PXP and EDC: A Grand Plan

I'm very curious as to how much money in "legal fees" or more bluntly, bribes you are taking on behalf of EDC. You want support? Don't take a single dime from PXP and return what was previously paid. Otherwise, you are all no more than enviros for hire.

Oh, it seems to me that most of the environmental groups across California are against this. And aren't these 3 platforms on their downward production already? Just curious I know your group and facts have a very loose relationship.

Finally, what a generous offer to give up polluted lands and give them to the public. Petroleum laced soil is such a nice place for kids to play. And who exactly is going to pay for the superfund cleanup of toxic soil on these sites? The County? This means SB taxpayers people.

Keeping a watchful eye on the one who are paid off.

Thanks again BeachFan for just keeping your head buried in the sand. GOO and CPA spent years of volunteer work on this. No payback---not a dime----but 3900 acres of prime coastal land will be returned to the community, 4 platforms decommissioned and the LOGP cleaned up and out of our county. By the way, PXP pays for the cleanup...but you probably can't hear that with your head down in that hole now can you?

Hm, well, still no answer from My GOO friend. $100,000 must have fallen from the skies and not have been paid by PXP for compensation to EDC in return for their lobbying and support of the project. Did EDC get money from PXP through GOO and CPA? Not a complicated question. Straight Yes or No will suffice. Will PXP be "compensating" (paying off) GOO and CPA to channel money once again to EDC? Simple yes or no will suffice.

Finally, so a full environmental review of the processing center property has been done and PXP has agreed to pay for all cleanup? Hadn't heard about that. Maybe if the meeting weren't done behind closed doors it would be common knowledge. If so, great. Here is a simple question for you. Who would get the land, how would the care of it be paid for?

Pull your head out and answer that one.

What the heck is this? An opinion piece or something ghost written (and paid for) by PXP and the oil industry? Truth in advertising here boys.... not a word about all the illusory promises, lack of ownership over assets to be donated, impossibility of enforcement, horrific precedent establishing new offshore oil drilling on west coast.... PXP couldn't be happier to have nonprofit organizations stumping for them. What happens to members' donations to these organizations? All those years and thousands of hours of 'free work' on behalf of PXP using members' money. This gets weirder by the day....

EDC, GOO and CPA, cumulatively, have been fighting offshore oil development for about a century. Those who oppose the settlement we negotiated would be much better served by studying, understanding and correctly characterizing the agreement than by attacking our motives or morals. We, and our deep commitment to the environment of this region, have never been for sale. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.
A good deal of information on the proposed TR settlement, its history and its rationale are contained in materials collected at:

http://www.edcnet.org/learn/current_c...

Those who area interested in the facts, rather than nasty and uninformed accusations, might start there.

David Landecker, E.D.
E.D.C.

Dear Mr. Landecker, Mr. Powell and Mr. Dunn:

With all due respect for your century of fighting offshore drilling, when are you going to recognize that you are a very powerful pawn for Big Oil regardless of the purported but clearly unproven benefits from this deal?

No mention how the Governor is using this plan as extortion to get State Parks financed?

No mention of Chuck DeVore's bill (R-Irvine) that would open the entire state coastal sanctuary to offshore drilling for just this type of "historic, one-time" deal, and would take oversight away the State Lands Commission because they obviously refuse to listen to your "facts?"

We can discuss the (de)merits of the Tranquillon Ridge proposal, but in reality, this is not only about four platforms and some land donations. This is about creating a politico-business model for opening the coasts to MORE OIL AND GAS DRILLING in the state sanctuary and the federal Outer-Continental Shelf by renumerating organizations such as yourselves to stump for them, as well as supplying revenues to governmental entities for political cover.

GOO understands a thing or two about oil spills and the damage from drilling muds and pipelines -- how about the increased risk of pollution and blowouts? Will PXP pay for that as part of this landmark deal? Spills happen on high-technology rigs as those on the Kimberley Coast of West Australia can attest.

In your own vacuum, I clearly see that you are principled actors. It is not greenwashing to get end dates for existing platforms and land donations of parcels with significant biological and economic merit. But, PXP does not control aforementioned lands, and only one of the platforms. And PXP does not control the flow of oil, nor the politico-economic outlook on the need for more oil and gas drilling at a future date. The federal Minerals Management Service has stated they are statutorily bound to extract every drop of oil from the lease, and deals between an oil company and their local representatives are not binding.

For this reason, this proposal was rejected twice by the State Lands Commission and twice by the legislature.

I see that you are hoping Governor Schwarzenegger's man in Santa Maria will be appointed to the SLC so you can slip this one past. But maybe true environmentalists such as yourselves should consider the wider implications, and the underhanded way you are being used.

We need to say NO today to Big Oil, NO tomorrow, and NO the next day. The fossil fuel supply must be shut down to make renewable alternative politically and economically feasible. The only end dates of existing leases are the value of the resource. We can outlast them. And along with the 100 statewide groups opposing this move, we will outlast you. Unless you want to join us, because in the end, we all want the same thing.

Jack Eidt
Wild Heritage Planners

Jack:

You are a sensible guy and a good writer. We are all on the same side here - all trying to protect the environment from greedy self interests.

In your own consulting career, you have worked for countless developers...

Working with developers doesn't mean you have sold out to the environment. In fact, I'm sure that you have found that teaching developers to be more responsible corporate citizens could be transformative. Compromise and a "win-win" ethos have the power to drive major market change in the world.

In the spirit of friendship and shared goals, I would encourage you to reach out to David Landecker or Linda Krop at EDC to discuss your ideas and our shared vision of a natural coastline and fossil free California.

Pro and Anti Oil Settlement Parties,

Isn't it time you went into private mediation. We seem to have the same goals. Sounds like you need a neutral third party to facilitate communication.

