant onshore fields in the coastal region after 1965 (Paulsen et al. 1998; Nevarez et al. 

1998; Richardson 1962). 

Dividing the period of oil activity into two sharply contrasting cultural eras that pre- and postdate 

1965 provides a framework for analysis. At the community level, however, perceptions of oil did 

not change overnight. Areas that developed significant amounts of oil during the exuberant era 

continued to view oil development favorably well into the environmental era. At the same time, 

communities that opposed oil development or experienced little oil activity during the exuberant

era opposed oil activity more vigorously during the environmental era. In other words, path 

dependency has been demonstrated as far as cultural attitudes are concerned, even as all coastal 

communities increased their opposition to oil over the past thirty years. 

142 
143 

Based on studies funded by the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region, three 

points may be made regarding the attitudes of coastal communities on the oil industry during the 

environmental era: (1) broader cultural attitudes supported community efforts to restrict oil 

activity, both offshore and onshore, (2) coastal communities increasingly adopted measures to 

slow or stop growth, switching from the pursuit of quantitative or qualitative growth strategies, 

and (3) regimes regulating oil evolved over a thirty-year period. Thus 1965 may be seen as a 

demarcation of cultural attitudes rather than as a marker for policy implementation. Perhaps what 

is notable about the environmental era is the convergence of local attitudes on oil, namely that 

coastal communities could do without it and that local polities should be proactive in obstructing 

petroleum exploration and extraction.

Contrasting Local Growth Strategies 

Venturans and Santa Barbarans differed in their opinions of oil activity in their communities 

even as both communities pursued urban growth. For Ventura oil was a “fit” within a perspective 

that viewed as progress quantitative growth spurred by industrial development. At the same time, 

Santa Barbarans sought to suppress oil development within their community because it did not 

“fit” within a qualitative growth strategy that valued historical preservation, small-town values, 

the coastal and marine environment, and an economy based on tourism, resort living, and “clean” 

or craft industry. At the same time, Santa Barbarans supported county oil development that did 

not impinge on urban areas. 

The classic boomtown model does not provide a fruitful framework for analyzing the 

development of coastal region communities with respect to petroleum extraction. Just as Roger 

and Diana Olien found in their study of five West Texas towns, technological improvements 

made resource depletion in the coastal region a gradual process (Olien and Olien 1982). 

Operators developed crude oil reserves in communities that sustained, and sustain, a robust 

agricultural sector. Economic growth and diversification occurred in conjunction with oil 

activity, particularly after 1945. The region did not “overadapt” to oil. By all accounts, oil—

where it was found in substantial commercial quantities—promoted economic growth and 

employment on an industrial, rather than extractive, model. Economic adaptation and 

diversification occurred long before the abandonment or severe curtailment of oil field 

operations. 

Substantial economic growth and diversification also took place independently of the oil 

industry. Given its location on the Pacific Ocean and its climate, the coastal region has 

historically attracted tourists and retirees, and, more recently, high-technology industries. A more 

or less permanent military and defense presence was established during World War II. The area 

also hosted (and hosts) significant institutions of higher learning. The seemingly inexorable 

expansion of Los Angeles linked much of Ventura county to its metropolitan area in the postWorld War II era at the same time that oil production subsided. Owing to economic 

diversification and the gradual decline of oil production, the central coast never suffered the 

busts associated with regions that have been far more dependent on oil and gas extraction. The 

coastal oil booms of the exuberant era were manageable, and produced positive economic 
144 

benefits in the major oil districts. As a result, the residents of towns and cities that owed much of 

their growth to oil activity perceived the industry in a positive light. 

Quantitative Growth: Ventura as a “Booming” Oil Town 

The city of Ventura experienced a number of oil booms, which cumulatively shaped its urban 

history on an industrial model that local residents viewed positively. Although it experienced a 

number of booms during the late nineteenth century, which established important land use 

precedents for the city’s urban development during the twentieth century, this section considers 

the impact of two booms, one during the late 1920s and the other in the early 1950s, which 

fueled the community’s quantitative growth strategy and established the dominant role of oil in 

the city’s economic and social life. 

