VCInFocus - Oil and Gas Updates for Ventura County

Oil Group President was in charge of marine protection designation Areas

6/1/2016

'- Daily Kos post by Dan Bacher - Below is the Map of Southern California "marine protected areas" (MPAs) located in both state and federal waters courtesy of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Catherine Reheis-Boyd President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), chaired the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative Blue Ribbon Task Force to create so-called "marine protected areas" off the South Coast while oil companies were conducting offshore fracking operations. Fracking presents a threat to fish, wildlife and the ecosystem in both "marine protected areas" and the waters outside of them. State MPAs fail to protect the ocean from fracking, acidizing and other offshore drilling techniques, as well as from pollution, military testing, corporate aquaculture and all human impacts on the ocean other than sustainable fishing and gathering.'

Click HERE to read the full article on Daily Kos

The map below shows the fragmented areas of MPA's created by the group chaired by Reheis-Boyd, president of Western States Petroleum Association.

Feds open door again to fracking off California Coast

5/31/2016

Following what environmental groups say was a flawed impacts study, the Federal government has paved the way for fracking to resume in ocean waters off the coast of California.

A fracking moratorium had been in place following a lawsuit filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) but on May 27 the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a finding of "no significant impact" from enhancing extraction methods - including hydraulic fracturing - fracking - from platforms off the California coast.

HERE is the information on the BOEM website.

In response to that finding CBD issued a statement saying a suit is likely.

Ventura County residents and organizations recently protested outside of the Camarillo offices of the BOEM to oppose fracking in California's ocean waters.

Blake Kopcho with Center for Biological Diversity speaks to protesters outside BOEM offices in Camarillo. PHOTO by CFROG

Local Environmental Groups point to flaws in analysis of off shore hydraulic fracturing and acidization

3/30/2016

In a March 23 press release the Environmental Defense Center and the Surfrider Foundation pointed to -

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.

Maggie Hall, staff attorney with the EDC told VC In Focus their report focuses on all 23 platforms in the waters off of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties.

Here is the entire press release -

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

Today: Ventura County District Attorney announced new indictments against Santa Clara WAste WAter in Santa paula

3/23/2016

Here is todays press release from the VC District Attorney -

Last night - Ojai MAC takes No action - TONIGHT Ojai City council to hear about Mirada Petroleum/Agnew Lease project in Upper Ojai

3/22/2016

Last night the Ojai Valley Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) reviewed a project proposed by Santa Paula based Mirada Petroleum at the Agnew Lease, off Koenigstein Road in Upper Ojai. View the project information HERE.

The MAC took no action on the project, the meeting was labeled a "public forum." The MAC is an advisory group that reviews and comments on projects in the Ojai area.

Tonight the project will be reviewed by the Ojai City Council, 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 401 S. Ventura Street, Ojai, CA 93023.

County planning is taking this project before the MAC and city council following a map error. The error was detected by the watch dog group Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas (CFROG). County officials say the error, which showed the project being outside the boundaries of the Ojai Valley Area Plan (OVAP), was a simple mistake and they are re-examining the project per the parameters of the OVAP.

County planners and CFROG members are in disagreement about how certain air quality standards should be applied to the project. CFROG says the stricter rules laid out in the OVAP are not trumped by the wells being permitted by the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), whereas County planning staff state because the new wells would be permitted as part of the APCD emission reduction program the well emissions are not included in the overall project emission calculations per the OVAP.

View the Ojai Valley Area Plan here:

CFROG is not calling for a denial of the project, but further study and a full environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CFROG members called for the full engagement of the public process - that is the cornerstone of CEQA - providing all data, testing and evidence used to make determinations to the public, so folks can see the methodology behind the findings.

Last night, Ojai resident Russ Baggerly said to the MAC, "the General Plan is the law of the land," he said "it is illegal" for any guidelines to be in conflict with the General Plan and he viewed the exclusion of air emissions of these wells, even if permitted by the APCD to be in conflict with the General Plan. He pointed to a section of the OVAP which states, "The Planning Division will amend the County Initial Study Guidelines so that the Ventura River Municipal Advisory Council and the City of Ojai will have review authority over all projects in the Ojai Valley Airshed that emit more than 5 lbs./day of NOx and/or ROC." Baggerly pointed out that had not been done, and it makes no mention of exempting emissions when permitted by VCAPCD.

