California vote to allow oil drilling faces resistance

California vote to allow oil drilling faces resistance
By William Lajeunesse
Published April 05, 2012 | FoxNews.com


Hermosa Beach, California is faced with a decision.

There's OIL offshore !!

Apparently loads of it.

Voters might be the ones to decide next year.

This has been a dilemma for years in Hermosa Beach.

There is a ban in place, but perhaps the royalties might change people's minds this time.

read the entire article.

There seems to be some kind of a lawsuit involved that puts Hermosa Beach in jeopardy ?

If voters do not lift the ban, it looks like the city will own an oil company $17.5 million in damages ??

Sounds like they have a gun to their heads ??

The gold rush is long over in California, but not in tiny Hermosa Beach.

This beach community, population 19,000, is virtually atop a reservoir of black gold. And early next year, voters are likely get the chance to do something that hasn't happened in California for more than three decades -- cash in on the state's vast supplies of offshore oil.

"This is an opportunity to earn four-hundred-million dollars. That is a lot of money," said former Hermosa Beach Mayor Gary Brutsch.

But others, who covet these two square miles of sun and sand, say getting into business with an oil company is inconsistent with the city's environmental conscience.

But wait.

The controversy dates back to 1995, when city officials signed a deal to allow Macpherson Oil of Santa Monica to drill a well on city-owned land. Voters, however, later imposed a ban on oil drilling, causing the city to breach its contract. Facing a $750 million lawsuit, the city began negotiating a settlement.

Last month, they made a deal, negotiated by two city council members.

In an election likely early next year, after studies and language is agreed upon, voters will decide whether to lift the ban -- doing so would give the city 15 percent of all gross oil sales, and allow the school district to earn royalties of up to 20 cents on every barrel pumped. If voters defeat the measure, the city would owe the oil company $17.5 million in damages.

environmental conscience .... or the greed need for money ?

I find that it is extremely unfortunate that in this day and age with all of our vast technology, we still revolve so much interest and other resources to this rather primitive resource to use in our daily lives. There is clearly better, more efficient technology out there that can be used to accommodate all of the uses we have for oil. I often wonder, what will it take for us to finally make the transition not to rely on oil anymore?

reply to post by ObjectiveEgalitarian


Can you point out the better, more efficient technology?
I would love to know about it.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


A simple search on any search engine will provide many alternatives to using oil. For example, there are cars out there that are able to run simply on water. On that premise alone, instead of drilling for oil, we could make desalinization plants that could make water to use for this purpose as well as for drinking water if there is indeed a water shortage in the future as some people predict. Unfortunately, I cant see oil companies being happy about things like that due to the fact that they would lose profits pretty quickly.

reply to post by ObjectiveEgalitarian


Yes there are many alternatives. None of the alternatives are a "better, more efficient technology" that you suggest exists. Please enlighten me if I am incorrect.

Bio fuels and ethanol for starters. And going on the premise that one of the most abundant resources that we have on this planet is water and is knowingly cheaper than crude oil, it makes sense that water is a much more cost efficient alternative to oil if we can get cars running on this.