Confusion Wells Up in Ads for Rival Oil-Drilling Initiatives

More than $10 million, a record outlay in city elections, is being spent on the hard-fought campaigns to pass rival oil-drilling measures, Propositions O and P, on the Los Angeles ballot.

Yet, despite the airing of hundreds of 30-second television ads at a cost that could surpass $6 million, both camps agree that as many as half of the city’s voters remain in the dark about the complex Pacific Palisades drilling issue on the eve of Tuesday’s election.

Contributing to the confusion is a role-reversal message created by Occidental Petroleum Corp., sponsor of Proposition P. Occidental portrays itself as a protector of the environment, contending that it opposes oil drilling in places where its environmentalist rivals would actually allow it. Occidental’s charge is made despite the environmental movement’s longtime opposition to all forms of coastal drilling.

Other novel attempts to influence voters have been made both for and against the pro-drilling Proposition P and the anti-drilling Proposition O.

Letter of the Law

Does “O,” strongly backed by environmentalists, stand for “oil drilling,” as Occidental’s Proposition P campaign asserts, or does it stand for “oceans,” as environmentalists claim? Does “P” stand for “petroleum,” as anti-drilling forces argue, or “police,” as Occidental’s ads want voters to believe?

Which initiative leads to offshore drilling in Santa Monica Bay? Proponents of both measures tell viewers that their proposals would protect the bay from oil company ventures, while the other side’s would usher in giant rigs only miles off the coast.

Which measure paves the way for oil drilling at the beach? Again, each side says the other’s measure would either directly or indirectly do precisely that.

After cutting through the campaign rhetoric, slick mailers and more than a dozen different TV spots, a relatively simple answer to all of these questions emerges:

Proposition O, co-sponsored by City Councilmen Marvin Braude and Zev Yaroslavsky, would kill the city’s 1985 approval of Occidental’s plan to sink up to 60 production wells on a 2-acre site across Pacific Coast Highway from Will Rogers State Beach in Pacific Palisades.

To ensure that another oil company--including Occidental--does not entertain ideas of drilling elsewhere along the city’s coastline, the measure would also establish a 1,000-yard-wide zone where oil derricks would be prohibited.

P Sponsored by Oxy

Proposition P, the counter-initiative created by Occidental and almost entirely funded by it, has one basic goal: to protect the 1985 Pacific Palisades drilling ordinances. But the measure has a number of other features not directly tied to the drilling project.

For instance, Proposition P sets aside for the city a 7-cents-a-barrel fee for toxic waste enforcement and says much of the tax revenues generated from the project should go directly toward hiring more police and funding park and school operations. It also directs city officials to actively oppose drilling in Santa Monica Bay.

Of the two measures, the one receiving a majority of yes votes will win. If both receive a majority, the one with the most yes votes will win. If neither receives a majority, nothing will change and Occidental will retain its drilling authority.

The Proposition O side, noting that all Occidental needs to win is the defeat of Proposition O, have charged from the beginning that the company’s pro-drilling initiative was designed to confuse voters into turning down both measures.

“The (Proposition P) campaign has been designed from the very beginning to confuse people. That’s been the strategy all along,” Yaroslavsky said. “You’d think Occidental is the Sierra Club in masquerade.”

Said Proposition O campaign spokeswoman Karin Caves: “Our sense is that there is a lot of recognition about this issue, but very little recognition about which letter is which letter. There is a lot of confusion over which initiative is the initiative that represents the choice voters want to make.”

Proposition P’s veteran political consultant, Joseph Cerrell said: “I’d like to tell you that I have now educated the voters on Proposition P, but that’s not true. (But) I don’t think people have any difficulty (telling) which side is against drilling in the Palisades and which side is Occidental’s side.”

A highly placed Proposition P campaign aide, however, when asked if the Occidental measure was intended to confuse voters, paused before responding: “I’m going to remain silent on that one.” The aide asked not to be identified.

Record Amounts

Both sides, using record amounts of cash, have mounted a particularly aggressive mail and television campaign in the closing days. Occidental alone has provided nearly all of Proposition P’s $7.3-million campaign budget, while Proposition O’s effort--helped by a $900,000 contribution from Controller Gray Davis’ campaign funds--is expected to spend about $2.8 million.

