- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Lands Commission Denies Governor’s Plan to Drill off Santa Barbara Coast
California’s deficit of billions of dollars was not enough to convince members of the State Lands Commission Monday to overturn their January decision to ban drilling off the Santa Barbara County coastline.
The commission met in Santa Monica’s city council chambers at the prompting of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and State Director of Finance Mike Genest, who had included the possibility of drilling at Tranquillon Ridge in his May budget revision despite the panel’s January decision.
Drilling proponents contend that the state could gain $2 billion over the course of a decade, but on Monday, even groups who initially supported the project expressed reservation at what some perceived to be an “end run” around the independent commission’s authority.
In January, the commission voted 2-1 to deny the drilling in controversial decisions that divided many in the environmental community. That decision involved negotiations between Environmental Defense Center and the Texas oil company, Plains Exploration Petroleum.
The two agreed that PXP would be allowed to drill at Platform Irene, located off Vandenberg Air Force Base, where the platform sits in federal waters.
As a condition of the drilling, however, PXP would have to cease work at Irene in 2022, as well as at three other platforms, and pump $2 billion in royalties into state coffers.
The drilling issue came back to the table when the governor issued his revised budget 10 days ago.
After Monday’s vote, Assemblyman Pedro Nava (D-Santa Barbara), applauded the commission’s opposition to the governor’s offshore drilling plan.
“The California State Lands Commission did the right thing today by passing a resolution calling for rejection of the Governor’s proposal,” Nava said. “We must not reverse hard fought environmental protections which have long protected our coast.”
Tom Sheehy, California’s deputy director of finance, serves on the commission as an alternate for the state’s director of finance. Sheehy supported the project in January, and on Monday, he read a letter from the director of finance, which talked about some of the criteria involved in the request.
“For a limited time period, during an unprecedented fiscal crisis, authority would be restored to the director of finance to reconsider certain lease applications and determine whether those leases would be in the best interest of the state,” Sheehy read.
The lease application must have been filed on or after Jan. 1, 2004, oil and gas deposits must also be subject to ongoing drainage by wells located in adjacent federal fields and eligibility would be limited to leases that have existing infrastructure to pump and transport the gas.
In addition, the lease term could be no longer than 15 years in duration.
Even if all the criteria are met, Sheehy said, the director of finance could only come to such a decision after one or more public hearings are held, and would need to determine that the plan was in the state’s best interest.
It would also maintain the moratorium on building additional drilling platforms in state waters, while at the same time giving the state access to the resources, he said.
The agreement would have a sunset date of January 2011, “at which point, the current fiscal crisis would have hopefully passed,” he said.
After Sheehy finished the letter, he was immediately challenged by Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi. “Why is the governor doing this?” he asked.
If the proposal didn’t go through, Sheehy responded, the infrastructure would “sit there for decades and decades.”
Numerous citizens, elected officials and environmental groups all support the project, he said, and held up a stack of papers, which he said represented 76 pages of comments of project supporters from the January meeting. Only 11 people spoke in opposition of the plan, none of whom, he said, were residents of Santa Barbara County.
Garamendi disagreed. “Never before has this commission’s decision on an oil lease been overridden, or proposed to be overridden by the governor,” he said.
The criteria don’t explain any benefits to the environment, he said, and “what we have here is a naked end run around the authority of the commission for the first time since the authority was removed from the director of the department of finance because of fraud and abuse.”
Midway through Monday’s meeting, Sheehy received a message that his father-in-law had been killed in an automobile accident, and left the meeting to tend to family business. The commission voted 2-0 at the end of the meeting, rejecting the request to overturn their decision with Sheehy absent.
During public testimony, Susan Jordan, director of California Coastal Protection Network, took issue with Sheehy’s statements about groups that had supported the measure in January. Jordan held up her own stack of papers, which she said were from 35 environmental groups expressing concern with the project. Groups initially supporting the project’s concept, she said, have since expressed concern with the action taken by Gov. Schwarzenegger.
