Page 1 of 4
Posted on September 10 at 8:37 a.m.
As usual, Mr. Eidt is absolutely correct. The benefits of leaving the rigs in place is dubious and Ms. Krop had to know that what she now says in her letter about how rigs cannot be decommissioned early without the permission of the federal government was also true when it came to PXP. Thus that deal was not only dangerous from the perspective of oil spills but totally unenforceable
Posted on September 3 at 8:35 a.m.
Perhaps Miss Krop was no longer able to fight rigs-to-reefs because she lost so much credibility with her support for off shore oil drilling. She has been speaking out of both sides of her mouth for so long she doesn't know what the truth is. OCS is unsafe (which it is) except for PXP, then it is safe. PXP can terminate its lease and stop drilling but the other oil companies who say they want rigs to reef as an incentive to stop drilling can't do that because only the new MMS can allow that. You can't say one thing one time and the exact opposite the next and then expect people to listen to you
On Rigs-to-Reefs Bill on Governor's Desk
Posted on August 26 at 11:11 a.m.
Talk about hypocrisy. Krop is concerned about the dangers of off shore oil drilling UNLESS it is PXP, an offshore oil drilling proposal she liked and was paid to promote, even after the spill in the Gulf
On Preventing the Next Deepwater Disaster
Posted on July 6 at 9:03 p.m.
You are right- you know nothing about me but let me assure you I have put in more hours than Linda and for free! As for being ignorant- that's insulting and just the comments that Linda has always made. Those who don't agree with her just "don't understand". Well I understand. I have read the SLC staff report, the EIR, both agreements, the MMS five year leasing plan and I have years of experience in this arena. Have your read these? What is your knowledge of State and federal law? No one who is not associated with EDC and their groopies or the oil industry is in disagreement about the enforcement of the claims. As for what Krop got out of this, just read the agreement, it says it in black and white
On What Will Be Legacy of Deepwater Horizon Tragedy?
Posted on July 4 at 9:36 a.m.
I agree with greensoftshell. No matter how hard she tries she has no credibility left. You can't push for new off shore oil drilling when you know full well that there is no benefit to it (you can't continue to say the end dates are enforceable when they are not) and then even push for it after the BP disaster in the Gulf and claim you care about the impacts of off shore oil drilling. She knows full well that the risk of an oil spill from drilling into a new field is substantially greater than the risks from the current rigs that are drilling into depleated fields and she knows that some of the rigs are about to be decommissioned anyway. She is fighting rigs-to-reefs so she knows that is coming shortly and these current rigs are not going to be there indefinitely. The hiposcrisy is glaring. Wonder what the benefit to her from PXP was to make her turn so pro-oil for that project?
Posted on June 5 at 7:19 p.m.
I find it interesting that Williams thinks that taking money from T. Boone Pickens, Mr. "drill, baby, drill", plus money from PXP's lobbyists and PG & E is not taking money from oil and gas interests or that his support for PXP is not support for drilling. Just who does he think these donors are and just how is PXP not drilling in off shore waters? We can go round and round on the PXP issue but it would have been new drilling, it is not enforceable (unless of course you are PXP or their allies), and it represents a significant increase in the risk of an oil spill over the continued existing drilling into depleated fields. How can anyone continue to claim that our shores should be subjected to this increased risk and not be aligned with the oilies?
On Last-Minute Onslaught of Mud
Posted on June 5 at 8:56 a.m.
It is time for people in Santa Barbara to admit they were wrong about the PXP project. The end date is not enforceable but people continue to say it is even though two State Lands reports say it isn't. Supporting PXP, even after the spill in the Gulf, and saying you oppose off shore oil drilling is nonsense. Besides, Das is clearly no longer anti-oil. Just look at who he has taken money from, and that includes PXP and T Boone Pickens. If he is actually opposed why did he accept their money. I guess that is what is meant in the Indy's endorsement of him when they said they were endorsing him because he knew how to trade political favors. He trades for political favors and get money from the oil industry. Does anyone believe he would stand on any principle if he is elected?
On Das and Anti-Das
Posted on May 27 at 2:27 p.m.
No big surprise the Indy is writing an article that is slanted and continues to repeat as fact all of the PR about PXP. The Inday has supported PXP throughout and now of course supports Williams. The real fact is that the PXP end date is not enforceable. It will not end drilling and Krop knows that and by now so does Williams. No one outside of Santa Barbara believes that it is anything other than a scheme to allowe new drilling in State waters. All those good enviros here seem to be caught up in group think and can't admit they are wrong. Thank goodness at least two people in Santa Barbara, Jordan and Nava, had the honesty and courage of their convictions to come out against it. That's the reason the truth must come out about the difference on this issue and no amount of protesting by Williams and his supporters should allow this critical issue to be avoided. Of course the Indy thinks that Williams should be supported because of his skill in" cutting political deals". I for one don't want a political deal maker. I want someone who is honest, intelligent, right on the issues and will never sell out. The only one that fits that is Susan Jordan
On Political Sludge Match
Posted on May 27 at 7:35 a.m.
There seems to be this huge attack against Jordan for just telling what Williams stands for. I thought that part of a campaign was to elucidate your and your opponents positions on an issue. Is Williams afraid of the truth? Fact is he supports PXP and the fact is that PXP is NOT enforceable, is new off shore oil drilling and increases the risk of a spill, regardless of how much hype EDC is paid by PXP to put out.
On Campaign Mailer Lies
Posted on May 18 at 9:19 p.m.
According to the State Lands Commission's latest report the PXP deal is still unenforceable, will still create a precedent, is still a safety threat yet Das is still supporting it. You say he should be endorsed because he knows how to trade political favors, which means he has no principles. Perhaps he is still in favor of PXP because of one of those favors he's traded
On <em>The Independent</em>’s June 2010 Endorsements