Another part of the project examines truck traffic and the use of Koenigstein Road, which is currently prohibited in the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.). Mirada is seeking to modify the C.U.P to allow use of the Koenigstein Road. The route allowed in the current permit, which travelled through the nearby Ojai Oil lease, was washed out in a flood in the 90's. Since then Mirada, and other oil companies, have been using Koenigstein Road in violation of their permits.

Local residents say it should not be allowed with out further study, the intersection at Highway 150 is to small, with blind curves and too much traffic. County staff said it has been studied, and deemed to be safe, because of the nearly 4,000 truck trips that have occurred with no accidents. When the C.U.P was modified in 1983, the Board of Supervisors found truck traffic at that intersection to be unsafe and therefore made it prohibited.

The OVAP states, "Conditions applied to conditional use permits for oil and gas exploration and development will be enforced to the maximum extent feasible in order to protect the health and welfare of the citizens and the character of the Ojai Valley." (Programs, Sect. 1.3.3 under Mineral Resources).

The Ojai City Council also has review and comment authority.

GIS Map, showing all active, idle and cancelled wells. Excludes buried and abandoned wells. There are 210 Active oil wells in the Ojai Oil Field, which stretches from the Upper Ojai Valley through the lower Valley to the area near Casitas Springs. Created by Vickie Peters, Geojournalist. Used with permission.

TONIGHT - Ojai Valley Municipal Advisory Committee reviewing Oil project in Upper Ojai - Koenigstein Road

3/21/2016

Tonight, March 21 the Ojai Valley MAC will meet at 7 p.m. and review a project planned by Mirada Petroleum -

From the Agenda ". Review of Mirada Petroleum Project, PL13-0158 (Agnew lease): Applicant requests CUP to authorize continued operation of an existing oil and gas production facility consisting of three existing oil wells, tanks and gas flare, and to allow the drilling of three new wells. The 20-acre site is accessed via Koenigstein Road 2,000 feet north of Hwy 150 in Upper Ojai east of Summit School. Project CEQA documents can be found at the links below:

This case involved a mapping error caught by Citizens for Responsible Oil and Gas (CFROG). County planners said their office made the mistake, and put the project outside the boundaries of the Ojai Valley Area Plan, when in fact the project lies within those boundaries.

Project within the boundaries of the Ojai Valley Area Plan require review/comment opportunity from the city of Ojai and other environmental review standards such as air quality impacts.

Meeting Details -

Monday, March 21st, 2016, at 7 p.m.
At the Oak View Community Center,
18 Valley Road, Oak View

Environmental Documents can be viewed at:

http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/ceqa/eir/PL13-0158%20Draft%20Subsequent%20EIR%20- %20Mirada%20Petroleum%20Oil%20&%20Gas%20Project.pdf

http://www.ventura.org/rma/planning/pdf/ceqa/eir/PL13-0158%20Draft%20Subsequent%20EIR%20Appendices%20A%20-%20H%20-%20Mirada%20Petroleum%20Oil%20&%20Gas%20Project.pdf

The Ojai Valley Oil Field from the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources well mapping site. Includes Upper and Lower Ojai.

Termo company fined $75,000 for months long Intentional Natural Gas leak in Aliso Canyon Field

3/18/2016

The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) has fined the Los Angeles based Termo Company (which also operates well in Ventura County) $75,000 for three violations stating, "noting that not only did the gas venting appear to be intentional, but also that the operator tried to hide it."

The penalty order issued stated -

"once the pipeline was discovered, Operator destroyed the evidence of its existence before division personnel could fully inspect it. The brazen nature of this violation shows that Operator held little to no regard for the statutes and regulations or, more importantly, public health and safety."

The Termo Company operates 51 wells in Ventura County, in the South Mountain (Santa Paula area) and Ojai Oil Fields. From the Termo website - "Termo operates in two fields in the Ventura Basin with over 1,000 net acres and 24 wells producing approximately 385 BOEPD. The Sulphur Crest Field is a complex faulted anticline. Due to the complex faulting updating the geologic interpretation to incorporate new data has resulted in additional development opportunities."