“If I sound upset, it’s because I am. I have never seen such a blatant power grab,” she said.
“If this project is going to go forward, it needs to come back before the commission,” Jordan said. The legal steps to enforce that PXP will stop drilling by a given date also need to addressed and resolved, Jordan said.
Linda Krop of the Environmental Defense Center, which has represented the groups Get Oil Out and the Citizens Planning Association in the PXP discussions, also said she supported the commission’s independence.
Joe Geever, California policy coordinator for Surfrider, said his group opposes the governor’s moves toward overriding the panel’s actions.
“We’re not here to defend all your decisions, we’re here to defend your authority and process,” he said, noting that Surfrider would also like to see issues of enforceability resolved.
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 06.01.09 @ 05:32 PM
Two people get to decide on the economic vitality of our State? Talk about power grab! At least the governor is elected! This is B.S. - the coastal commission, EDC, and Nava all need to Goo! Surfrider needs to worry about Floatopia a real hazard to the beach (throughout which they were silent), and stop opposing drilling to ease the seepage that tars their feet..
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.01.09 @ 05:35 PM
California one of the largest users of energy, imports half it’s oil and too selfish to provide any.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.01.09 @ 08:30 PM
Am I seeing a trend here? Ya think we should drill for some of our own oil—and create jobs while we’re at it?!? DAMN RIGHT WE SHOULD.
No accidents in 40 years… and we’re still wanking about 1969? GET OVER IT or GET OUT OF YOUR SUVS! Selfish & short-sighted = stupid.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 01:20 AM
I never cease to be amazed at the absolute and complete absurdity of the majority of our elected officials. The oil is there - USE IT! It leaks out of the earth naturally anyway, so pump it and put it to good use. Drill here, drill now!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 03:21 AM
If you like offshore drilling up and down the coastline, then move to Texas. Yes there are hundreds of “minor” oil spills and accidents each year. Please check your facts. I think California can be the world leader in alternative energy solutions and not follow the “drill baby dril. We have been the leader in technology and the environment for decades. We have extensive R and D capacity through our universities, businesses and military. Let us move well into the 21st century. Not only will it create more reusable energy here, it will help the U.S. become energy independent for the long term future. Best of all we will be able to sell our advanced alternative technology all over the world for substantially more revenue and tax dollars to the state well beyond offshore oil drilling.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 04:40 AM
To quote you: “We have been the leader in technology and the environment for decades.” Absolutely! So why are we ignoring the fact that drilling and containment technology has drastically improved since 1969? The technology to prevent a blowout like in 1969 was there but not implemented. It was a mistake that we learned from in big way, why not put our learning to good use and stop acting like we are living in the caveman days?
If we use slant drilling and existing platforms we will NOT look like Texas anymore than we do now. The minor spills if they even happen, are nothing compared to the already occurring natural seepage. So be reasonable and don’t be so blindly ignorant! People are suffering because of this blind close minded unreasonable uncompromising environmentalism.
Nobody is saying to stop developing PRACTICAL alternative energy, but until we are there let’s use what we have! Most rushes to alternate energy are not well thought out anyway, they are just rushes!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 08:56 AM
The person who responded to move to Texas is either an employee of an oil company, an oil service company or a PR firm or an organization pushing offshore drilling?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 08:58 AM
I don’t believe it matters what CSLC does. Schwarzenegger is going to go to the state legislature and attempt to pass legislation approving the project, and maybe a couple of other offshore projects.
Now let’s get a couple of things straight:
- I support offshore oil development.
- The Tranquillon Ridge project will not close down
any oil platforms or facilities. Platform Irene is
located in federal waters and cannot be closed down
without federal approval.
- The county government removed the condition
requiring the closure of Platform Irene and
supporting onshore facilities. That condition,
which was condition A-6, was removed by county
staff after they concluded that only the federal
government had the power to close Platform Irene.
- Approval of the Tranquillon Ridge project will lead
to increased offshore oil development in both state
and federal waters (which is fine with me).
