Why Would California Rebuff Plains Exploration & Production's Energy Proposal?

Nearly bankrupt California turned down an energy proposal from Plains Exploration & Production (PXP), that would have increased revenue to the state and advanced the state's (and nation's) "energy independence."

PXP wanted to use an existing oil platform, but was still rebuffed. I suppose it's hard to expect sanity from the CA State Assembly, which is led by a woman who accused those against tax increases of being "terrorists."

Details of the company's rebuffed proposals.

• Donation of nearly 4,000 acres of PXP coastal land for permanent conservation.
• Termination of PXP's existing oil and gas production operations offshore California in 14 years, and removal of all related onshore processing facilities at the end of the project, instead of the company's current 30+ year production/drilling program.
• Mitigation of the project's greenhouse gas emissions.
• Economically, to the people of California, the project would provide a $100 million advance to the California General Fund this budget year and as much as $4 billion in royalty revenue over the life of the project.

What's more offensive? California's insistence on enjoying the highway/suburb lifestyle while declining to spoil its coastal views to drill for the oil it uses? Or its ignorance in chasing away business in the midst of a budget meltdown?

While CA makes it ever-more difficult to do business in this state, other state politicians do all they can to invite business to their states.


Disclosure - No positions.

Comments

[whidbey:]

It must be "the presumption" that caused the problem.

To wit: California is not a state as much it is an attitude which holds the place and its people to be exempt from most of the foibles of mankind. A version of paradise, if you please.

For example they do not defer to Federal laws, the convention of paying what one owes another, the usefulness of morals - whatever their content, " If it feels good, its OK" being sufficient - for governing a society, and finally the non-recognition of such conventions in economics as impinge on their state mantra "Everything now is Not Enough."

That is why California turned it down, they have not got a lick of sense and they have in the last twenty years proven that fact time and again. What did you expect?

Jul 28 09:26 PM

[PastTense:]

While I don't know the particulars of this proposal, a major reason for these type restrictions is that the oil industry doesn't take environmental protection seriously. See for example the Santa Barbara Oil Spill:
www.dailynexus.com/art...

Jul 29 01:53 AM

[Ellis Wyatt:]

"oil industry doesn't take environmental protection seriously"
Really. A spill that occurred 40 years ago? I suggest you read the Clinton Administration's analysis of how modern energy production actually helps the environment. It's only 10 years old. www.instituteforenergy.../

Jul 29 10:49 AM

[Mmarrkk:]

PastTense: your moniker is aptly named! A 40-year old accident and you are still bringing it up? Heck, that Apollo spacecraft blew up on the launch pad a few years/decades ago; why in the world should we be allowing people to blast more of those rockets off? Heck, it "could" happen again!! You'll have to give a few better reasons than this!

Heck, Lincoln was shot at a theater...we should all stop going to theaters!!!! And Teddy Kennedy once drove drunk and ran his car off a bridge and killed a girl...we should all stop driving...well, maybe Teddy should at least!

Jul 29 04:47 PM