BLAST FROM THE PAST: I don’t know if Santa Barbara actually is “the birthplace of the environmental movement,” but by now it surely must be, given how many times I have heard it said. This assertion rests on the long infamous oil blowout of 1969 — whose 40th birthday we celebrate this week — where three million gallons of crude bubbled up from beneath Union Oil’s Platform A, located six miles off the coast of Carpinteria. In the process, miles of South Coast beaches were tarred by silent, oil-soaked waves, and thousands of marine birds died. Ultimately, Union Oil was found at fault, many lawsuits were filed, and many more laws were passed. Both Congress and the president enacted moratoriums on any new oil development off our coast, though both were lifted late last year. Get Oil Out! (GOO) was formed out of this mess, as was the Environmental Defense Center (EDC) and the Community Environmental Council (CEC), all of which remain alive and squawking. Since then, Santa Barbara has become known across the globe as the iconic victim of Big Oil. Our rep — the vestal virgin forever saying no to the blandishments of the oil industry — lies at the heart of an epic rift now consuming the South Coast political community.
Angry Poodle
At issue is the historic accord that GOO and EDC reached this past April with oil company PXP (Plains Exploration & Production), which seems to cast PXP as Santa Claus 365 days of the year. PXP owns Platform Irene, located in federal waters a little more than three miles off the coast of Vandenberg. PXP wants to dip its straw off Irene and into adjoining state waters — the state controls everything from the shore to the three-mile limit — and suck down the rich oil reserves located in an underwater locale known as Tranquillon Ridge. This is a very big deal. No new oil permits have been issued in our state waters during the last 40 years. EDC attorney Linda Krop, along with GOO and the Citizens Planning Association (CPA), has been chasing away oil companies from Tranquillon Ridge since 1999. When PXP approached John Garamendi, head of the State Lands Commission — which has the first and last word on oil development in state waters — he told them to go make Krop happy. So that’s what they did.
To that end, PXP agreed to stop drilling — no matter what — at Platform Irene by 2022. Up to now, no oil company had ever agreed to any end date of any kind. So that was huge. In addition, PXP agreed to remove three other oil platforms located in federal waters in 2017, as well as two onshore oil processing plants. Without this infrastructure in place, Krop argued that other oil companies will be less interested should the feds — always hungry for oil revenues — promote further oil development in our federal waters.
Beyond that, PXP agreed to offset all its greenhouse gas emissions, give the county $1.5 million to buy a new fleet of clean-air buses, and donate 3,900 acres of PXP land to the Trust for Public Land. That doesn’t count the $350 million in royalties the County of S.B. stands to collect, the $2 billion-$5 billion for the state, or the $100 million PXP would pay the state up front.
Initially, the only grousing came from two oil companies who had competing plans for the same oil fields and Andy Caldwell, a pro-business lobbyist genetically hardwired to froth at the mouth about anything Krop supports. In October, the county supes embraced the plan, and since then, there’s been nary a discouraging word. But last week, just before this Thursday’s meeting of the State Lands Commission, Krop found herself caught completely flat-footed by Assemblymember Pedro Nava — now running to be the Democratic nominee for attorney general — who got the 11 members of the Coastal Caucus to sign a letter expressing grave concerns that the PXP project set a dangerous precedent and was legally unenforceable. Eight members of a parallel Senate committee submitted a letter of identical concerns. Nava’s wife, Susan Jordan — a formidable eco-warrior in her own right who is running to fill the Assembly vacancy being created by her husband — also weighed in with concerns about the deal, as did California Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan, an ocean defender proud to be despised by every developer in the state. Adding to Krop’s vexation, the State Lands Commission staff has recommended denial of the PXP proposal on many of the same grounds. Garamendi — who midwifed the deal by telling PXP to make Krop happy — is also opposed.
After speaking to Nava and Jordan and reading the accompanying Senate and Assembly letters, it’s clear their underlying concern is that if the “birthplace of the environmental movement” says yes to any oil development — no matter what we might get in exchange — we risk opening the flood gates. Nava told me that Sacramento Republicans are saying that if oil development is okay in Santa Barbara, it’s okay anywhere off the coast. When the PXP deal was first announced, Nava noted that the Wall Street Journal used the occasion to proclaim that even Santa Barbara environmentalists now agree that oil drilling is safe. Given Santa Barbara’s unique history, we have become the line in the sand that no one can cross. Not even ourselves.
