Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s bid to resurrect a defeated plan to authorize a new lease for oil drilling off the Santa Barbara County coast caught environmentalists by surprise, and suddenly reignited a family feud that had finally cooled.
“This hit us out of the blue,” said Linda Krop, chief counsel for the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), who stands squarely in the middle of the dispute. “Things are changing by the minute.”
Paul Wellman (file)
Pedro Nava
Last week, faced with a looming budget deficit of more than $20 billion — $553 worth of red ink for every man, woman, and child in California — the governor set forth an ugly agenda for fixing the mess. Included in the long list of cuts, cuts, and cuts was a lonely proposal to raise revenue — $1.8 billion during the next 14 years — by resurrecting the Tranquillon Ridge offshore oil project, which was turned down by the State Lands Commission last January.
That deal, negotiated between the EDC and the Houston-based PXP Energy Company, involved a novel swap to give both sides some of what they wanted: PXP, already drilling in federal waters off the coast near Vandenberg Air Force Base, would gain additional drilling rights in nearby state waters until 2022; in exchange, they agreed to permanently shut down four existing platforms that year, along with a batch of other pro-environment concessions.
“You cannot get away from the fact that it’s still the first new offshore lease in California since the [1969] oil spill,” he said in an interview from the Assembly floor. “It doesn’t matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.” — Pedro Nava
The agreement split environmentalists, as the EDC and its many allies argued that trading expanded drilling in the short term for the long-term benefits of permanent platform shutdowns was worth it. Veteran coastal advocate Susan Jordan, who joined her husband/Assemblymember Pedro Nava and a handful of other environmentalists, disputed that there were no ironclad guarantees about shutdowns and that, in any case, agreeing to more drilling in Santa Barbara sent a terrible political message that could only encourage efforts to drill off California.
The governor and his advisers failed to check in with local environmental backers of the project before going public, which left the EDC in an awkward position, scrambling to learn details of exactly what was being proposed. On Friday morning, Krop told the Associated Press she was strongly against the plan; when I talked to EDC’s Executive Director David Landecker a few hours later, he sounded much more open to it. By Monday, though, EDC was back to leaning strongly against the governor.
“We’re definitely hearing a whole lot more concern about this process,” Krop said, after a weekend taking the temperature of the enviro community. “We [want] to make sure that whatever process unfolds is fair, and respectful of the various agencies and jurisdictions.”
As a political matter, Schwarzenegger’s surprise move raises two key, separate but related questions:
• On the merits: Should the substance of the original PXP deal be pursued politically, in an effort to overcome the State Lands Commission’s vote against it?
• On process: Is Schwarzenegger’s proposal, essentially to end-run the State Lands Commission vote through a legislative budget trailer bill, proper?
At press time, a consensus among environmentalists seemed to be coalescing in opposition to Arnold’s proposal; opinions remain polarized about the PXP deal itself, however. The dynamic is clear in the Jordan/Das Williams Democratic primary race for Nava’s soon-to-be-vacant seat. Williams got in, earlier backing Jordan, for the stated reason that she opposed EDC’s deal.
Williams said he “stands with EDC” in looking for alternative ways to breathe new life into the agreement with PXP, and to address environmental concerns raised by Lands Commission staff. But he added, “It’s not right to sidestep the process just because [the commission vote] didn’t go our way.”
“My gut feeling is [Schwarzenegger’s plan] is the right thing obtained the wrong way,” he said.
Jordan remained adamantly against the whole deal, arguing that “the production shutdown dates in the confidential PXP deal were not enforceable” and that PXP’s promise to donate 3,500 acres of onshore property is also shaky.
“At a time when California, and local and statewide environmental groups are asking the federal government not to allow new drilling off its coast in federal waters,” she said, “the kind of dramatic shift in state policy that PXP represents needs to be debated thoroughly at the highest levels, to follow California’s existing laws — not be rammed through in the dead of night in a budget trailer bill.”
Nava, a leader of the Legislature’s Coastal Caucus, was less subtle. “You cannot get away from the fact that it’s still the first new offshore lease in California since the [1969] oil spill,” he said in an interview from the Assembly floor. “It doesn’t matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.”
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Jordan and Nava are correct here. The State of California, through the State Lands Commission, has found the PXP deal is an illusory sham that cannot be enforced. In fact, PXP is not even sole owner over the facilities they 'promise' to abandon, and does not have the legal authority to bind separate ownership interests or the federal government with respect to end dates and/or abandoning facilities.
What Arnold Schwarzenegger and his supporters propose-- be it Das Williams or a waffling EDC, is a wholesale evisceration of California's coastal environmental protection laws in favor of backroom deals between Arnold and his campaign donors. FORGET IT.