During the exuberant era, Ventura “encouraged oil to the fullest extent,” as the editors of 

California Oil World (1930), a trade journal, observed. Residents embraced an industrial ideal 

based on disciplined work in oil and gas extraction. Contemporary observers recognized the 

short-term problems that accompanied the booms. Yet civic and business leaders, as well as 

residents, valued the economic and urban growth that the booms produced, and compared 

Ventura’s experiences favorably to those of Los Angeles’s suburbs.4

 

As of 1920 Ventura remained a small town of 4,156 people. In 1925, it became a veritable boom 

town with Associated Oil Company’s deep-drilling success in the Ventura Avenue field. 

Technological advances in drilling rigs and muds enabled operators to overcome the high gas 

pressures and difficult geological structures that had plagued them since the field’s discovery in 

1913. Promoters and investors from Los Angeles soon sought leases in the district. To their 

dismay they found that three major oil firms had leased most of the oil bearing lands, which were 

divided among large ranches. These firms brought in hundreds of workers to work their leases: 

450 workers as of February 1925 and 1,200 as of May 1926. Spurred by the relocation of oil 

workers and their families, Ventura’s population increased by 2,000 between February and 

September 1925 alone. Overall Ventura grew 25% in 1925 and another 27% in 1926. The 

depression ensured that by 1930 Ventura’s population had yet to reach the 25,000 mark predicted 

by Ralph B. Lloyd, a major leaseholder. Nevertheless, the city’s population nearly tripled, to 

11,603. Including unincorporated contiguous areas, Ventura’s population neared the 19,000 mark 

(Los Angeles Directory Co. 1929; Ventura County Star 1925c, 1926a, 1926b, 1926c, 1926d; 

Ventura Free Press 1925a; Wiker 1925). 

From 1925–30, Ventura experienced all of the social pressures traditionally associated with oil 

booms. Real estate prices increased rapidly, the volume of mail swamped the post office, the 

demand for electrical hook-ups doubled, and many newcomers could not find adequate housing 

(McPhee 1925; Ventura Free Press 1925c; Ventura County Star 1925a; Wiker 1925). The city 

tried to keep pace by putting bond issues to build infrastructure before the voters and letting 

construction contracts to private firms. As Figure 7 shows, building permits soared in response to 

residential and commercial demand. 
0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

1,750

2,000

2,250

2,500

19211922192319241925192619271928192919301931

Thousa

n

ds of Dollars

Figure 7: Building Permits Issued, City of Ventura, California, 1921–1931. 

Source: Ventura County Star 1926e, 1929, 1930, 1931.

Aware of the connotation of the term “boom town,” one reporter described Ventura as a 

“booming town” with scant evidence “of the forced, impermanent, uncivilized growth that was 

apparent in Santa Fe Springs [the gigantic Los Angeles field discovered in 1919] ... It is not the 

unhealthy growth of a forced hot-house plant, but rather the startling upspring of a well-tended 

plant which has found a new source of strength in a potent fertilizer” (McPhee 1925). Or, as

Associated Oil’s resident geologist in Ventura noted: “The growth of the city of Ventura has

been greatly augmented by oil field operations, and, unlike some of the southern [California]

cities, the work has gone along slowly but steadily and under conditions which have given a 

substantial foundation for the city’s growth” (Hertel 1924).

Most Venturans were pleased with the growth that the boom spurred. As one department store 

manager put it, many believed that the business expansion produced by oil development would 

constitute, “the very best kind” kind of growth—“conservative ... and probably permanent in its 

value,” rather than the “sky-rocket growth that will lead to a slump after a brief period of

artificial inflation.” The Ventura county district attorney observed: “The oil developments [had] 

come at a very opportune time for the city,” as they compensated for the local slump in 

agriculture, one of the U.S. economy’s “sick” industries of the period (Quoted in McPhee 1925). 