From the DOGGR press release dated March 18 -

LOS ANGELES – State regulators have issued a $75,000 civil penalty order to The Termo Company for illegally venting natural gas in the Aliso Canyon field. The California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources levied $25,000 penalties for each of three violations, noting that not only did the gas venting appear to be intentional, but also that the operator tried to hide it.
The leak was discovered when the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and South Coast Air Quality Management District flew over the field on January 23 with a forward looking infrared (FLIR) camera. Oil and gas division personnel were dispatched to the site to find the source of the leak.

“Someone clearly made an effort to conceal the pipe, because even though we knew from aerial readings where it was generally, our field staff had to search carefully before finding it behind a tree,” State Oil & Gas Supervisor Ken Harris said. “If it wasn’t for the aerial surveillance, the illegal discharge could have continued indefinitely.”

The source of the leak was the terminus of a pipeline measuring approximately 2½ inches in diameter. A Termo employee advised inspectors that the pipeline was part of an emergency relief system and was being used because the natural gas Termo produces along with oil could not be transmitted to the Southern California Gas Company’s storage facility. Injection has been halted into the Aliso Canyon field under Division orders until all the wells have been tested. The operator closed a valve on the pipeline in question, which diminished but did not halt the flow of gas.

Division inspectors returned on January 28 to find that the operator had removed the pipeline, which had been connected only to the wellhead, indicating the venting was intentional. Termo was cited for three violations: unreasonable waste of gas, improper disposal of oil field waste, and failure to maintain and monitor the production facility.

According to the penalty order, “once the pipeline was discovered, Operator destroyed the evidence of its existence before division personnel could fully inspect it. The brazen nature of this violation shows that Operator held little to no regard for the statutes and regulations or, more importantly, public health and safety.”

The Division is continuing to investigate the incident, and additional findings of violations are possible. It is unclear how long the venting occurred or how much gas was vented. Current law caps the penalty amount the Division can assess at $25,000 per violation. Assembly Bill 2756, jointly authored by Assemblymembers Tony Thurmond (D-Richmond) and Das William (D- Santa Barbara), would allow the Division to substantially increase civil penalty amounts for regulatory violations. The bill is currently being considered in the Legislature and has the support of the Division.

The Division, part of the Department of Conservation, oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of oil, natural gas, and geothermal wells in California. The regulatory program emphasizes the wise development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in the state through sound engineering practices that protect the environment, prevent pollution, and ensure public safety.

Google Earth Image of Aliso Canyon Oil Field Facility.

CA State Oil and gas regulators seek comments on updated underground injection rules

1/21/2016

With the publics attention on the Porter Ranch gas leak causing thousands to relocate the office responsible for regulating oil and gas activities in the state - The Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) - announces the public comment period on the "discussion draft" of new regulations covering steam and water injection practices (for enhanced oil and gas production) as well as rules pertaining to the injection of gas for storage - like the situation in Porter Ranch.

The four page discussion draft of proposed regulations can be viewed HERE.

The public comment period on the discussion draft rules goes until February 19 and comments can be submitted by mail or email: "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."

Here is the full press release from DOGGR:

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.

Environmental Defense Center issues Press release about potential suit against CRC (Vintage Petroleum).

1/20/2016

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

THE PRESS RELEASE - Ventura, CA – The Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) today notified California Resources Corporation (“CRC”) (formerly Vintage Production California LLC), of its intent to sue the company for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) at its South Mountain oil field, where it conducts oil exploration and development activities. The South Mountain oil field comprises a 5,757-acre area located near the City of Santa Paula, runoff from which drains to the Santa Clara River and Calleguas Creek watershed.

EDC’s notice letter alleges that CRC, for at least the past five years, has consistently violated California’s permit that protects rivers and streams from industrial facilities’ polluted storm water runoff. The notice states that CRC is discharging total suspended solids and other pollutants orders of magnitude above water quality benchmarks and guidelines; failing to implement mandated treatment controls at their drilling pads, access roads and other pollution sources; developing an inadequate sampling and monitoring program; and failing to develop an adequate storm water pollution prevention plan, among other violations.

"The storm water pollution from the South Mountain oil field threatens water quality in two important Ventura County watersheds, both of which drain to area beaches," stated Brian Segee, EDC Senior Attorney. "We hope that our notice will convince CRC to clean up its operations and meet Clean Water Act standards, but EDC is prepared to go to court if necessary."

