OFFSHORE OIL

Aerial photograph of the 1969 well blowout at Platform A.

Protecting our coastal environment and communities from the risks and impacts of offshore oil development has been integral to EDC’s work since our founding.

EDC was established in the aftermath of the 1969 oil spill from Platform A near Santa Barbara.  Over 3 million gallons of oil spewed into the ocean and blackened the coast from Point Conception to Ventura County.  This tragedy has been referred to as the “oil spill heard around the world” and focused new attention on the substantial impacts that human activities can have on the environment.  The 1969 spill is credited with giving birth to the modern environmental movement and the first Earth Day celebration, as well as spurring the adoption of many state and federal environmental protection laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), California Coastal Act, and more.

Beach cleanup efforts during the 1969 oil spill. Photo Robert Duncan	Volunteer efforts to clean a local harbor, 1969 oil spill. Photo Robert Duncan

After the oil spill, local residents and state officials implored the federal government to disallow any further offshore oil and gas development.  Although the federal government established a small offshore Ecological Preserve near Santa Barbara and established the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary surrounding the five northern Channel Islands, most of the offshore region was left unprotected.  Between 1969 and 1984, the federal government continued to approve further lease sales offshore Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. 

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush issued an executive order prohibiting further federal leasing pending studies to be conducted by the National Research Council.  This oil moratorium was extended until 2012 by President Clinton and then rescinded by President George W. Bush in 2008.  From 1982 – 2008, Congress created its own moratoria each year by restricting the use of federal funds from being used to support new leasing in many areas of the country, including the entire California coast.  That moratorium expired in September 2008.

Before the beginning of the federal moratoria, many oil and gas projects were permitted off our coast.  There are currently 20 platforms located offshore the Tri-Counties region, mostly in federal waters (more than three miles offshore). In addition, there were 36 federal leases that were sold between 1968 and 1984 but not developed.  In 1999, EDC represented several groups in a successful legal challenge that blocked the extension of such leases.

Santa Barbara County Energy Division Map

EDC has represented dozens of local, state and federal organizations that are dedicated to protecting our precious coast from the impacts of offshore oil and gas development.  Such development threatens the environment and our communities with the risk of oil spills, degradation of our air and water quality, harm to public health and safety, impacts to marine wildlife, cultural resources, and aesthetics, and conflicts with our local tourism and fishing industries.  In addition, oil and gas are fossil fuels, which means that the eventual use and consumption of these fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change.

Our goals in responding to offshore oil and gas development threats are twofold: to prevent new leasing and development, and to phase out existing production operations.  Instead of continuing our reliance on fossil fuels like oil and gas, we need to pursue non-polluting energy strategies like conservation, efficiency, and investing in renewable sources of energy.

Federal Leasing and Development

Federal oil and gas production is regulated by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA).  OCSLA provides a four-step process for approving offshore oil and gas projects:

• Five-Year Lease Plans analyze the country’s needs, supplies, and options for new leasing;
• Lease Sales: areas identified in a final Five-Year Lease Plan may be sold to private companies through a bidding process.  Leases are valid for five to ten years.  Purchase of a lease does not guarantee a right to development, but rather provides an exclusive right to apply for exploration and development permits;
• Exploration Plans (EPs): once a lease is purchased, the buyer develops a plan to explore the area for development potential.  Exploration activities, such as seismic surveys and exploratory drilling, can pose impact to the environment and often require environmental review;
• Development and Production Plans (DPPs): following successful exploration, a company may apply for permission to develop the lease.  Development activities involve construction impacts (from installing platforms, pipelines, onshore processing, storage and transportation facilities) and operational impacts (from drilling, discharging byproducts into the ocean, transporting, processing and refining operations).  Once commercial production commences, the lease has no termination date.

