As the article points out, the CA coastal economy is worth a lot more money than the offshore oil economy.
Offshore drilling is the exception. Only TX, LA, MS, AL, and AK allow offshore drilling, and none of them are known for having a significant coastal/tourist economy.
The way Eisenhower set it up was the inner continental shelf(3 miles) belongs to the state and the outer belongs to the feds and the states get none of the royalty from federal waters, but a state assumes all the risk of an oil spill in federal waters damaging the coastal economy.
In the 90s, the oil industry developed deep water technology which allowed them to drill far offshore, lessening the threat. And Congress began trying to implement "royalty sharing" which would give a state a portion of the federal royalty. CARA and CARA 2000 both failed and it was not until 2006 and GOMESA that TX, LA, MS, and AL were given royalty sharing in Area 181. It was also in that time period that Clinton and Lawton Chiles agreed to drilling "beyond 100 miles" after which George Bush and Jeb Bush agreed to "beyond 100 miles". In GOMESA, congress set it up as "beyond 125 miles".
After royalty sharing was given to the gulf states, the mid-Atlantic states began to consider offshore drilling, predicated on receiving royalty sharing and drilling only beyond 50 miles.
Very good info. I am however, still of the opinion that CA, with their over regulation, near socialist far left grip on the state, pension issues, etc., is on an unsustainable trajectory.