145 
146 

The 1920s oil boom began the transformation of Ventura into an industrial city—a source of 

pride for local residents. Oil activity spurred the creation of new industries, fueled urban growth 

and improvements in infrastructure, and resulted in an expansion of the city’s boundaries. The 

city’s business leaders self-consciously pursued a quantitative growth path that aimed to attract 

newcomers from southern California and elsewhere, sustaining high demand for housing, oil 

services, and commercial goods and services until the depression stopped the boom in its tracks 

(Ventura Free Press 1925b, 1925d; Ventura County Star 1925b, 1925d). Affordable housing 

along Ventura Avenue replaced the packing houses and farms that had previously occupied the 

land, and west Ventura, adjacent to the Avenue field, became a working-class neighborhood and 

center of a burgeoning oil service industry (Reith 1963). Elsewhere, developers and landowners 

divided the city into subdivisions and began building both single-family homes and apartment 

buildings. By the early 1930s frenetic building had combined with the breathing space that the 

depression provided to enable the city’s housing stock to alleviate the population pressures of the 

latter half of the 1920s. 

With the boom of the 1950s, spurred primarily by the tapping of deeper zones in existing fields, 

oil was the leading industry in Ventura and the largest factor shaping its urban development. 

Residents saw oil companies as key contributors to the city’s economic growth and cultural 

advancement—in a word, progress. Oil workers recognized that the durability of the Ventura 

district’s fields provided stable employment and a settled community (Paulsen et al. 1996). 

Direct and indirect oil sector employment made the industry a pervasive social and economic 

influence.5

 Taxes supported schools. (The assessed value of all Ventura county oil properties 

increased from $23.5 million in 1941 to $164.5 million in 1953, 55% of the county’s assessed 

valuation.) The major operators paid higher-than-average wages and sponsored numerous 

cultural and educational activities (Paulsen et al. 1996). 

A survey of 200 Ventura residents taken at the height of the postwar oil boom, in 1954, found no 

evidence suggesting that the city was experiencing any of the problems commonly associated 

with oil booms. More than half of the people surveyed had come to Ventura since 1936: more for 

business than any other reason. More than half of those surveyed indicated that they preferred 

Ventura to any other place, and fully 92% of the respondents intended to stay. The study 

concluded that the “average” Ventura resident was hard-working, earned a relatively high 

income, was secure economically and content emotionally, placed a high value on the lack of 

class distinctions among the city’s residents, and possessed outstanding community spirit. He or 

she also cited good schools and numerous parks and opportunities for recreation—all supported 

by oil money—as key amenities of city life (Reith 1963). 

Set in an increasingly urban and economically diversifying area, and sustained over a long period 

of time, oil development did not mean boom and bust for Ventura in the classic meaning of the 

terms. Thus the community’s residents viewed local oil activity, even during the booms, in 

positive terms. This was in keeping with national cultural values that equated industrial 

development and quantitative urban growth with progress. 

In Ventura rapid urban expansion created short-term problems in terms of public health and 

order, housing, education, and government. Yet oil development also offered economic 
147 

opportunities that compensated for these problems. Oil activity sustained economic development. 

Those who benefited from it appreciated the wealth-creating effects of oil. To be sure, there were 

periods of economic stagnation, but these were closely linked to conditions in the national 

economy, most notably during the depression of the 1930s. 

After 1965 urbanization and economic diversification diluted the importance of oil activity to the 

Ventura district. Increasingly it served as a “bedroom community” for Los Angeles and a home 

for high-technology and other “clean” businesses. Ventura county as a whole became 

increasingly professional and middle-class, with the service sector employing one-fourth of the 

labor force as of 1985. Oil declined in relative and absolute significance. Venturans began to 

assess ongoing oil activities from the environmentalist perspective, resulting in the adoption of 

an increasingly restrictive regulatory regime that governed oil activity within the county (Paulsen 

et al. 1996). 

