The Santa Barbara Channel is rich in petroleum, which has been mined here for over 100 years. The Channel was home to the first offshore oil well in Summerland in 1896. The first platform, Hazel, was erected in the Channel in 1958 two miles offshore of Summerland in 100 feet of water. Platform Hilda was erected two years later. Platform A was erected in September 1968, and on January 28, 1969, experienced an uncontrolled blowout which lasted for eight days and which spilled 100,000 barrels of crude oil over the course of several months, impacting over forty miles of coastline. This catastrophe was the catalyst for the emergence of an active environmental movement in the Santa Barbara area, what many cite as the birth of the modern environmental movement in the United States.

Oil and gas production in the Channel occurs on offshore oil platforms and is transported to shore via pipeline. Water quality threats from oil and gas production include releases of oil, produced water, drilling muds, and wastewater from oil platforms, discharges of ballast water, oily bilge water and wastewater from vessels that service the platforms, and deposition of air pollutants from the platforms and support vessels. Produced water, although treated, can contain high concentrations of salts, metals, hydrocarbon and organic compounds and sulfur that can harm marine life. Drilling fluids and cuttings, which are characterized by EPA as the major sources of pollutants discharged from exploratory and development drilling operations, can smother larvae, and can reduce the growth of scallops and lobsters and impair their ability to function.

In addition, the risk of major oil spills is ever-present. The Minerals Management Service estimates the risk of a 1,000 barrel or greater spills at 41.2 percent for the next 28 years.

Venoco, Inc. is proposing a project (the "Paredon Project") to develop and produce oil and natural gas in Carpinteria from offshore and onshore reservoirs using extended reach drilling. Click here to learn more and to read Channelkeeper's comments on the scoping and the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Platforms: There are currently 20 platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel producing oil and gas, 15 in federal waters and one in state waters offshore of Santa Barbara County and another four offshore of Ventura County.

The platforms discharge waste to the ocean pursuant to a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The permit allows the platform operators to discharge drilling fluids, produced water and other waste products, but sets limits on the amount of these pollutants that can be discharged.

The first permits were issued in the 1980s, yet by 2000 many of the platforms were operating under expired permits. In early 2003, Channelkeeper, with the Environmental Defense Center, Get Oil Out! and Our Children's Earth, filed two separate lawsuits to compel EPA to issue updated permits with stringent discharge limits and monitoring provisions. We prevailed, and EPA issued updated permits in December 2004 that included the key provisions Channelkeeper and our allies sought. The updated permits now require platform discharges to meet both state and federal clean water standards at the point of discharge, and allow for independent monitoring of platform discharges by a third party. It also requires platform operators to conduct analyses of alternatives to discharging their wastewater into the ocean.

Leases:  In 1990, the federal government instituted a moratorium on oil leasing in federal waters offshore of California; in 1998, President Clinton extended this moratorium through mid-2012. In 1994, a permanent statewide ban (the “California Sanctuary”) was enacted to prevent any further oil leasing in state waters. This did not dissolve existing leases that had yet to be developed, however.

There are 37 undeveloped federal oil leases off the coast of southern California. The leases were originally issued between 1968 and 1984, and were supposed to expire within ten years. Under federal law, after a lease's initial term expires, it can be extended if oil and gas are being produced or drilling is ongoing. Despite the fact that none of the leases met these conditions, the federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) extended them several times, most recently in 1999. Furthermore, in doing so, MMS failed to allow the California Coastal Commission to review the lease extensions to ensure that they are consistent with the state's Coastal Management Plan (as allowed under the Coastal Zone Management Act). As a result, the State of California sued MMS in 1999, and Channelkeeper and several other environmental groups intervened in that lawsuit. The court ruled in our favor, supporting the state's right to review the lease extensions, and ordered MMS to conduct environmental review and submit the lease extensions to the Coastal Commission for review.

MMS finally prepared environmental assessments (as opposed to more rigorous and intensive environmental impact statements) for the lease extensions in 2005, and issued findings that extending the leases would pose no significant risk to the environment. The environmental assessments analyzed the effects of only those activities that would take place within the ensuing 13-37 months, during which time the oil companies propose to update their plans for exploration, development and production, and conduct acoustic and biological surveys that will facilitate future exploratory drilling.

Channelkeeper and our allies filed a legal challenge in March 2005 arguing that MMS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in issuing the environmental assessments because it failed to consider the full range of activities and impacts that will flow from the proposed lease suspensions (including future exploration, development, and production), and also failed to evaluate a full range of alternatives (including conservation, efficiency and renewables). We also challenged MMS' findings that no significant impacts would result from extending the leases; we contend that doing so would significantly increase the risk of oil spills and impacts to marine life, air and water quality, and would conflict with coastal tourism, fishing and recreation.

We won a double victory in August 2005 when the California Coastal Commission rejected MMS' determination that extending the leases is consistent with the California Coastal Management Program. The following day, the federal district court sided with Channelkeeper and our partners in our lawsuit against MMS, ruling that MMS cannot extend the leases until it completes full environmental review of all the potential impacts that may result from their extension.

In addition to the above efforts to ensure that oil production off our shores is as safe and clean as possible, Channelkeeper also participates actively in the Santa Barbara Environmental Coalition, an alliance of non-profit organizations and government officials and agencies that meets monthly to discuss ongoing and upcoming oil and gas issues in the region and strategize on actions we will take to ensure our coast and ocean is protected from oil and gas development and production off our shores.

Liquified Natural Gas

Liquified Natural Gas, or LNG, is natural gas that has been super-cooled to minus 259 degrees Fahrenheit until it becomes a liquid. As a liquid, massive quantities of gas fit into a small space, thereby making it easy to ship long distances. Once it arrives at its destination, LNG is turned back into gas through a process called regasification, enabling it to be distributed through natural gas pipeline systems.

There are numerous environmental risks, both marine and land-based, associated with LNG. In the event of a spill, LNG would disperse faster on the ocean than on land, as spills on water provide very limited opportunity for containment. Furthermore, LNG vaporizes more quickly on water, because the ocean provides an enormous heat source. LNG ships, terminals and gas lines are also vulnerable to terrorism, accidents and earthquakes. The risks associated with shipping, loading, and off-loading LNG are likely to be much greater than those associated with land-based storage facilities.

Currently, there are five LNG receiving and regasification terminals in the US, but there are no terminals located on the West Coast. Channelkeeper is currently undertaking a rigorous review of the Clearwater Port LNG terminal being proposed by NorthernStar Natural Gas for Platform Grace. Click here to learn more about this project and our work to ensure that the review and the project comply with all relevant environmental laws.