Storm water is among the top sources of water contamination in southern California, as significant quantities of pollution enter our waterways during rain events. Oil field operations such as those conducted at the South Mountain oil field, including operation of miles of unpaved roads, construction, well drilling, well completion and stimulation (including hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”), production, and equipment maintenance, commonly discharge a wide range of conventional and hazardous pollutants, including total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, benzene, lead, arsenic, chlorides, and ethanol xylenes. The adverse impacts of these pollutants on water quality can pose risks to fish and other aquatic organisms, wildlife, and human health.

Under California’s “General Permit For Storm Water Discharges Associated With Industrial Activities,” industrial facilities are prohibited from discharging pollutants, including total suspended solids, oil and grease, and toxic chemicals, in excess of water quality standards and without applying the best available and best conventional pollution treatment technologies to their pollution sources. CRC has consistently reported pollution levels well above applicable guidelines and benchmarks, yet has failed to take corrective action to remedy the pollution.

This is the second recent legal action EDC has filed against CRC for violations of the CWA at its oil fields. The first lawsuit, settled in 2012, was brought to address discharges from the Rincon Grubb field that drains to heavily utilized Ventura County beaches including Hobson’s, Pitas Point, Mondos, and Solimar. In a recent study of pollution at Rincon Grubb arising from that legal settlement, researchers found that storm water samples had high concentrations of total suspended and dissolved solids containing excessive levels of aluminum, arsenic, barium, lead, and zinc, as well as naphthalene and oil and grease. The study also detected excessive concentrations of other toxic metals, including chrysene, antimony, copper, mercury, and nickel.[1] It is likely that those same pollutants exist at the South Mountain oil field, yet CRC has not taken measures to sample for and monitor those pollutants.

Under the Clean Water Act, potential litigants must send a 60-day notice of intent to sue before lawsuits can be filed alleging that a facility is in violation of the Act. While EDC is committed to pursuing legal remedies if necessary, the organization’s hope is that submission of the notice will prompt CRC to comply with its mandatory permit requirements, thereby protecting water quality, without court intervention.

CRC was created in 2014 when Occidental Petroleum Corporation (“OXY”), an international oil and gas exploration and production company headquartered in Houston, Texas, separated its California assets into an independent, publicly traded company. CRC is the state’s largest natural gas producer, largest oil and gas producer on a gross-operated basis, and largest oil and gas mineral acreage holder with approximately 2.3 million acres.

The Environmental Defense Center is being represented in this action by Michael Lozeau and Doug Chermak of Lozeau Drury LLP and its in-house Staff Attorneys.

[1] Blue Tomorrow and Dr. Arturo Keller. Northern Ventura County Coastal Watershed Project and Assessment (2014).

###

The Environmental Defense Center, a non-profit law firm, protects and enhances the local environment through education, advocacy, and legal action and works primarily within Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo counties. Since 1977, EDC has empowered community-based organizations to advance environmental protection. Program areas include climate and energy, and protecting clean water, the Santa Barbara Channel, and open space and wildlife. Learn more about EDC at www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org

Lozeau Drury LLP is an environmental law firm representing non-profit environmental and recreational groups, labor organizations, neighborhood associations, and Indian tribes in their efforts to create and protect livable neighborhoods and cities, clean up air and water pollution, protect endangered species, protect open spaces, reduce exposures to toxic pollutants, and create clean, safe jobs.

VCInFocus has contacted CRC for a response/comment.

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.

CFROG responds to County Planning Directors letter to City of Ojai

1/12/2016

Tonight the Ojai City Council has the following item on their agenda:

County Planning Application PL 13-0158, an application by Mirada Petroleum to Drill three new wells, redrill one well and related activities in the upper Ojai RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Receive public input on the proposed project; and
2. Consider adopting a resolution requesting further environmental review and noticing of the project before consideration by the Ventura County Planning Commission.

Last week VCInFocus posted the letter from Planning Director Kim Prillhart addressed to Rob Clark, City Manager of Ojai - Read the letter HERE

And in response to that letter, Citizens For Responsible Oil and Gas (who will be presenting to the City of Ojai tonight - agenda item #8 at the meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m.) issued the letter posted below.

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.