Every legitimate environmental organization in California now opposes this budget play for new offshore oil drilling. There is no middle ground: either you support the rule of law, or you support Arnold. Similarly, if you support Arnold you support offshore oil drilling. This confusion over 'allowing new offshore drilling in order to stop offshore oil drilling' should be terminated. If you're against offshore oil drilling you oppose PXP. Period.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Rather than declare which side is "correct," why not reopen this subject with an improved process for local input into the issue? All environmentalists are basically united in protecting Mother Earth. A more-or-less unified local viewpoint on the question will coalesce when there is a process that all concerned can voice their opinion on, in a meaningful way.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 1 of 1
JoaquinMurrieta (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Joaquin: Not sure what you're getting at. Why 're-open' anything? The matter has already been deliberated by State Lands Commission and found wanting. Now perhaps if it were to be resubmitted for new review as a different project.... but reopening the same old inadequate project isn't a productive use of taxpayers time or money.
And while we're at it, why should 'local input' be the goal? The matter is one of vital statewide interest. If you haven't noticed, offshore oil drilling is being proposed for waters off La Jolla to Mendocino. Those folks are VERY concerned that any deal cut by 'locals' in Santa Barbara will subject them to similar undermining of environmental protection efforts statewide. Instead of 'coalescing' around local view, why not try to appreciate that Santa Barbara isn't in this alone and that once 'environmentalists' embrace offshore oil drilling the pendulum has swung and the battle is lost. Simply put, what are folks in Humboldt to say when oil company XYZ says 'our plan is greener than PXP's plan' ?
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 1 of 1 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 1
4Oceans (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it is time that we all realize that we are dealing with an oil company here whose tactics are increasingly reprehensible.
Many in the local community don't know this, but this is not the first time PXP has tried an end run around the State Lands Commission's legal jurisdiction over this project.
PXP tried to pull this budget play back in January BEFORE the State Lands Commission hearing was held. Local enviros were unaware that PXP was in the Governor's office asking him to put the proposal in the January budget and bypass State Lands review completely. PXP failed and then lost at State Lands on the grounds that the end dates were unenforceable, the agreements were confidential and the titles to some of the onshore parcels questionable.
PXP always had, and still has, the option to bring the project back and attempt to address SLC's concerns. Instead PXP chose to go behind the local enviros backs AGAIN and get the Governor to push the project through in the budget process. This time they were successful. Our only hope is to get the Legislature to reject this ill-conceived effort.
This oil company wants to do an end run on our environmental laws. They care about profits and landing the plum of the first oil lease in CA state waters in 40 years. Their stock is in the toilet and Soros is increasing his stake in the company. There is alot more to this than meets the eye and we should all be cautious. http://www.theflyonthewall.com/permalink...
I think it would be best if everyone stepped back and took a fresh look at the situation. The environmental groups who have supported the proposal are well meaning, hard working groups who want to end offshore oil drilling. The environmental groups who are concerned about the lack of enforceability, confidentiality, and precedent for new leasing and drilling off the CA coast are also also well-meaning, hard working groups who want to end offshore oil drilling.
I think its time that we all join together and start to question the tactics of an oil company that is deliberately misrepresenting this project to state legislators and the public and is willing to gut state law in order to get their project approved whether it meets the legal test or not. And, in this case, the California Attorney General has said it does not.
We should all object to these tactics and stand up for the laws we rely on to protect our environment and our coast. Gut the law for one, and all others will rush in behind them.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
OurCoast (anonymous profile)
May 21, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Once again I will point out that by importing 2/3 of its oil needs, California is exporting environmental issues to other locations, contributing heavily to the purchase of foreign oil by the U.S., and forgoing badly needed state revenue. The no-drill position is typical of the NIMBY attitude of many Californians, esp those involved in the environmental movement. Instead of living 40 years in the past, why not take an objective look at the technology and safety of current drilling techniques (BTW, even then-current safety techniques (blowout protectors) were not used on the CA rigs in the 1960's - why? incompetent government regulation, that's why). Venco is a terrible example of modern drilling technology and should not be used as a role model - they should be closed down. But times have changed, NIMBYs. After all, we have color TV, fax machine, PCs, cellphones, iPods, and all sorts of other amazing technological advances. Why is it so difficult to believe that drilling can be done safely? Check out the record in the Gulf of Mexico. And join the 21st century.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
JohnLocke (anonymous profile)
May 23, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is ofter more difficult and takes more guts to support something that seems counter to ones basic ethics and philosophy.Thus it was the EDC, GOO, CPA, GCC, Surfrider and other local environmental groups supported the PXP Tranquillon Ridge project. It was a bold, somewhat risky attempt to resolve complicated issues. Some smart folks opined that the contract was realistic and enforceable, others felt it was not. In addition the opponents felt it would risk setting a bad precedent and that in order to be consistent environmentalists should oppose it. However as Ralph Waldo Emerson said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." PXP may or may not be the devil( I assume they are just as evil as all other oil companies) and I'm sure they are motivated by pure greed. However, there are actually times when one has to fight fire with fire and I think this is one of them. The Gubernators proposal is bad and I oppose it but getting State Lands Commission to reconsider the merits through due process is an admirable goal.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
May 25, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment