perspective on offshore oil and its impacts upon Ventura County's "208" areawide wastewater treatment management and air quality management plans

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

r.,;s S

A PERSPECTIVE ON OFFSHORE OIL

AND

ITS IMPACTS UPON VENTURA COUNTY'S

"208" AREAWIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MANAGEMENT

AND

AIR QUA@ITY MANAGEMENT PLANS

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

VENTURA COUNTY
T- RESOURCE KANAGEMENTAGENCY
PLANNING DIVISION

JUNE 1983

This report was prepared with financial assistance from the U. S. Office of
Coastal Zone! Mandgement, National Oceanic and Atmospheric undcr
the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
and from the California Coastal Commission under the provisions of the California
Coastal, Act of 1976.

Prepared by:

TN Morty Prisament, Project Coordinator
Bill Thuman, Air Pollution Control District
871.3
P75 Tom Neal, Drafting
L983
Cl-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A - Purpose of Report
B - Organization of Report
C - Summary of Conclusions
D - Recommenda t ions

II. STATUS OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL AND
RELATED ONSHORE FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Offshore Energy Development
1. Outer Continental Shelf @OCS)
2. State Tidelines

B Onshore Facilities Related of Offshore Development

1. Processing Facilities
2. Marine Terminals
3. Support Facilities
4. Refineries

111. REVISED PROJECTIONS OF OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES AND RESULTANT
POPULATION INCREASES . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . 6

A Revised Offshore Activity Projections

1. Exploration
2.. Development

B Revised Offshore Oil Induced Population Projections

C - Comparison With 1981 Offshore Activity and Population Projections

IV. IMPACT OF REVISED OFFSHORE OIL INDUCED POPULATION PROJECTIONS ON THE VENTURA
COUNTY AREAWIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT MANAGEMENT ("208") PLAN . . . . . . . . .

A - Total Population

tB - Geographical Distribution

C - Summary
V. IMPACT OF REVISED PROJECTIONS OF OFFSHORE OIL RELATED ACTI'\,. [E
VENTURA COUNTY AIR QUALITY MANAGMENT PLAN (AQMP) . . . . . . . .:

A - Introduction
B - Background

C - Procedure for Air Quality Assessment of OCS Activities

----------

Page

D Current and Projected Petroleum Production Emission in the Santa
Barbara Channel

E Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts

F Summary

G'- Mitigation Measures

VI. APPENDICES

i FIGURES

1 - Chronology of Significant Events for California OCS . . . . . . . . . . 21
2 - Major Crude Oil Pipelines in California . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3 - Prevailing Winds and Ozone Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

ii TABLES

I - Status of State Platforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2-- Oil and Gas Activity Approved,for State Waters Since 1974 . . . . . . . 33
3 - Statistics for Pacific OCS Lease Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4 - Existing-OCS Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5 - Proposed OCS Platforms . . . . . . * ' ' * . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
6 - State Tidelands/OCS Projected Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7 - State Tidelands/OCS Projected Development Activity . . . . . .. . . . . . 37
@8- Projected. Employment (Population) Per Year Resulting From Cumulative
OCS/State Tidelands Development .. . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . . . 38
9 OCS Emissions Summary - 1979 . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
10 OCS Emissions Summary - 1987 (Scenario C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
11 - OCS Emissions Summary - 1995 (Scenario C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
12 - Population Projections and Estimates for Affected Growth/Non-Growth
Areas . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 13

11i MAPS (Attached)

I - Santa..Barbara Channel OSC Oil and Gas Leasing and Development
2 - Santa Barbara Channels State Leasing and Development Activities
3 - Onshore Facilities Related to Offshore Oil and Gas Development in the
Santa Barbara Channel

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED

Lynn Kada, Ventura County Planning Division

Bruce Katayama, Ventura County APCD

Randy Smith, Santa Barbara County Resource Management Department

Ralph Steele, City of Oxnard, Planning Department

Susan Livenick, State Lands Commission, Long Beach

Roger Dunsten, State Lands Commission, Sacramento

Cathy Keim, Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Office

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

A. PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is toprovide a perspective on current as well as
future offshore oil development and its affect upon Ventura County's
long-range planning. This report is primarily -intended as a planning guide
to..assist future decision-making on offshore drilling and related issues.
It is also anticipated that the report will provide useful information to
citizens of Ventura County concerned with the impacts of offshore drilling.
It should be noted, however, that the scope of this report is limited to a
discussion of population related socioeconomic impacts and air quality
impacts, and is not intended to address other impacts associated with
@offshore,oil drilling. For example, the socioeconomic costs associated with
an oil spill offshore Ventura County are not addressed in this report.

