Pacific Coast Energy Company had big plans for Orcutt Hill.
Since February of 2014, the company had been pushing to add 96 new cyclic steaming wells to the site, which would have doubled the number of wells on Orcutt Hill. For a while, the plans ran smoothly—Pacific Coast Energy (PCEC) gave a presentation to the county Planning Commission in May. The commission continued the item to its June 29 meeting, where staff recommended approval of the project.
But that’s where things came to a screeching halt.
Initially, the commission had found in the project’s environmental impact report (EIR) that the Orcutt Hill operation—called the Orcutt Hill Enhancement Plan—would have “significant and unavoidable impacts to biological resources and water resources due to potential oil seeps and oil spills/leaks.” Still, the commission thought the project’s economic benefits were enough to override its environmental impact.
But at its June 29 meeting, after dozens of public speakers urged the commissioners to deny the project, the winds changed. The commission voted to continue the matter to its July 13 meeting, where staff will return with findings for denial of the Orcutt Hill project.
The reversal arose from the project’s environmental concerns, voiced loudly by the Santa Barbara County Action Network (SBCAN).
SBCAN Executive Director Ken Hough said the Orcutt Hill plan promised more environmental impacts than economic benefits.
“The benefits are vague, the impacts are clear, and really the background picture is we really need to move away from fossil fuels,” Hough told the Sun, pointing to PG&E’s plan to shut down Diablo Canyon as an example. “We need to shift away. And the sooner, the better.”
At the Planning Commission’s June 29 meeting, Hough also brought up the issue of economic justice, which comes into play “when laborers and oil fuel workers are exposed to deadly fumes” as they might be on a project such as Orcutt Hill’s.
But SBCAN’s main concern regards oil seeps, which release crude oil to the ground surface, potentially threatening the health of endangered or sensitive animals in the area. In Orcutt Hill’s case, these species include both the California tiger salamander and the Lompoc yerba santa plant.
PCEC Public Affairs Manager Jim Bray argued that the hypothetical environmental impacts shouldn’t outweigh the economic benefits he said were guaranteed—those being the creation of both temporary and permanent jobs and an increase in property tax to the county.
“We were very disappointed at the Planning Commission’s decision,” Bray told the Sun. “This was a $100 million project that was somehow deemed not economically sufficient to overcome hypothetical Class 1 environmental impacts.”
He also said that expanding PCEC’s Orcutt Hill work would have used existing infrastructure, thus requiring little construction on already-disturbed land.
At the Planning Commission’s May 11 meeting, Bray argued that by installing oil seep cans, PCEC has been able to mitigate the oil seeps’ impact. He added that oil seeps would occur naturally anyway, even if PCEC wasn’t drilling on that land.
“Seeps will continue,” he said at the meeting. “Under any circumstance, under any alternative, seeps will continue to be there. I think what’s important is how we manage them and how we stay on top of them.”
The project’s EIR clarified that “the frequency of oil seeps occurring at the site increased substantially” once PCEC started working on the hill in 2005, though it subsided after the company began using oil seep cans.
The project also sparked concern regarding water use. Cyclic steaming involves injecting steam into selected wells for a period of time, typically several days, according to the project’s EIR.
Orcutt resident Jean Reeves said at the June 29 Planning Commission meeting that the cyclic steaming process threatens human and environmental health.
“It not only degrades our precious water quality but it is also extremely water and energy intensive, using a lot of water we don’t have to spare,” Reeves said.
The EIR addressed the water usage concern, saying “all water used for the cyclic steaming process is obtained from the brine water presently produced by existing oil production operations.”
Ed Hazard was one of the minority of public commenters at the commission’s June 29 meeting who spoke in favor of the Orcutt Hill project, calling it “a win-win for this community.”
“This is oil country,” Hazard said at the meeting. “This is where the oil is. It’s been produced on Orcutt Hill for over 100 years. If we’re going to continue to produce oil, this is where we have to produce it.”
He said the Planning Commission should respect the investment PCEC has made in the community by approving the project.
Even so, the project’s dissenters won out. After hours of public comment and discussion, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 not to approve the Orcutt Hill plan and instead move forward with findings for denial.
If the Planning Commission votes to deny the Orcutt Hill Resource Enhancement Plan on July 13, PCEC has the option of appealing to the Board of Supervisors. Bray did not confirm to the Sun whether the company plans to pursue an appeal.
“We’re looking at our options right now,” he said.
Staff Writer Brenna Swanston can be reached at [email protected].
