Posted on 06/09/2002 10:59:07 AM PDT by Dog Gone
OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon, a millionaire former oilman, says he opposes drilling for oil off the California coast -- despite the Bush Administration's refusal last week to step in to protect the shoreline from drilling.
The Bush Administration on Friday rejected Democratic Gov. Gray Davis' request that the federal government buy 36 undeveloped leases off the California coast to prevent drilling there.
The following day, Simon announced for the first time that he is ``against any drilling of the undeveloped leases, and I'm in favor of the buyout of those leases.''
``All parties must get in a room and hammer out a deal,'' Simon told a meeting of The Associated Press Television-Radio Association on Saturday.
Simon contended he was not criticizing the Republican president -- whose support he sorely needs in his attempt to unseat Davis. Instead, Simon blamed Davis for failing to try to negotiate a compromise with the Republican White House.
Oil exploration off California's coast has been an explosive issue since 1969, when a massive oil spill soiled the Santa Barbara coast.
The argument now is over allowing new oil drilling off San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.
California took the federal government to court to block attempts to build the first new oil platform since 1994. A judge agreed with the state a year ago, and a hearing on the Bush administration's appeal was set for Monday.
Simon on Saturday called Davis' policy on offshore drilling hypocritical.
Republicans say dozens of new wells have been drilled in the past decade and the Davis administration has done nothing to stop them. The argument mirrors that made by Interior Secretary Gale Norton in her letter rejecting Davis' plea to extend protections against offshore drilling, similar to those granted to Florida last month.
Simon also said he supported retiring existing drilling operations after the oil was tapped out, which could take five to 15 years.
But Davis's campaign spokesman Roger Salazar said Davis has pushed that same policy. He dismissing Simon's criticisms that Davis hadn't done enough to stop the drilling as ``ludicrous and the height of hypocrisy.''
The wells are on leases made before 1968, according to Salazar, who added that the state has no choice but to honor them.
``These are private companies,'' Salazar said. ``If you try to deny them the right to get oil from the leases they own ... the state would be liable.''
Simon, a former vice president at Paramount Oil, has repeatedly said he opposes additional drilling off California, but he had not spoken out about the existing leases until now.
The candidate's history, closely tied to the oil industry, has made his stance on drilling someing drilling-opponents have been closely watching.
Simon's father, William E. Simon, was President Nixon's ``energy czar'' through the Arab oil embargo of the early 1970s before becoming treasury secretary. In 1988, Simon and his brother joined their father in William E. Simon & Sons, an investment firm with substantial holdings in the energy industry.
Financial disclosure documents show Simon has tens of thousands of dollars invested in companies with direct interests in the 36 offshore leases at issues in the federal drilling case. However, Simon's campaign said the investments are not connected to actual drilling.
``To have someone heavily invested in the oil industry overseeing California's coast is a little scary,'' said Carl Zichella, the Sierra Club's regional director. ``If he waffles (on offshore drilling) at all, it will be to his political detriment.''
There was a terrible oil spill at Santa Barbara decades ago. It was cleaned up, and we haven't had any repeats. Imagine if California permanently closed down its airports because there had been one terrible accident. What's the difference?
Simon is just wrong on this, and I still am surprised by his statement. It would have been better to have said nothing than to join those who promote the Big Lie.
Thank you. You have made my day.
I think others can too. It's time to market YOU. Have you considered forming a nonprofit consortium with your colleagues? A conservative counter to the Sierra Club?
No. I want to form a FOR PROFIT company, in part because the motives of non profits are too opaque. I want people to understand that there is money to be made doing the right things to make the lands and seas healthy. I hope to attract investment capital, pay taxes and publish our books (including what I earn out of it), so that people can figure out that I'm not out to get cash rich here. I applied for patent on the business method to attract investors. If it allows, expect a very large noise. I am looking for a board of directors.
Wouldn't it be neat to dry up the money of the lefit eco-wackjobs because people want to make a profit investing in environmental health?
As far as exposure is concerned, I don't want a lot until more people on the left have read it. I don't want to alienate them with my other political opinions. You may have a hard time believing it, but there are died in the wool leftist ecologists who find my ideas intriguing and worth pursuit. They are sick of the corporate sellouts like the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy profiting on State perservation which ends up as neglected land subject to infestation. They also want to eat.
What I'm thinking of is a vehicle to advance these issues: newspaper columns, internet news columns, even TV time. When do we hear the conservative counter to this issue when the liberals go on the talk shows and news magazines? Never as far as I'm concerned.
They don't know how. It's really sad. I would be grateful if you would write a letter to such a magazine or poltician. It's very hard to get a book review unless there is the promise of advertising money that I just don't have.
Is there someone who is highly visible to call on for this? None that I've seen. There's a void here.
No kidding. There are a few property rights "spokespeople," out there who make a living sounding the green alarm, but from what I can tell they don't want a real solution. There are a few decent conservative writers on ecological topics (have you checked out Range Magazine?) and a few think tanks such as CEI and PERC but they spend almost all their time protesting environmental activists and raising money. Sadly, none of these voices has an alternative to government management other than less of it while expecting a return to objectivity and professionalism in resource agencies. Don't hold your breath there.
That's why I need the professorate and select policy people to read it. You would be surprised how far up the food chain this book has gone but I was hoping for more broad exposure by now. I am actually quite hopeful for progress, even while I'm frustrated at the way conservatives have been either too busy or too rigid to consider it thoughtfully. Part of that problem is that I'm virtually unknown.
All you need is a good PR person. I'm serious!
Right you are. Sorry, I'm broke. I'm waiting for some professors to finish reading it, but most of them don't get to reading until summer. I'm getting ready to blow the cover of a couple of big cheeses in the activist/foundation cabal with a couple of introductory articles. Stay tuned there. Until then, it's three years of deferred projects at home (I have been hammered with weeds off my neighbors' property this year) and a big opportunity to fix a big drainage problem reared came out of nowhere.
As for Simon, if he is listening to Bush/Parsky/Rove then he is making a pact with the devil.
He may think he HAS to.
They were so successful in the CA primary, weren't they? They have no idea what Californians need or want. As far as I'm concerned they should have minimal input in this campaign.
Amen. Please do what you can to tell Mr. Simon precisely that.
However, none of us have any control over that. Simon is probably being told not to focus too much on the environment because it's not an issue.
It is with the swing voters he wants. Consider that bond propositions for unspecified environmental work still pass in this State even when we are headed into the financial tank.
Politicians have become notorious for sticking their fingers to the wind to see what the issues are. When all Californians realize that this IS an important issue for ALL of us, then the politicians will respond. Then they'll go looking for the experts. That's when they will come to someone like YOU.
We can only hope. The best thing a politician can do is teach the public how his/her principles meet their desires. (I am cooking up a string of such speeches and policy papers for Mr. Simon now.) Frankly, I would rather be the 'thinker on the hill' than a public figure. I love my working on my land and teaching my kids too much to spend that much time on the road.
Just my unsolicited two cents worth:)
You underestimate yourself. Thank you.
Signed contracts are valid only when it's convenient for Davis. Remember when he tried to cancel and renegotiate the electricity contracts, and when he tried to rescind the Oracle contract? He also conveniently forgot about his duties to keep the budget balanced and on-time. He'll cut funding to charter schools, but he won't reduce the state education bureaucracy. Davis is being hypocritical when he says he must honor those oil leases but can break any other state contract.
Maybe Davis has finally learned something about the meaning of a contract.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.