Qualitative Growth: The Santa Barbara Exception 

During the exuberant era, Santa Barbara was unique among coastal communities in moving to 

restrict the development of oil within its urban setting. While most California cities pursued 

quantitative growth on an industrial model, Santa Barbara sought to grow qualitatively, in 

keeping with the desires of its well-heeled residents to conserve the natural environment that 

initially attracted them to this “American Nice.” Local civic and business leaders supported 

them, recognizing that the growth that they desired depended to a large extent on Santa Barbara’s 

beaches, mountains, and climate (Adamson 2004; Starr 1990). 

Santa Barbara’s attitude toward oil activity was decidedly of the “not-in-my-backward” variety. 

Local leaders and residents, many of whom were conservationist in outlook, objected to it for 

aesthetic and socioeconomic reasons. At the same time, many local leaders viewed oil activity 

elsewhere in Santa Barbara county in positive terms. 

Santa Barbarans self-consciously set their community apart from the Los Angeles model 

embraced by much of California. Santa Barbara was a “relaxed” community, where most 

residents were interested in arts, culture, leisure, and other activities beyond the “mere routine of 

making money.” It neither “welcomed change” nor followed other cities in “rush[ing] into quickmoney schemes and manufacturing plants that desolate the countryside with fumes and smoke.” 

It was “free from unpleasantly distracting and compelling financial ambitions and urges dictated 

by the transient intellectual fashions of the day.” Quantitative-growth minded Los Angeles, by 

contrast, was overcrowded and smoggy: the quintessential example of big city “hurry and 

scurry” and where “high-pressure and ulcers and cut-throat way[s] of doing business” were 

endemic (Santa Barbara News-Press 1949a; Walker 1949). Thus, Santa Barbarans agreed 

wholeheartedly with Charles Fletcher Lummis, local historian and author, who wrote in 1933 

that “the worst curse that could befall Santa Barbara would be the craze of GET BIG! Why big? 

Run down to Los Angeles for a few days—see that madhouse! You'd hate to live there!” (Quoted 

in Storke 1958: 286)6
148 

At the same time, leading citizens, such as newspaper publishers Reginald G. Fernald and 

Thomas More Storke, wanted the city to grow and develop in a progressive, non-industrial 

manner that was compatible with its natural setting. As a 1929 Santa Barbara Morning Press

editorial made clear, many of the city’s political and business leaders promoted the type of 

planned, qualitative growth that allowed for the development of the waterfront, parks, and a bird 

sanctuary, the construction of miles of paved streets, the extension of the water system, and 

large-scale home development. As an advertisement, which appeared in the Santa Barbara Daily 

News on March 15, 1930, proclaimed, boosters and business owners alike sought “a bigger and 

better Santa Barbara” in keeping with the city’s climate, scenic beauty, and other attractions. 

This approach can be seen in the efforts of the city’s Plans and Planting Committee to beautify 

Santa Barbara, which were closely linked to the efforts of real estate interests to develop posh 

Hope Ranch and the Riviera.7

Through his Santa Barbara News-Press, the area’s largest newspaper, Storke energetically 

promoted Santa Barbara as a place congenial to “smokeless,” small-scale, and decentralized 

manufacturing, scientific laboratories, craft-oriented enterprise, and college and university life. 

Such an economy would also support a broad expansion of the middle-class. Santa Barbara 

would grow qualitatively, yet “free of unwise crowding and smog and the other unpleasant byproducts of growth and wealth that are not well planned to harmonize with nature’s plans and 

offerings” (Storke 1958: 255–8, 269–70). For “the welfare of the area depend[ed] upon its beauty 

and attractiveness ... natural beauty is a natural resource, to be developed intelligently or lost” 

(Santa Barbara News-Press 1949e). 

Thus, during the 1940s, Storke and his newspaper campaigned relentlessly for the Cachuma 

Project, a water system that tapped the Santa Ynez River to provide a long-term solution to the 

city’s water needs. The News-Press billed Cachuma as “the city’s greatest business project,” 

instructing readers to think of water supplies in terms of attracting jobs, rather than simply in 

terms of keeping gardens green and flowers in bloom (Santa Barbara News-Press 1949b, 1949c). 