As much as I support the T-Ridge project, as much as I would like to do business with PXP I believe it is important to tell the truth about what this project will and will not do. It is my opinion that the people of the State of California, who own the oil, will support this and other offshore oil projects without being lied to about nonexistent conditions of approval.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 11:14 AM
I recommend you do some more research into our energy needs and the practicality of so called “green energy.” Moving into the future we will NEED both “green” technology as well as continued development of our local resources. NIMBY attitudes like “Move to Texas” do nothing to help with our energy and budget woes. Billions of barrels sit off our coast while our state sinks further into debt. Blowhard politicians like Nava spew there so called “environmentalism” in order to further their own selfish agenda while screwing the taxpayers. Drilling can continue and expand off our coast without the need for further platforms, but uneducated NIMBYs like yourself continue to spew misinformation about the reality and costs of “green” energy and the dangers of oil. While I too would love to end our oil addiction, in all reality it’s going to take a while and casting oil as the devil is just plain stupid.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 12:49 PM
I am an engineer for a medical company. As amazing as it may seem, there are people who love the environment and the ocean and sealife but also love economic vitality who have no vested interest in oil companies but appreciate the benefits that they bring - one being much needed energy, and two being much needed revenue! Get your green heads out of the sand. If it is safe do it. Just because it is oil does not automatically make it bad. That is simple minded thinking. Alternative energy also has it’s environmental impacts and will do nothing in the short term to help us out of this crisis.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 01:33 PM
While i rarely agree with T Becker I do with his comment here. The end dates for Federal platforms will and cannot be enforced by EDC or anyone else. If the people of California want to end the extraction moratorium then fine. But let the facts be clear. Yes, offshore oil drilling and extraction is far safer than it was in 1969. But is our generation right in using all the oil we can, both locally and world wide for ourselves? What about our children and theirs? Can California live within it’s sustainable resources? Is the car economy sustainable? Or does mister Becker want us to believe that oil is a product of the Earths core and will always be there and that Global C02 Climate Change is an illusion? If you have offspring you better pay attention.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 03:09 PM
I’m actually seeing some “sense” here—NOW—will our “officials” read the blogs and HEAR US? YO - Move to Texas - YOU MOVE, you schlub. I highly doubt you can claim the longevity I can… and I highly doubt you were on the beach in 1969. I was. And it hasn’t happened since. And no, I don’t work in the oil industry, but I drive a car. I don’t do PR for the oil industry, but… I drive a car. Oh, yeah, I do support alternative energy development. But in the meantime… I drive a car.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 06.02.09 @ 05:54 PM
“But is our generation right in using all the oil we can, both locally and world wide for ourselves? What about our children and theirs?”
What choice do we have? We are truly oil dependent until such time as there is a practical alternative. It will take oil to get there, by then our children and theirs will have alternative according to the greenies. So are we supposed to put civilization on hold until then? The greenies want us to stop oil now, so how does that help our children and theirs? Stop oil now so our children can use it later? That makes no sense.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Big-Rig Driver Killed in Highway 101 Crash Was Under the Influence of Meth, Officials Say
The tractor-trailer struck a sedan, trapping a woman and her young daughters inside the vehicle as it dangled over a bridge railing
Santa Barbara Officials Concerned About Fate of Saved Funds for Projects as RDA Dissolves
Once formed, an oversight committee will approve all spending related to the city's former redevelopment agency
UCSB Senior Arrested as Suspect in Firebombing of Isla Vista Foot Patrol Station
Sheriff's Department video shows a lone person throwing flaming objects at the building; a similar November incident remains unsolved
New Ban Prohibits Vehicles with Hazardous Materials from Traveling on Highway 154
Authorities say the restriction is part of a proactive approach to preventing accidents and incidents along the thoroughfare
Goleta Man Sentenced to 6 Years in Murder-for-Hire Plot
Eugene Darryl Temkin was found guilty of soliciting a hitman to kill three people, including a former business partner
Weather: Fair 61.0º
Search Noozhawk »