I understand the importance of not sending mixed messages. But I’ve known Krop for 25 years. During her legal battles with the oil industry, I’ve seen her pull rabbits out of her hat when I was convinced all she’d get was a handful of lint. So when she says the deal sets no precedent — because PXP is the only operator in all of California to qualify for one of two exceedingly narrow exemptions allowed to the state ban on new offshore oil development — I tend to believe her. When attorneys for the State Lands Commission question whether the contract is enforceable, that gives me pause. But I’d still put my money behind Krop. So, it seems, have Congressmember Lois Capps, GOO, CPA, Sierra Club, CEC, and an alphabet-soup kama sutra of 25 other environmental groups that back the deal. But no matter what we do, as long as there’s oil in the Channels, the oil companies will keep on coming. I’m not saying Nava and Jordan haven’t raised significant questions. But if the deal dies, we know for certain that the four platforms will stay put indefinitely, the two processing plants will never go away, and the 3,900 acres won’t get donated. For me, it’s a calculated gamble. If the deal is approved, and Nava and Jordan are proven correct, the worst case is that we’re right where we started. But if they’re wrong and the deal dies, then we lose a historic opportunity. Obviously, there are no guarantees when playing craps or negotiating with oil companies. But sometimes you just have to roll the dice. Oh, and by the way, happy 40th anniversary.
CORRECTION: I said that COLAB’s Andy Caldwell opposed the proposed deal between oil company PXP and Santa Barbara’s environmental coalition. In point of fact, Caldwell testified in favor of the deal before the State Lands Commission last week, noting it was probably the first time he and the Environmental Defense Center had ever agreed on anything. Caldwell opposed the deal when it was initially proposed last spring, but in more recent months, changed his mind. -Nick
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
I don't understand this. Drilling more to stop oil drilling is wrong. As a Malibu City council member said earlier this week, "I am utterly shocked that the Environmental Defense would support new oil drilling just off the coast of California. It is like giving a fix to an addict, then saying I only gave them the fix because the addict promised to get off drugs in the future."
---Flora in Goleta
http://malibusurfsidenews.com/stories/20...
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
greensoftshell (anonymous profile)
January 29, 2009 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Even bicycles use oil--for their chains--it's just a matter of degree.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
billclausen (anonymous profile)
January 29, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This was a difficult and complex negotiation done by our local experts; EDC, GOO and CPA. Pedro Nava and Susan Jordan are not bad people but they screwed up royally on this one. Worse is that they waited until the last minute to make an end run around the local environmental community. Pedro is supposed to be our local representative but he has failed us on this one. I think Susan Jordan can pretty much forget about the Assembly job; she will get little or no support in this community from local environmentalists. She was rash and arrogant and out of touch with the locals. Same for that weasel Garamendi, I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher ( no offense to the dog catcher). I am not pro-oil but this was a rare opportunity to actually shut down the wells sooner and still get enormous benefits for the community. It is no coincidence that virtually every single LOCAL environmental organization for GOO to GCC to even Surfrider SB chapter supported this deal. A shameful day in Santa Barbara and heartbreaking too.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Noletaman (anonymous profile)
January 30, 2009 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We see from the PXP deal that if we follow the money...we find the eco warriors.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
nuffalready (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Leave it to Pedro Nava to put his interests before the health of the environment.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
Georgy (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is a sad day when EDC and local enviros line up with Andy Caldweezl and Joe the anti tax man Armendez. EDC just screwed the pouch on this one doing *deals* with an oil company behind closed doors and asking their followers to blindly trust them. When EDC and we all got the Staff Report from State Land Commission they should have pulled the plug on this turkey and gone back to the drawing board. Instead they called in all their political favors and now have split the environmental community. Shame on them. This did not have to happen this way.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I trust the EDC more than big, tax hungry, state, and federal governments. The idea of a back room deal that is unenforcible is political cover for oil interests and their tax hungry politicians who need tax revenues for the long-term. This vote was all about $$$, not protecting the environment. Total hogwash.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
East_Fork (anonymous profile)
January 31, 2009 at 6 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem for Nava and Jordan is that this deal is very sophisticated and nuanced. It takes real pros to pull this off. It is much easier, aka George Bush, for politicians (read ideologues) to think in black and white terms. Jordan and Nava fall into that category.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
BP (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2009 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The idea that by turning this down the oil companies get richer is flat wrong. The Tranquilian field could hold up to 200 million recoverable barrels of oil worth about 20 billion at $100 a barrel. That oil will not be retrieved now. The platforms that would (maybe) have been removed from Federal waters are scheduled to be removed well before the negotiated EDC deal time line. The only real public benefit from this deal may have been the opportunity to acquire 2000 acres of scrub brush. But even that aspect was kept secret.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
gaviotamilitia (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The deal constructed is a nuance deal, one which pros can pull off. Ideologues, such as Nava and Jordan, think in simple terms, locked into a notion of right and wrong that lacks any long term vision of what is the goal and the role of compromised decision making to achieve the goal.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
BP (anonymous profile)
February 1, 2009 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here's your "nuances" all printed out - in black and white, too. from the CA state controller, no less
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/...
I suggest you seriously read that and it will become perfectly clear why this whole deal was a con job from the start.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
cartoonz (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2009 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I followed your advice and read his justification for denying the appeal. I stand by my original comment as a plan to end the drilling with the benefits of this deal made the risks worth taking.
Readers say: Thumbs Up: 0 of 0 • Thumbs Down: 0 of 0
BP (anonymous profile)
February 4, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment