fundamental flaws in the federal government’s first ever environmental analysis of fracking and acidizing from offshore oil platforms in southern California, including the Santa Barbara Channel.  In response to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (“BOEM”) and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement’s (“BSEE”) draft programmatic environmental assessment (“draft PEA”), the comment letter states the federal agencies’ analysis overlooks potentially significant impacts, such as harmful impacts of toxic discharges of frac flowback fluid on the marine environment or extending the life of oil platforms, and requests that the agencies conduct more comprehensive environmental review.

​The draft assessment is a hard fought requirement of EDC’s recent lawsuit settlement with BOEM and BSEE, and is the agencies’ first attempt at studying the significant risks that these practices pose to water and air quality and the many endangered species within the Santa Barbara Channel, including blue, fin, and humpback whales, and the southern sea otter.  Unfortunately, as EDC and Surfrider’s letter demonstrates, the draft analysis falls far short of legal requirements in several critical respects.
 
“The unknown cocktail of toxic chemicals used in offshore fracking and acidizing pose a tremendous threat to the local environment at every point of the practice, from transportation to platforms, injection into wells, and discharge of the frac fluids into the open ocean,” said Maggie Hall, Staff Attorney with EDC. 
 
“The Santa Barbara Channel is an invaluable resource that supports numerous species of marine wildlife, as well as our local tourism, recreation, and fishery industries. Any consideration of offshore fracking in our waters must address the significant potential environmental and economic impacts of this activity. The Environmental Assessment by BOEM and BSEE failed to do that, said Amanda Winchell, the California Coastal Policy Coordinator with Surfrider Foundation.
 
Specifically, EDC and Surfrider’s letter raises the following flaws in the draft PEA:

• The draft PEA concludes, almost without exception, that offshore well stimulation will have no impact whatsoever, on: air quality; water quality; geologic resources/seismicity; benthic resources; marine and coastal fish and essential fish habitat; marine and coastal birds; marine mammals; sea turtles; commercial and recreational fisheries; areas of special concern; recreation and tourism; environmental justice; and archeological resources.  However, the agencies’ conclusions lack scientific support.
• The draft PEA unlawfully implies the agencies have an obligation to allow these well stimulation techniques, when in fact their obligation is to the public to ensure a thorough and complete analysis of environmental risks before deciding whether or not to allow such activities.
• The agencies’ analysis of alternatives is extremely narrow and does not include an alternative that would meaningfully restrict well simulation to preserve the environment.
• The draft PEA suffers from missing information and numerous data gaps, including the toxicity and impacts of chemicals utilized in the process.
• The agencies fail to adequately address indirect impacts, such as extending the life of existing oil platforms and associated risks.
• The PEA fails to analyze the added impact that these practices have when combined with impacts we are already experiencing from other oil activities in the area, such as the Refugio Oil Spill. 
• The agencies reach the baseless conclusion that prohibiting offshore well stimulation will have greater impacts than allowing it, due to unfounded speculation about resulting increases in drilling onshore or increased import of oil and gas.

 
Prepared under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), the draft PEA is a preliminary step in analyzing and disclosing the impacts that result from enhanced drilling activities such as fracking and acidizing.  Contrary to available information, the document summarily concludes that offshore fracking and acidizing from the 22 southern California offshore oil platforms has had and will continue to have no environmental impact.  EDC and Surfrider’s letter explains that, in fact, offshore well stimulation does pose a risk to the environment and, as such, the agencies are required to prepare a more detailed Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”).
 
Under EDC’s legal settlement, the agencies must issue the final environmental review document by May 28, 2016, and have placed a moratorium on the issuance of drilling permits that allow well stimulation until the process is complete. “The current moratorium on offshore well stimulation should remain in place until the agencies have completed a robust environmental analysis that takes a true ‘hard look’ at impacts, as the law requires,” said Maggie Hall.
 
In addition to the environmental review process, under the settlement, BOEM and BSEE have also committed to developing an electronic filing and public notification web site for offshore drilling permit applications, and must post completed applications to the system within five days. 
 
Acidizing and fracking are both dangerous oil production processes involving the injection of large amounts of water and chemicals into the ground in order to fracture or dissolve rock.  In both processes, many chemicals remain undisclosed under “trade secret” laws, but are known to pose risks at all stages of use, from transportation to and from the platforms, to disposal of such chemicals through underground injection or direct discharge to the ocean. More information can be found in EDC’s Dirty Water: Fracking Offshore California report. 
 