With the voter approval of the project in 1949, the News-Press proclaimed: “We are on our way 

again to a finer as well as a bigger Santa Barbara .... We have what we need for the kind of 

growth we want—beautiful homes, a beautiful land to live in, life worth living” (Santa Barbara 

News-Press 1949d). 

Until the 1970s Santa Barbara continued to develop in a manner in keeping with the qualitative 

growth model. Construction of the University of California campus began in 1955. Thereafter 

electronics, computer, and defense firms set up shop in the area. And, of course, Santa Barbara 

continued to distinguish itself as a premier tourist and resort location. 

During the exuberant era, Santa Barbara was not the no/slow-growth-oriented city that it became 

during the environmental era. Nevertheless, oil did not fit into the qualitative growth model laid 

out by Storke and supported by local political and business leaders. Santa Barbara’s exuberantera responses to local oil activity are best understood in the context of a qualitative growth, 

rather than modern ecological, perspective. Oil activity was potentially detrimental to Santa 

Barbara’s social, economic, and cultural environment. Santa Barbarans objected to it on these 

grounds. Though they had to tolerate drilling under the contemporary regulatory regime, they 
149 

sought to limit its extent even as their actions ultimately had little impact on actual oil production 

prior to 1965. 

If oil exploration and production occurred far enough away (that is, in rural Santa Barbara 

county), however, it was applauded for the taxes and jobs that it generated. Santa Barbara’s civic 

leaders, businessmen, and editors enthused about developments at Elwood, Goleta, and 

elsewhere along the south Santa Barbara coast. For example, the Santa Barbara Morning Press

opined that the promising Goleta oil field would be “a wonderful asset to Santa Barbara” if its 

output and duration met initial expectations. If the field proved to be “a good one,” there would 

be “much additional prosperity in store” for Santa Barbara. Moreover, the field had the 

advantage of not being “close to residential property or to a section of the seashore that is much 

used at present by the public” (Santa Barbara Morning Press 1928a ). Hugh Martin, a member of 

the Santa Barbara Lions Club, expressed the sentiments of many Santa Barbarans when he 

explained the discovery of the gigantic Elwood field in terms of giving the city the best of both 

worlds. It was “far enough away to avoid damaging our esthetic [sic] values,” yet it was “close 

enough to give this city full benefit of the large sums to be spent in [its] development. Every 

merchant and property owner of the city will benefit” (Quoted in Santa Barbara Morning Press 

1928b). For Martin, the economic benefits made oil drilling worth it, as long as he didn’t have 

see it. Possible damage to the coastal and marine environments was apparently not an issue 

(though, it should be noted, physical waste of crude oil was a major one). 

Conclusion 

Comparing local responses to oil activity during the exuberant era suggests that there is path 

dependency in community attitudes, even as national cultural values modify or reinforce 

previously held views. During the environmental era there has been convergence in opinion 

among coastal communities regarding oil development. Yet many of the oil-related activities that 

commenced prior to 1965 have continued. The greatest impact of environmental-era policy has 

been on new activity. Thus offshore activity has been much more restricted relative to onshore 

activity in terms of developing the reserves of the extractive region. 

References 

Adamson, M.R. 2004. The Makings of a Fine Prosperity: Thomas M. Storke, The Santa Barbara 

News-Press, and the Campaign to Approve the Cachuma Project. Journal of Urban 

History 30 (January):189–212. 

Akin, W.E. 1977. Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocrat Movement, 1900–

1941. Berkeley: University of California Press. 

Bertles, B. 1981. Oral history. Ventura County Historical Society, Ventura, CA. 3 April. 
150 

California Division of Mines and Mining. 1929–1929. Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas 

Supervisor. Vols. 13–14. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office. 

California Division of Oil and Gas. 1929–1966. Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas 

Supervisor. Vols. 15–51. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office. 

California Division of Oil and Gas. 1982. Oil and Gas Prospect Wells Drilled in California 

Through 1980. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office. 

California Oil World. 1930. Ventura Grows. 8 May. 

