Offshore Oil Development

I am writing in response to the article (Editorial Pages, Feb. 17), by Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel "Onshore Jobs Come Wtih Offshore Oil." First of all, I think it's important to note that Hodel has a new job in addition to running the Department of the Interior. It is obvious to this reader that Hodel has been hired by the oil and gas industry as their lobbyist and flunky with the charge to dupe the people of California in thinking that offshore oil development will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and produce hundreds of thousands of jobs for the state.

Punctuating major differences between himself and his would-be Republican successor, Gov. George Deukmejian on Wednesday criticized Sen. Pete Wilson's opposition to offshore oil development as "shortsighted" and not in the nation's interest. The GOP governor also objected to Wilson's campaign pledge to create a state environmental protection agency, implying that the proposal merely was a political ploy and insisting that the new entity is not needed. Wilson's campaign aides have been saying for some time that the senator would be a different kind of governor than Deukmejian, and a press conference held Wednesday by the lame-duck incumbent aptly illustrated the point.

I would like to pose a simple solution to the apparent dilemma of choosing between the "threat" of offshore oil exploration and the preservation of pristine ocean views for Southern California. Since the entire 22-year history of drilling 310 exploratory wells in the Pacific outer continental shelf has never resulted in any oil spill reaching our beaches, I won't complicate the issue with the perceived threat of a horrendous oil spill. My solution to the dilemma is this: Each coastal community that decides to support the offshore leasing moratorium could prohibit filling stations from selling gasoline and diesel fuel in that community.

After years of waging the legislative equivalent of guerrilla warfare against offshore oil drilling, members of California's congressional delegation Tuesday opened discussions with the Administration in an effort to win a permanent exemption for the state from future drilling plans. The meeting marks a temporary truce between the two forces, reflecting the drilling opponents' hopes that President Bush might agree to a negotiated settlement. But the collegial mood of the session was marked by lingering hostility as the anti-drilling forces sternly warned that they will resume their fight unless the President acquiesces to their demands.

Your editorial was an excellent statement. I am not familiar with a better short presentation supporting the position of most California local governments with respect to the federal government's proposal to open up virtually the entire California coastline for offshore oil development. In order to convince Congress that California's position is not simply "elitist" or "selfish," it's important that we demonstrate that our efforts to protect and preserve the California coast are good national policy, as well as good policy for California's local communities.

Punctuating major differences between himself and his would-be Republican successor, Gov. George Deukmejian on Wednesday criticized Sen. Pete Wilson's opposition to offshore oil development as "shortsighted" and not in the nation's interest. The GOP governor also objected to Wilson's campaign pledge to create a state environmental protection agency, implying that the proposal merely was a political ploy and insisting that the new entity is not needed. Wilson's campaign aides have been saying for some time that the senator would be a different kind of governor than Deukmejian, and a press conference held Wednesday by the lame-duck incumbent aptly illustrated the point.

After years of waging the legislative equivalent of guerrilla warfare against offshore oil drilling, members of California's congressional delegation Tuesday opened discussions with the Administration in an effort to win a permanent exemption for the state from future drilling plans. The meeting marks a temporary truce between the two forces, reflecting the drilling opponents' hopes that President Bush might agree to a negotiated settlement. But the collegial mood of the session was marked by lingering hostility as the anti-drilling forces sternly warned that they will resume their fight unless the President acquiesces to their demands.

Congress let pass Friday's deadline for blocking an Interior Department plan to vastly expand offshore oil development, but a coalition of coastal senators vowed to restrain the plan later unless extensive changes are made. Six senators representing California, Florida and Massachusetts denounced the latest draft of the five-year leasing blueprint, which is scheduled to take effect next month. In a joint letter, the lawmakers asked Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.

Unocal at Work on Pipeline: Unocal will begin work immediately on a 10.5-mile pipeline to carry crude oil from offshore wells to the company's Santa Maria, Calif., refinery. The announcement drew a positive reaction from at least one activist group opposed to offshore oil development in the Santa Barbara Channel. Henry Feniger, a leader of Get Oil Out, said activists oppose oil transportation via tankers because of the possibility of oil spills in the ocean.

Your editorial "Guarding Our Coasts" (May 1) is off base in praising a recent federal court decision upholding local ordinances which the Interior Department and oil industry believe violate the U.S. Constitution. The Times seems to misunderstand the thrust of these ordinances and industry's reasons for challenging them. The oil industry does not deny that state and local governments have the right to impose conditions on onshore activities associated with offshore drilling. But the intent of the local ordinances goes far beyond attempting to impose certain conditions.

Congress let pass Friday's deadline for blocking an Interior Department plan to vastly expand offshore oil development, but a coalition of coastal senators vowed to restrain the plan later unless extensive changes are made. Six senators representing California, Florida and Massachusetts denounced the latest draft of the five-year leasing blueprint, which is scheduled to take effect next month. In a joint letter, the lawmakers asked Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.

Your editorial was an excellent statement. I am not familiar with a better short presentation supporting the position of most California local governments with respect to the federal government's proposal to open up virtually the entire California coastline for offshore oil development. In order to convince Congress that California's position is not simply "elitist" or "selfish," it's important that we demonstrate that our efforts to protect and preserve the California coast are good national policy, as well as good policy for California's local communities.

I am writing in response to the article (Editorial Pages, Feb. 17), by Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel "Onshore Jobs Come Wtih Offshore Oil." First of all, I think it's important to note that Hodel has a new job in addition to running the Department of the Interior. It is obvious to this reader that Hodel has been hired by the oil and gas industry as their lobbyist and flunky with the charge to dupe the people of California in thinking that offshore oil development will be developed in an environmentally sensitive manner and produce hundreds of thousands of jobs for the state.

I would like to pose a simple solution to the apparent dilemma of choosing between the "threat" of offshore oil exploration and the preservation of pristine ocean views for Southern California. Since the entire 22-year history of drilling 310 exploratory wells in the Pacific outer continental shelf has never resulted in any oil spill reaching our beaches, I won't complicate the issue with the perceived threat of a horrendous oil spill. My solution to the dilemma is this: Each coastal community that decides to support the offshore leasing moratorium could prohibit filling stations from selling gasoline and diesel fuel in that community.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously adopted a resolution opposing federal plans to open coastal waters off Orange County to offshore oil and gas exploration and drilling. In urging passage of the resolution, Supervisor Harriett M. Wieder said the board must show a united front in opposing Lease Sale 95 because of the severe economic and health threat it poses to the county's coastal communities. Lease Sale 95 encompasses a 10,000-square-mile area of coastal waters along Central and Southern California that federal officials plan to open to oil and gas exploration by April, 1991.