The California Coastal Commission on Thursday unanimously rejected an Oxnard oil company’s proposal to frack on a platform off the Ventura Coast—eliciting support from several Santa Barbara environmental organizations.
“This project is spurred on by ultimate greed by an industry that already makes billions and billions in profits,” said Bill Woodbridge, a Goleta resident and member of the Santa Barbara chapter of the Sierra Club.
The commission, chaired by Santa Barbara City Councilmember Meagan Harmon, supported staff’s recommendations to reject the proposal based on inconsistencies with the California Coastal Management Program. The program gives California the power to review federal projects, like the fracking proposal on Platform Gilda, that would impact its coastline.
The proposal was to carry out hydraulic fracking on 16 existing oil wells on Platform Gilda, which is located in federal waters off the Ventura Coast.
Staff found that the project would pose a risk of severe oil spills in the Santa Barbara Channel and that DCOR, the oil company, wouldn’t provide effective clean-up and containment. Therefore, the project would be “inconsistent” with policies requiring the protection of marine resources and water quality, commercial and recreational fishing, public access and recreation.
Additionally, staff determined that the oil company’s reliance on a 45-year-old platform—one of the oldest in California—wouldn’t minimize hazards from earthquakes and other natural disasters, which Harmon was particularly concerned about.
Platform Gilda is an offshore oil and gas facility located within the Santa Barbara Channel near the coast of Ventura. It has been in operation for 45 years. DCOR has operated Platform Gilda since 2005, producing nearly 1,100 barrels of oil per day.
“Our goal was to provide staff with DCOR’s dedication to safety, our commitment as a reliable operator, and our belief that the application will be carried out in a manner consistent with the California Coastal Management Program and the Coastal Zone Management Act,” said Mark Chaconas, director of executive strategy and external affairs at DCOR.
The oil company said that the project would increase production to 4,000 barrels per day over five years and would be necessary “in the interest of national security.”
The meeting, which took place at a Hilton Hotel in Santa Cruz, drew attendees from up and down California who spoke against the proposed fracking.
“As we have seen over and over again on the California coast, there is no safe way to drill for oil in the ocean, and fracking would only increase the danger,” said Maggie Hall, deputy chief counsel at the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center.
The defense center, along with the Center for Biological Diversity, presented a total of 11 inconsistencies with the coastal management program during public comment.
“This project should not even be on the table,” Hall said.
She referenced an injunction from a case involving the defense center that prohibited the federal government from approving offshore well stimulation treatments, such as fracking, until it complied with environmental laws.
“Our organizations litigated to keep fracking out of our oceans for nearly a decade,” Hall said.
Recent federal efforts to undermine state oversight over coastal projects
But the fate of California’s ability to even hear projects like the one to frack off Platform Gilda came into question earlier this week.
On Monday, hundreds of California residents, including from Santa Barbara, packed a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hearing in Santa Monica—independent from the coastal commission hearing on Platform Gilda.
The hearing was prompted by the federal government after it called for a review of California’s compliance with the 1972 Coastal Zone Management Act, which established the coastal management program.
In May, President Donald Trump’s administration blasted California in a post on X stating that, “unsurprising, a whole host of issues for California’s [Coastal Zone Management Act] compliance were uncovered.”
“Unfortunately, it is also entirely consistent with California’s long record of obstructing technological innovation, economic development, and related Federal efforts in the name of environmental extremism,” the post read.
Some members of the public who spoke at the coastal commission meeting on Thursday referenced the NOAA hearing earlier this week. They spoke in support of the coastal commission’s vital role in protecting the California coastline.
“NOAA is initiating a review of California’s coastal management plan, which can result in decertifying it,” Senior Oceans Campaigner for the Center of Biological Diversity, Brady Bradshaw, told the News-Press. “It’s clear that NOAA is actively trying to decertify the coastal management plan to take away states’ abilities to regulate and have a hand in regulating federal waters.”