California State Mining Bureau. 1915–1927. Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor. 

Vols. 1–12. Sacramento, CA: State Printing Office. 

Gramling, R. 1996. Oil on the Edge: Offshore Development, Conflict, Gridlock. Albany: State 

University of New York Press. 

Hart, D.M. 1998. Forged Consensus: Science, Technology, and Economic Policy in the United 

States, 1921–1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Hertel, F.W. 1924. Ventura’s Submarine Pipe Line, The Record 5 (November):10–12. 

Hughes, T.P. 1989. American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm, 

1870–1970. New York: Viking. 

Jordan, J.M. 1994. Machine-Age Ideology: Social Engineering and American Liberalism, 1911–

1939. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 

Lima, J.T. 1994. The Politics of Offshore Energy Development. Ph.D. dissertation. Department 

of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara. 

Los Angeles Directory Co. 1929. Ventura County Directory, 1930. Los Angeles, CA: Los 

Angeles Directory Co. 

McPhee, D.G. 1925. Solution of Deep Drilling Problem in the ‘Avenue Field’ Rejuvenates a 

Pioneer Oil District. Petroleum World (April):33, 96. 

Miranda, R. and D. Rosdil. 1995. From Boosterism to Qualitative Growth: Classifying Economic 

Development Strategies. Urban Affairs Review 30 (July):868–879. 

Molotch, H. and W.R. Freudenburg. 1996. Santa Barbara County: Two Paths. Camarillo, CA: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 

OCS Study MMS 96-0036. 
151 

Nevarez, L., H. Molotch, and W.R. Freudenburg. 1996. San Luis Obispo County: A Major 

Switching. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 96-0037. 

Nevarez, L., H. Molotch, P. Shapiro, and R. Bergstrom. 1998. Petroleum Extraction in Santa 

Barbara County, California: An Industrial History. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 98-

0048. 

Olien, R.W. and D.D. Olien. 1982. Oil Booms: Social Change in Five Texas Towns. Lincoln: 

University of Nebraska Press. 

Paulsen, K., H. Molotch, and W.R. Freudenburg. 1996. Ventura County: Oil, Fruit, Commune, 

and Commute. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management 

Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 96-0035. 

Paulsen, K., H. Molotch, P. Shapiro, and R. Bergstrom. 1998. Petroleum Extraction in Ventura 

County, California: An Industrial History. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 98-0047. 

Petroleum World. 1925. Crude Oil Production in California from the Industry’s Inception to 

January 1, 1925. (January):70–71. 

Reith, G.L. 1963. Ventura: Life Story of a City. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Geography, 

Clark University, Worchester, MA. 

Richardson, R.L. 1962. California Oil’s Past, Present, and Future: Coastal District. Paper 

presented at the Annual California Regional Meeting of the Society of Petroleum 

Engineers, Bakersfield, CA (November). 

Santa Barbara Morning Press. 1928a. Goleta’s Oil Field. 28 July. 

Santa Barbara Morning Press. 1928b. Refuse $15,000,000 Goleta Lease. 9 August. 

Santa Barbara News-Press. 1949a. An Industry and Activities That Will Add to More Than One 

Kind of Income. 22 February. 

Santa Barbara News-Press. 1949b. This City’s Greatest Business Project. 18 May. 

Santa Barbara News-Press. 1949c. Water Means Business and Wages as Well and Flowers and 

Trees. 2 August. 

Santa Barbara News-Press. 1949d. We Have Voted Ourselves the Makings of a Great and a Fine 

Prosperity. 23 November. 
152 

Santa Barbara News-Press. 1949e. Planning Has Been Made More Important by Assurance of 

Water Supply and Growth. 24 November. 

Sarewitz, D. 1996. Frontiers of Illusion: Science, Technology, and the Politics of Progress. 

Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. 

Schmitt, R.J., J.E. Dugan, and M.R. Adamson. 2003. Industrial Activity and Its Socioeconomic 

Impacts: Oil and Three Coastal California Counties. Camarillo, CA: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study MMS 

2002-049. 