We who support both sides are getting whiplash from hearing your arguments.

Let's get together on this...

David,

Stop accusing others of not reading or understanding the agreement and its consequences. You don't have to be an attorney to see that the agreement is very one-sided in favor or PXP and that it is not enforceable and sets a terrible precedent. The deal is NOT enforceable and no amount of paid for PR will change that. In answer to your specific comments:

1-You promise to make the new agreement public. When? It should be made public now! If it is only a draft all the better so we can have input into it. Your original one was flawed so we need to see this before it is signed, not at the last minute when you go to the SLC
2- Making the State a party to this will not help. Nlo one can bind an agency's future decisions. We are not just concerned that MMS would force PXP to continue to drill but what happens if PXP decides to continue to drill and the State agrees. If the SLC should decide to amend the agreement later to remove the end date, EDC will be left to sue both PXP and the State for breach of contract. A court might award EDC money, if they can outlast the oil industry, but it would not require cessation of drilling.
3- If PXP surrenders it's federal leases it must pay the feds for the oil left and it doesn't prevent the feds from re-selling the leases
4- The title to the land may be clear but the agreement also makes it clear that PXP does not have the ability to guarantee that the land can be transferred since it does not own all of if and has partners who may not agree and contractual agreements that might prevent this.
5-The State may have protocols now but why have you taken a totally different position than what you took when you fought the LNG proposal? The State will only require GHG mitigation for the GHG produced by the operation but you demanded that BHP mitigate for all GHG produced by the project, from extraction to consumption. Why a different standard here?

Let's face it, you made a bad decision and fighting to defend it because your agreement requires you to doesn't change the facts

Lots of opinions and projections posted on this. It would help the discussion if posters could give a basis for their projections and not just ideaology. Until then, it's merely rhetorical.

Some folks seem upset my the fact that EDC is getting paid for this work by PXP. Who else should pay them? Those folks are working for far less than the could make in private industry and deserve to get paid for the work they do. One could argue about the enforceability of this project although I believe that issue has been thoroughly resolved, but to accuse EDC of greed or being on the take from oil companies is just preposterous. How do GOOfy and BeachFan and Jack Eidt propose getting rid of those oil rigs. I have a feeling that this is the best deal we are ever going to see.

Here is what Dr. Norman K. Sanders (GOO founder and founder of what was to later become EDC) has to say about the EDC/PXP oil drilling deal:

Opinion: Slippery slope for anti-oil groups
By Dr. Norman K. Sanders

Several months ago, it came to my attention that some Santa Barbara environmental groups had negotiated a secret deal with Plains Exploration and Production Company to allow the first new drilling off the Santa Barbara Coast since the 1969 oil spill.

I have watched in dismay as these organizations, which have fought so hard and so long for environmental sanity, sold out to the oil interests.

I cannot keep silent any longer while the present leadership of GOO (Get Oil Out) and the EDC (Environmental Defense Center) besmirch the memory of all those wonderful, dedicated people who gave so much to protect Santa Barbara from industry and developers who would sell it for a few pieces of silver.

Now, GOO, the EDC and the Citizens Planning Association are the ones pocketing that silver.
At the time of the oil spill, I was an assistant professor of geography at UCSB. I took part in numerous actions against offshore drilling and was on the original board of directors of GOO. I joined Ken Millar (pen name Ross Macdonald), Robert Easton and Ping Ferry to form Western Citizens for Environmental Defense, or WCED, modeled on the Environmental Defense Fund on the East Coast. I was the first director of WCED, which eventually morphed into the EDC.

While EDC, GOO, and CPA may have gone into these negotiations with good intentions, this agreement is a profound mistake. It sets a terrible precedent showing that environmental opposition can be bought by an oil company. It also sends the message that California is open to new offshore drilling at a time when big oil’s lobbyist and public relations efforts are working very hard to open up all of America’s coasts to new drilling.

It may seem to some in Santa Barbara County that this agreement will benefit them locally, but it is difficult to overstate the political statewide and national implications.

Many of the old anti-oil warriors have passed now. They must be rolling in their graves.

Dr. Norman K. Sanders

Nearly all oil spills are caused by human error, not the technology used. Slant drilling is a legitimate concern. However, there is a much higher likelihood of an oil spill due to human error by letting these rigs exist for another 50-100 years as they are. The biggest cause of oil spills is drug and alcohol related. Workers who spend a week at a time living on an oil rig or an oil tanker, abuse drugs and alcohol. Living on a rig is no picnic. It is very confining and boring. Be aware that the oil at Tranquillion Ridge in State waters will be tapped by current methods at a much, much, slower pace, which increases the likelihood of an oil spill due to the probability of human error over the long haul.

The “new drilling” is in State waters and does not involve the Federal moratorium. All new State drilling goes through the State Lands Commission. They can discriminate between what will ultimately end offshore oil drilling and what will prolong it. The idea that the State Lands Commission or that other coastal States must somehow accept all new State drilling proposals because this one was passed has no basis. Since the “intent” of the agreement is to put an end to offshore oil drilling along part of the California Coast with NO NEW infrastructure being added, the only other oil projects that would have a chance of passage would be similar bills that would also have existing rigs and oil processing facilities that could be dismantled with enforceable end dates. Finding similar circumstances to this would be rare. Actually the precedent the EDC/PXP deal makes is that the current system of oil leases with no end dates is over. This deal has the ability to begin the ending phase to all offshore oil drilling in the United States. Once oil rigs start being dismantled, alternative energy has a chance to become more mainstream.

Nava may like the idea of long-term, off-shore oil production with no end-dates to help his oil tax legislation.

http://www.independent.com/news/2010/...

I'd rather see the rigs get dismantled.