The comment letter can be viewed on EDC’s website.
 
###
 
Environmental Defense Center, a non-profit law firm, protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy, and legal action and works primarily within Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties.  Founded in response to the 1969 Oil Spill more than 40 years ago, EDC has represented itself and other organizations to advance environmental protection.  Program areas include protecting coast and ocean resources, open spaces and wildlife, and human and environmental health.  Learn more about EDC at www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org.
 
The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profit grassroots organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of our world’s ocean, waves and beaches through a powerful activist network. Founded in 1984 by a handful of visionary surfers in Malibu, California, the Surfrider Foundation now maintains over 250,000 supporters, activists and members worldwide. For more information on the Surfrider Foundation, visitwww.surfrider.org.

VCInFocus photo - Platform Holly. Operated by Venoco. Here is an earlier story regarding this platform. http://www.vcinfocus.com/oil--gas-updates-for-vc/sb-independant-examines-acidizing-offshore

STATE SEEKS COMMENT ON AGGRESSIVE NEW RULES
CONTROLLING UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF WASTEWATER IN CALIFORNIA OIL AND GAS FIELDS
 
SACRAMENTO — The California Department of Conservation (DOC) seeks public comment on a package of draft rules proposed to control the use of water and steam in the production of oil and natural gas in California, and also the water generated as a byproduct of that process.  The proposed rules also would increase the safety of underground natural gas storage by requiring an additional layer of protection inside many wells.

“We are moving swiftly to enact regulations that further protect groundwater, including tougher wastewater disposal rules,” said State Oil & Gas Supervisor Ken Harris, who leads DOC’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources. “These rules boost permitting and reporting requirements, further regulate how companies inject wastewater and natural gas, and impose new testing and monitoring mandates.”

The aggressive proposed rules follow DOC’s issuance last week of emergency regulations on underground natural gas storage facilities including the Aliso Canyon facility operated by the Southern California Gas Company in northern Los Angeles, where a well has been leaking gas since late October.  These emergency regulations on underground gas storage facilities, directed by Governor Brown in his January 6 emergency proclamation, are scheduled to take effect in early February.  While these emergency regulations are in effect over the next twelve months, an expedited rulemaking process will take place to update permanent regulations for underground gas storage facilities.  This permanent rulemaking for underground gas storage facilities will be separate from the process to modernize and improve requirements for all types of oil and gas injection activities regulated by the state’s underground injection program, which are reflected in the regulations proposed today.

Due to California’s geology, drilling for oil and gas yields far more water than oil.  In 2014, California produced 205.3 million barrels of oil.  Generation of that oil also produced more than 3.3 billion barrels of water, most of which is naturally brackish and unsuitable for human use unless it goes through a produced water treatment process approved by the Water Boards.  Typically, the produced water is injected back into the reservoir from which it was produced, either for enhanced oil recovery or to maintain reservoir pressure to prevent subsidence.  In California, certain kinds of injection wells – those that inject super-heated steam, water, or other fluids into formations to extract minerals – are regulated by the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (Division).  The Division’s program to regulate these injection wells is monitored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA).

The draft rules released today are intended to address shortcomings in the state’s underground injection control program identified by the US EPA and also to modernize and improve the rules that protect public health and safety and the environment.

“Last October, the Division released a Renewal Plan to address a number of issues, including underground injection,” Harris said. “We committed to conducting a thorough review of all underground injection control projects in the state, to ensuring California is in full compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and to reviewing and revising our regulations as necessary.  We are following through on those commitments while also working to strengthen regulations to improve safety.”
​
The new “discussion draft” regulations include revisions to the existing underground injection control regulations to address the following issues:

♦ Clarifying and strengthening standards to ensure “zonal isolation” of injection projects – that is, making sure that what is injected goes into and stays in the proper geologic zone to protect groundwater.

♦ Strengthening and clarifying permitting and ongoing project data requirements for all underground injection control operations, including cyclic steam, in which a well is injected with steam to enhance oil production and then used to pump up oil.

♦ Strengthening and clarifying mechanical integrity testing requirements for all underground injection control operations, including cyclic steam.

♦ Establishing permitting and regulatory requirements for cyclic steam operations.

