A draft environmental impact report on the ERG Resources proposal to build and operate up to 233 new oil and gas production wells using the cyclic steaming method in Cat Canyon has drawn assorted comments of support and concern.
ERG Resources has submitted the West Cat Canyon Revitalization Plan to Santa Barbara County, seeking to expand its current operations by installing and operating up to 233 oil and gas wells and ancillary equipment on 10 new well pads, one new equipment pad, and 91 existing well and equipment pads.
The draft document, available by clicking here, was released June 4, and was followed by well-attended public meetings in Santa Maria on June 25 and Santa Barbara on Tuesday afternoon to collect comments before the Aug. 3 deadline.
Speakers at the Santa Maria meeting submitted comments in favor and opposed to the project, while all of the Santa Barbara speakers were opposed to the proposal, and pointed to perceived deficiencies in the draft EIR.
The project on ERG’s existing Cat Canyon property holdings, which are southeast of Santa Maria, would also replace four steam generators with new ones, add access roads to serve new well pads, and build an 8-inch natural gas pipeline to use instead of the 4-inch existing line, which would become a backup.
At peak production the site would produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day, according to the draft EIR.
The firm plans to expand the cyclic steaming process, which injects team into wells, letting it soak for a few days to free oil.
The water for steaming the proposed wells would be come from the brine water produced by ERG’s field operations at the site, and no fresh water would be used for steam generation, according to the project proposal.
In addition to analyzing the ERG project, the environmental analysis looked at cumulative effects of two other projects proposed nearby — Aera Energy’s East Cat Canyon Oil Field Redevelopment Project and Petrorock UCCB.
The environmental review of ERG’s project highlighted three so-called Class 1 impacts (those which would cause significant impacts even with mitigation) — on biological resources, hydrology and water quality, partly due to the potential for an oil spill, according to county planners.
Noise from construction was determined to be another Class 1 impact.
ERG would have to provide an emergency action plan as part of the mitigations for those issues, according to county staff.
There were several Class 2 impacts, considered less than significant impacts with mitigation measures — on air quality, cultural resources, traffic, and other issues, according to the draft EIR.
The report evaluated project alternatives including a smaller number of new wells, fewer well pads, and native habitat protection plans.
“The EIR recommended the environmentally superior alternative was Alternative 1 — no new well pads with reduced well count,” county planner Nancy Minick said during the Santa Maria public comment meeting.
The preferred alternative does not eliminate Class 1 environmental impacts, but would reduce them, and the mitigation measures would still apply, she added.
Concerns about impacts to water quality were repeated among speakers at both public comment meetings.
“Our water is what we need. We cannot risk drilling through the aquifers that have our clean water in them,” Janet Blevins said at the Santa Maria meeting. “I know that steel well casings are used. I know that cement is used on the outside. I also know that leaks happen and I know that water gets infected with carcinogens, if you will.”
Irv Bieman of Safe Energy Now! North County said the groundwater aquifer was potentially at risk from drilling and plans to inject wastewater into disposal wells on the project site.
Several attorneys and staff of the Environmental Defense Center spoke at Tuesday’s meeting in Santa Barbara and asked the county to revise its draft EIR and recirculate it.
Specifically, they asked the county to do more in-depth wildlife surveys on the project site, address how much wastewater was being produced and injected into wells, and more thoroughly investigate the impacts of adding more roads.
Even though the goal of the meetings was to gather comment related to the project’s enviromental review, many people offered their opinions on the merits of the project.
At the Santa Maria meeting, some longtime residents noted that oil production has occurred in northern Santa Barbara County for more than a century.
“I feel the EIR should recognize the Class 4 beneficial impacts that the oil industry and projects like this have on agriculture,” said John Wickenden, a seventh-generation landowner and rancher whose family has been in Foxen Canyon for 181 years.
During drought years, he said, money from oil production on his land has “saved my bacon more than once.”
Others, including a representatives of the Coastal Energy Alliance, said importing foreign oil causes more environmental impacts than the proposed drilling project.
The comments submitted through letters, emails, comments at meetings and other methods will be compiled and included with the proposed final environmental impact report when it goes to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission in the fall, she said.
Comments on the draft EIR are due by 5 p.m. Aug. 3 by sending them to Nancy Minick, Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Dept., 123 E. Anapamu St., Santa Barbara, CA 93101.
Comments also may be sent via email, to nminick@countyofsb.org, by phone at 805.884.8050, or by fax at 805.568.2030.
Noozhawk managing editor Giana Magnoli contributed reporting to this story.
— Noozhawk North County editor Janene Scully can be reached at jscully@noozhawk.com. Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.