Current Threats in Federal Waters

There are 20 platforms located offshore Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties.  Oil and gas from these platforms is shipped by pipeline to onshore processing facilities.  From the processing facilities, the gas is sent to market via natural gas pipelines.  The crude oil is transported to refineries, mostly in the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Bakersfield areas.  There is an asphalt refinery in Santa Maria and another refinery in southern San Luis Obispo County.  Although many of these platforms were installed more than 40 years ago, they continue operating due to high oil prices and new “slant drilling” technology that allows companies to drill several miles from an oil platform. The industry continues to propose new drilling from several of these platforms.

In addition to operations from these facilities, our region faces the threat of new leasing now that the federal oil moratorium has expired. 

Following the lifting of the federal oil moratorium, the Bush Administration issued a new draft Five-Year Lease Plan.  The draft Plan included the entire Santa Barbara County coast as a potential area for new leasing, including the federal Ecological Preserve near the City of Santa Barbara.  The Department of Interior scheduled public hearings on the Plan in April 2009; EDC and others strenuously opposed the Plan. Fortunately, the Secretary of the Interior agreed to drop the new Plan and re-instate the existing Five-Year Lease Plan which excludes California.

However, this action by the Secretary does not prevent Congress from passing legislation requiring new leasing. That is exactly what happened in early 2012, when HR 3410 was introduced in the House of Representatives. This bill would mandate new leasing offshore California, especially from existing platforms. EDC has joined our Representative, Lois Capps, in opposing this threatening measure.

State Leasing and Development

In State waters, which are located within the first three miles from shore, there is only one remaining oil platform offshore UCSB and Isla Vista (Platform Holly), as well as piers located near Ellwood and Rincon. The State has not granted any new leases since the 1969 oil spill.  In 1994, EDC helped sponsor the California Coastal Sanctuary Act (O'Connell), which imposed a permanent ban on new leasing in State waters.  There is one exception to this ban: if State reserves are being drained from an adjacent federal oil platform.  In addition, if a field that is currently being produced from a State platform extends beyond the existing lease, the operator can request an extension of that lease boundary.  In both cases, the State must weigh the benefits and impacts of the proposal and assert its discretionary authority.

Current Threats in State Waters

Venoco Inc. submitted an application to the California State Lands Commission for permission to expand the Ellwood Field located offshore Santa Barbara County near UCSB (the Ellwood Full Field" project).  EDC represents four groups opposed to this proposal, which would threaten the University’s ecologically sensitive Coal Oil Point Reserve and important coastal recreation and habitat areas. Learn more about our Venoco Ellwood Oil Development case. As a result of significant community opposition, Venoco withdrew its application in November, 2010. Venoco does still have an application to resume drilling from the Ellwood Pier into Lease 421. Oil drilling from the pier was terminated following an oil spill in 1994. EDC and our clients are currently responding to this proposal.

Venoco also applied to the State Lands Commission and City of Carpinteria for permission to construct a new drilling tower next to the Carpinteria Bluffs and City Hall, in order to drill into several offshore State leases the ("Paredon" Project).  EDC represents several groups in opposition to this proposal, which would violate the City’s zoning ordinance and pose significant impacts to the Carpinteria coast, nearby seal sanctuary, and other coastal wildlife. Learn more about the Venoco Paredon Project here. After it appeared that the City may deny permits for the project, Venoco sought to circumvent the City’s process by placing an initiative on the ballot. EDC and the City immediately brought a legal challenge to the initiative measure, citing state constitutional and statutory prohibitions against using the initiative process for private gain. Before the case could be resolved in the courts, however, the voters in the City resoundingly rejected the initiative in June 2010. Venoco is now expected to bring a new proposal to the State Lands Commission in early 2012.

Finally, Carone has brought forward a proposal to slant drill from an existing platform, Hogan, which is located in federal waters offshore Carpinteria. Carone would drill into existing state leases (one of which is also part of Venoco’s Paredon project) from this federal platform. EDC submitted a comment letter on behalf of our clients, objecting to the extended use of this 45-year-old platform. In our letter, we cited the increased risks of an offshore oil spill, concern about the operator’s poor safety and compliance record, threat of increased air and water pollution, potential harm to wildlife including the seal sanctuary, and geologic instability of the region.