♦ Establishing a process and standards for determining maximum allowable surface pressure for injection operations.

♦ Expanding tubing and packer requirements to apply to cyclic steam wells and gas storage wells.  This would provide an additional layer of protection to the well casing and contain gases or liquids if an inner tubing is damaged.

♦ Defining key water quality protection criteria.

The public comment period on the “discussion draft” of regulations released today runs through February 19.  The comments received will be reviewed and considered as the Division prepares for formal rulemaking. Written submissions may be provided to the Division by regular mail or email. The mailing address is: Department of Conservation, 801 K Street, MS 24-02, Sacramento, CA, 95814, attention UIC Discussion Draft. The email address is UIC.Regulations@conservation.ca.gov, attention UIC Discussion Draft.
Updated draft regulations will be made public when the Division commences a formal rulemaking process. Public comment hearings and additional comment periods will be announced when the notice of the formal rulemaking process is issued to the public. To be on a mailing list for underground injection control-related rulemakings, please use the following link: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/Pages/MailingLists.aspx.

CLEAN WATER ACT ENFORCEMENT ACTION INITIATED AGAINST SOUTH MOUNTAIN OIL AND GAS FIELD
 
Oil Company Threatened With Federal Lawsuit for
Illegal Storm Water Discharges to Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek Watersheds
 

Home near South Mountain Oil Fields. Signs saying "Warning Petroleum Pipeline" and two pipes coming up with vents at the top. VCInFocus c. 2014

Well operated by CRC in Upper Ojai.

To: Rob Clark, Ojai City Manager
From Richard Holly, advisory member of CFROG
Re:  Item 8 on 1-12-16 Ojai City Council Agenda
 
CFROG response to 1-7-16 Planning Department Kim Prillhart memo re Mirada Petroleum Project PL13-0158
 
The County’s analysis that newly proposed oil wells in Ventura County are exempt from the departments’ CEQA review of this and other discretionary projects is incorrect.
 
Under the Planning Department’s analysis there would be no limit to the number of oil wells in the Upper Ojai exempted from environmental review and comment by the City of Ojai.  For instance, if this was an application to drill 25 or 50 new wells, there would be no need to provide Ojai notice and review authority of the project!
 
Ms. Prillhart’s and Mr. Thomas’ position that new oil well drilling projects are exempt from environmental review regarding air pollution emissions is fundamentally inconsistent with CEQA, the Ventura County General Plan, and the Ojai Valley Area Plan specific provisions to the contrary.
 
The major premise appears to be that there need be no CEQA review because oil wells must be permitted and such permits are ministerial. 
 
However, the VCAPCD regulations regarding ministerial permitting of oil wells are not applicable to the county’s discretionary decision as to whether the application to modify the CUP to drill three new wells should be granted.  This distinction is explicitly recognized in the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines “Emissions that should be counted toward the ROC and NOx significance threshold include any emissions that will occur as a result of approval of some type of discretionary use permit.” (VCAQ Guidelines, 5.3, emphasis added.)
 
That is, whether to grant the subject application to modify the CUP to allow three new wells is a discretionary decision that requires CEQA review.  CEQA review of course includes all the potential environmental physical impacts from the proposed project including air pollution emissions from the wells.  Once there has been an environmental review, including whether the project will exceed the air pollution threshold in the OVAP, and if the application is granted in whole or in part, the subsequent permitting of such wells is a ministerial act that would require no further environmental review.
CEQA requires environmental review of the whole project and does not allow for exempting oil well air pollutions.
 
Unfortunately, the county’s memo confuses the oil well permitting process with the discretionary environmental review process applicable to this project.
 
In summary, what this all boils down to is that the county’s claim that the emissions from the proposed new oil wells should not be considered in the SEIR is inconsistent with the General Plan, the OVAP and a material violation of CEQA.
 
Failure to give the City of Ojai notice and review authority of the project
     
The City of Ojai requests the Ventura Planning Department to continue the scheduled hearing before the Ventura County Planning Commission to allow sufficient time to allow the city review authority of the project (OVAP § 1.1.3(5).)
           
Additionally, the Planning Department’s failure to include the City of Ojai in the review process of this project is also inconsistent with its’ practices and policies. Prior to the discovery that the planning department’s approval of this project erroneously omitted an analysis pursuant to the OVAP, the Planning Department provided notice to the City of Santa Paula.