More Press Regarding CCC Decision To End Offshore Oil Drilling In California 




State coastal panel rejects extending offshore oil leases

Commission ready to sue if U.S. allows further exploration by energy firms

By Laura Mecoy -- Bee Los Angeles Bureau
Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, August 12, 2005
COSTA MESA - After fighting nearly six years to have a say in the issue, the California Coastal Commission on Thursday unanimously objected to the federal government's plan to extend 36 offshore oil and gas leases.

The panel also authorized its lawyers to sue the federal Minerals Management Service if it ignores the commission's decision and gives oil companies more time to explore off the coasts of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. Peter M. Douglas, the Coastal Commission's executive director, said the agency sued and won a similar case against the Navy about eight years ago.

"This is a historic day for the commission and for all Californians," said Mark Massara, director of the Sierra Club's California Coastal Program. "The state has spoken loudly, clearly and unequivocally that the value of our coastal resources outweighs the risks of offshore oil and the minuscule benefits that could be derived from additional drilling off California's coast."

Further litigation is all but certain. But the coastal panel's decision means the energy firms holding the leases won't be exploring for oil or gas along the California coast anytime soon.

Neither the Minerals Management Service nor the energy firms seeking the extensions sent representatives to Thursday's hearing, generating harsh criticism from the commission and the public.

"They have displayed the utmost contempt for this body ... and for the people of California," said Assemblyman Pedro Nava, a Santa Barbara Democrat and former coastal commissioner.

The Minerals Management Service provided only a written statement after the vote, saying it was "disappointed" and believed the leases met the legal requirements for the commission to approve their extensions. It said it would determine the "best course" of action but declined to say what that action will be.

The agency could extend the leases and face another lawsuit from the commission, cancel the leases or try to work out an agreement with the state panel.

If the leases were developed, Coastal Commission staff determined they would, at most, provide the nation with a 25-day supply of gasoline and a four-day supply of gas. The staff found that about 40 percent of the oil is so thick that it could be used only for asphalt manufacture.

"The benefits of this are so little as to be nonexistent," Commissioner Patrick Kruer said.

The rest of the California coast is off-limits to new oil and gas leases until 2012. The leases under consideration Thursday existed before a 1998 presidential order placed a moratorium on new leases off California's coast.

The Minerals Management Service tried to extend those leases in 1999, and the Coastal Commission sued. It claimed the Coastal Zone Management Act gave it the right to review lease extensions.

The courts agreed with the Coastal Commission, setting the stage for Thursday's vote.

In casting 10 unanimous votes against the extensions, the state panel determined the Minerals Management Service hadn't provided enough information about potential risks to the environment, California tourism or marine mammals.

Douglas said providing the information "could have changed the equation" in Thursday's vote.

He said existing offshore oil platforms could be used for drilling some leases, and those might have been acceptable to the commission.

The Minerals Management Service said the "hundreds of pages" of information it provided were "more than adequate" for the commission to determine the impacts of the lease extensions.

It said the information the commission sought could be provided when the energy companies apply to explore and develop their leases.

Linda Krop, Environmental Defense Center chief counsel, said the federal agency already has much of the information the commission requested. She also said the state panel might not be able to review 16 leases that could be drilled from existing platforms.

She said the Minerals Management Service could determine these have no new impact on the environment and warrant no further reviews.

Steve Shimek, the Otter Project's executive director, also said further oil exploration could jeopardize the recovery of the threatened southern sea otter. He said oil poses the greatest threat to the mammals, and the otters are swimming in all but two of the lease areas.

Otters, seabirds and other marine mammals suffered devastating losses in the oil spill that fouled Santa Barbara's beaches in 1969 and gave rise to the state's environmental movement.

Most of the leases the commission considered Thursday were issued after the 1969 spill. But none has been developed because of various obstacles, including the need for permits.

The leaseholders originally paid about $1.2 billion for the drilling rights, and they have sued the federal government for the return of their money because they haven't been able to exercise their privileges.

Faced with a similar dilemma in Florida, where his brother, Jeb, was seeking re-election as governor, President Bush's administration agreed in 2002 to buy back the offshore oil and gas leases off that state's shores.

Various politicians, including Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, have called on Bush to buy back the California leases.

But the Bush administration hasn't made any public offers to repay the leaseholders.
Copyright © The Sacramento Bee 

Posted: Sat - August 13, 2005 at 01:08 PM          

©