The Proposition P message is on a dozen slate mailers and various campaign brochures attacking Proposition O without actually mentioning Occidental’s oil-drilling project. A campaign aide said the Proposition P television campaign will cost in excess of $4 million, more than twice the $1.75 million the Proposition O TV effort will cost.

The 16 different TV spots--10 by Proposition P and six by Proposition O--have attracted the most attention and the most counterattacks.

Several weeks ago, the Proposition P campaign nearly persuaded KABC-TV to stop running three Proposition O ads showing Davis and Rep. Mel Levine (D-Santa Monica) in beach scenes indicating that Occidental’s drilling project would be on the sand. The pro-drilling campaign, noting that the project is actually across from the beach, charged that the ads were misleading.

Every Beach

Last week, Proposition O forces fired back, contending in a letter to TV stations that several Proposition P ads falsely suggested that Proposition O would allow drilling under every beach because it does not specifically disallow it.

“Proposition O is not intended to and does not prevent a lot of things,” wrote attorney Louis (Skip) Miller in demanding that the Proposition P ads be halted. “It doesn’t prevent nuclear war, it doesn’t prevent AIDS or other communicable diseases and it doesn’t prevent tooth decay. Would your station countenance an ad that said ‘ “O” is for AIDS?’ ”

All of the drilling-issue commercials have been allowed to run.

Muddying up the central question of drilling in the Palisades is a hodgepodge of side issues--some based on seemingly far-fetched premises or broad interpretation:

-- Santa Monica Bay Argument I.

P’s claim: This measure protects the bay from offshore drilling by requiring the city to oppose it, while Proposition O’s silence on the issue encourages drilling in the bay.

O’s response: Pro-drilling attempts to confuse voters. City officials already are strongly opposed to bay drilling but lack jurisdiction over federal waters where offshore operations would occur.

-- Santa Monica Bay Argument II.

O’s claim: Proposition P’s passage would signal Washington that Los Angeles voters are open to coastal drilling and thus would not oppose drilling in the bay.

P’s response: Federal offshore lease approval is unlikely, but in any case there is too little oil beneath the bay to attract an oil company.

-- The Police Argument.

P’s claim: The drilling project will generate more than $120 million for the city that mus t be earmarked to hire up to 100 officers a year during the 30-year project life.

O’s response: The City Charter does not permit the funds to be earmarked to hire police, and the project cannot possibly generate enough revenue to meet the 100-officer-per-year promise.

-- The Money Argument.

P’s claim: P will provide up to $275 million for the city of Los Angeles and city schools. The projection is based on an optimum find of 60 million barrels of oil selling at an average of more than $66 a barrel over the life of the project.

O’s response: Currently, oil sells for around $13 a barrel, and a 500% jump in price is highly unlikely. Also, other experts say 20 million barrels is a more realistic projection of recoverable oil.

-- The Safety Argument I.

O’s claim: The Palisades drilling project is hazardous because it is near unstable cliffs and an earthquake fault that could trigger a blowout.

P’s response: Occidental’s installation of a water drainage system will stabilize the cliffs, and it is highly unlikely that an earthquake will override new technology designed to prevent a major accident.

-- The Safety Argument II.

O’s claim: The explosion last July 6 of Occidental’s drilling rig in the North Sea, which killed 166 people, as well as recent onshore mishaps, prove that although technology has made drilling safer, accidents still occur.

P’s response: It is unfair to compare the North Sea offshore operation and the onshore wells in Pacific Palisades. Occidental has never experienced a major accident in its other Los Angeles drilling operations.

-- The Drilling Under the Beach Argument.

P’s claim: Proposition O allows oil drilling under every city beach, while Occidental is required to slant drill away from the beach at the Palisades site.

O’s response: Not true. Proposition O’s 1,000-yard drilling-free zone will prevent beach drilling, though theoretically slant drilling toward the beach could occur from outside the 1,000-yard zone but is unlikely due to opposition.

-- The Loophole Argument.

P’s claim: Proposition O exempts existing drilling operations in Venice and the Los Angeles Harbor from its drilling-free zone.

O’s response: Existing oil operations cannot legally be barred.