Schwarzenegger criticized for stand on offshore oil drilling

The State Lands Commission lashed out today at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's attempt to reverse its rejection of the first new oil drilling in California waters since 1969.

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, the three-member panel's chair, called the governor's proposal "a naked power-grab." At a contentious hearing in Santa Monica, the commission passed a resolution urging legislators not to go along with Schwarzenegger's plan, which would revive a drilling project off the Santa Barbara County coast that the commission killed in January.

At issue is a complex arrangement crafted by Plains Exploration & Production, a Texas oil company, and a coalition of Santa Barbara environmental groups. Under that deal, Plains would have drilled into state waters from a platform it owns in federal waters, just beyond the three-mile limit. In return, the company would have agreed to shut down that platform and three others by 2022, as well as donate 4,000 acres of land for public use.

Even the environmentalists who supported the deal criticized the governor, who wants legislative approval allowing his finance director to override the commission's decision and approve the project.

Linda Krop, an attorney for the Environmental Defense Center, told the panel her group has "grave concerns'' about the precedent that could be set in bypassing the board charged with making decisions about offshore drilling and other sensitive environmental issues.

Garamendi and state Controller John Chiang voted in favor of the resolution opposing Schwarzenegger.

The third commissioner, Tom Sheehy, deputy director of the state's finance department, left the hearing abruptly after receiving news that his father-in-law had just died in a traffic accident. Sheehy had argued against the resolution, saying the drilling could bring $2 billion to the state in oil royalties.

-- Steve Chawkins

Comments

[WestHoustonGeo]

Here is the current situation in California:
Your many refineries are 60% supplied by oil in tanker ships from Alaska (20%) and overseas (40%). An average of one tanker per day passes under the Golden Gate.
That oil brings no jobs, no royalties, no tax revenues, no lease fees.
Tankers are more likely to spill than pipelines.

The situation as it might have been: Oil through pipelines from offshore wells with the infrastructure mostly underwater, direclty to the refineries. Exploration drilling and production providing, oh say 100 thousand jos.

Billions in tax revenue, royalties and fees. Far less chance of a spill. Also, reduce natural seepage of those tar balls that airheads blame on oil operations.
Last but not least a vastly improved fishery due to the artificial reef value of the infrastructure.
Now, call me an industry shill and go on down the road to poverty.

And when it comes time to leave the state to look for work, don't come here. We have offshore drilling and you wouldn't like that.

[john Rettie]

I agree with WestHoustonGeo. Let's clean up the environment by allowing off-shore drilling and at the same time improve the state finances. Oh, by the way, I live in Santa Barbara.

[Dude]

WestHoustonGeo could not have put it better. Pedro Nava and the other anti-oil idiots of California really seem to know nothing about offshore drilling, and constantly refer to the 1969 spill. As terrible as it was, we got over it, and there are so many regulations and safety precautions and new technology now with oil drilling that many ill knowledged demis overlook. It will create jobs and revenue that this state BADLY needs. And they deny that because of an event that happened 40 years ago.

While I agree there needs to be strict regulations on oil drilling, I support Arnold's stance on offshore drilling. It should end when we have alternative means of energy, not before.

[bob]

Why would we put energy and resources in such an outdated technology and process that hasn't been utilized in this region since 1969? This would be a lazy, quick buck for oil company execs at the expense of our environment, state taxpayers and pushing our energy innovation back to the 60's. As hard as it may be we need to work towards more progressive, innovative, cleaner solutions. No matter what anybody says off shore oil is horrible for the fish/ecosystem, the environment, and a liability to the taxpayers. We are already losing momentum in this area to other countries. Let's put our efforts towards something that will benefit us in the future for everyone.

[Dude]

Bob, I don't really think you know what you're talking about when it comes to fish and eco system. As funny as it may sound, offshore platforms actually DO HELP the underwater eco system, because they provide a place for marine mammals and fish to hid. Check out the reports of some of the retired abandoned platforms off the coast of Louisiana....studies there have shown that the man made structures have increased marine life in that area by much more than previous to building, because it gave fish a place to dwell.

And by the way, technology in today's oil industry is SO much better than it used to be, along with all then new regulations and safety checks. Off Santa Barbara there is even an entire organization dedicated to oil clean up. Clean Seas provides instant response if there is to be an oil spill, and they are known to clean up spills before they even reach the beach.

[arizona car insurance]

Occidental just discovered a big oil field in California. It's there if our politicians will simply allow for it.