Sollen, R. 1998. An Ocean of Oil. Juneau, AK: Denali Press. 

Starr, K. 1990. Material Dreams: Southern California Through the 1920s. New York: Oxford 

University Press. 

Storke, T.M. (in collaboration with W.A. Tompkins). 1958. California Editor. Los Angeles: 

Westernlore Press. 

Ventura County Star. 1925a. Our Greatest Need Today. 13 July. 

Ventura County Star. 1925b. More Business. 14 August. 

Ventura County Star. 1925c. City Grows 25 Pct. in Year. 31 December. 

Ventura County Star. 1925d. Ventura, 1926! 31 December. 

Ventura County Star. 1926a. 1926 Will See Record Set for Ventura Oil Development—Lloyd. 

26 March. 

Ventura County Star. 1926b. Years More of Drilling, Says Lloyd. 29 March. 

Ventura County Star. 1926c. Realty Men Tell of This City’s Great Opportunity. 2 April. 

Ventura County Star. 1926d. Phenomenal Progress Made in All Lines, Figures Show. 31 

December. 

Ventura County Star. 1926e. The Record for 6 Years. 31 December. 

Ventura County Star. 1929. Ventura Shows Large Growth During 1929. 31 December. 

Ventura County Star. 1930. Here’s How Ventura Developed in 1930. 31 December. 

Ventura County Star. 1931. Figures Show Bright Spots in 1931s Record. 31 December. 
153 

 

Ventura Free Press. 1925a. Industries of Ventura Have Pay Rolls Running into Thousands 

Monthly. 21 January. 

Ventura Free Press. 1925b. Here’s Way to Aid Ventura to Grow. 10 February. 

Ventura Free Press. 1925c. Derth [sic] of Housing Service Now Drives Many to Camp. 11 June. 

Ventura Free Press. 1925d. Campaign to Sell Ventura Approved. 23 June. 

Viehe, F.W. 1981. Black Gold Suburbs: The Influence of the Extractive Industry on the 

Suburbanization of Los Angeles, 1890–1930. Journal of Urban History 8 (November):3–

26. 

Walker, H.L. 1949. Santa Barbara as a Place to Live and Work. Santa Barbara News-Press. 31 

August. 

Wiker, E.E. 1925. Business Fine in Ventura; Oil Wells, Building Cause Activity. Ventura 

County Star. 10 September. 

Notes 

1

 Not to be quoted without the permission of the author. 

2

 The coastal region of one of California’s three major oil producing regions. With the development of the San Ardo 

field after World War II, it also included Monterey county. The other two extractive regions were the Los Angeles 

basin (Los Angeles and Orange counties) and the San Joaquin valley (Fresno, Kern, and Kings counties). 

3 The terms “qualitative growth” and “quantitative growth” may be found in the taxonomy of Miranda and Rosdil 

(1995). The authors’ taxonomy includes quantitative, qualitative, historical preservation, environmentally harmful, 

and redistributive growth. 

4 On the petroleum-based industrial ideal, see Viehe (1981). 

5

 According to the 1960 California Statistical Abstract, 2,800 oil, gas, and mineral extraction workers resided in 

Ventura County. At the time of the region’s only major strike in the petroleum industry of the twentieth century, in 

1948, some 1,500 workers belonged to local 120 of the Oil Workers Union (Bertles 1981). 

6 In the early 1900s, Lummis promoted Hispanic imagery as the best development metaphor for Los Angeles. The 

rapid pace of the latter’s growth prompted him to relocate to Santa Barbara. His Stand Fast, Santa Barbara!, which 

the Santa Barbara Morning Press published in 1922, was reprinted in pamphlet form and widely distributed locally 

(Starr 1990). 

7 My thanks to W. Elliot Brownlee for this point. 
The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Minerals Management Service Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Minerals Management Service's (MMS) 

primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located on the Nation's Outer 

Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore Federal and Indian 

lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The MMS Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The MMS strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending MMS assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.