B. ORGANIZATION OF REPORT

The report is organized into five chapters. Chapter II, Part A of the
report presents an overview of offshore leasing and development activities
in the Santa Barbara Channel. Part B presents existing and proposed onshore
facilities related to offshore oil production. Maps portraying these
activities are provided in the "Appendix" (Maps 1-3). Chapter III utilizes
the revised 1983 APCD Emissions Inventory (Draft) to project future OCS
activity. Projections of future State Tidelands activity were also
developed. From these activity projections, projections of offshore
oil-induced population were developed using the economic model contained in
Volumes .1 and 2, U.-S. Fish and Wildlife Services document Environmental
Planning for Offshore Oil and Gas, March 1978. Comparisons to projections
developed in 1981 are also drawn. The impacts of projected, OCS emissions
upon the County's Air Quality Management Plad are discussed in Chapter V.

C. SUMMARY OF.CONCLUSIONS

OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

Oil exploration and development has been occurring in the Santa Barbara
Channel since the early 1800's. Since then, there have been a total of 9
Federal, and several State lease sales, which have resulted in the leasing
of the majority of tracts offshore Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties
(between the. islands and shore). Proposed OCS Lease Sale #80 (1984) offers
most of the remaining tracts in the Channel which have not yet been leased.
The majority of oil exploration and development activities have historically
occurred in the western Channel, while activities in the eastern Channel,
offshore Ventura County, have been relatively limited. Of the 12
development platforms currently located in the Santa Barbara Channel OCS,
only 3 are located offshore Ventura County. Activities in the State
Tidelands (within 3 miles) offshore Ventura County have also been relatively
limited, and have primarily occurred from Rincon Island. In addition, some

exploratory activity has occurred on the Pierpont Prospect offshore Oxnard
Shores. Only a small percentage of the tracts leased offshore Ventura
County have been explored. Therefore, continued and accelerated offshore
oil development is expected in the future offshore the County.

ONSHORE FACILITIES

Facilities related to the development of offshore oil resources in the Santa
Barbara Channel are scattered along the Santa Barbara-Ventura County
coastline. The primary supply/crew base serving the Channel is at Port
Hueneme in Ventura County. A total of seven active processing and treatment
facilities and three active marine terminals are located in Santa Barbara
County and are primarily centered around the Gaviota and Coal Oil Point
areas. In Ventura County, there are six processing and treatment facilities
for offshore oil, five of which are located in the Rincon-La Conchita area,
and one at Mandalay Beach. Ventura County has three marine terminals locted
at; the Ventura River, Ventura Marina, and Mandalay Beach. Ventura County
also has a refinery which processes Channel crude.

OFFSHORE ACTIVITY PROJECTIONS AND RESULTANT.POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Oil exploration and production in the Santa Barbara Channel is expected to
increase in the future compared to current levels of activity. Exploration
is expected to increase sharply in 1986, due largely to activities in State
waters where leases are about to expire. After peaking in 1986 exploratory
activities are expected to decline. Oil development activity is expected to
increase toward the end of 1983 and then rise again in 1985. Peak
development is projected to occur in 1991, followed by declining development
activity. Projections of oil-induced population growth have been developed
from the above activity projections, and follow similar trends.

Ventura County has been the area most impacted by the increased employment
and housing needs generated by offshore oil development since Port Hueneme,
the support base for these activities, and most support industries are
located in Ventura County. Therefore, this report assumes that Ventura
County will be the primary area affected by offshore drilling- induced
population. In the future, however, a greater proportion of the population
impacts may be born by Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties should
major onshore support facilities be built there.

"208" PLAN IMPACTS

Ventura County has adopted a "208" Wastewater Treatment Management Plan
which contains population projections to the year 2000. The purpose of
these projections is to guide future population growth in order to minimize
impacts upon public services, primarily sewer and water. Most of the
population is concentrated in the south half of the County, for which
projections have been developed. In addition, the "South-Half has been
divided into various Growth and Non-Growth (G/NG)areas, for which
projections have also been developed. The impacts of additional offshore
oil-induced population growth on the "208" Plan population projections in
either the "South-Half" or the individual G/NG areas would not appear to be

significant. The population projections for the Oxnard GA should be able to
accommodate the projected oil-induced growth. However, the ".208" Plan's
wastewater treatment plant capacity projections for the Oxnard GA could be
exceeded.

AQMP IMPACTS

A generalized evaluation of air quality impacts on Ventura County due to
,emissions from current and projected petroleum related activities in the
Sant Barbara Channel has been prepared by APCD. Projections of emissions
were based on a petroleum production scenario comprising the expected
development in the Channel. Petroleum production and corresponding
emissions are expected to peak around 1987-1990. Baseline (1979) emissions
and emission forecasts in 1987 and 1995 were developed. Emission controls
resulting from current, technoeconomically feasible engineering practice are
considered in the emission forecasts.

The following impacts from emissions generated in the Channel upon air
quality onshore Ventura County are expected between 1987 to 1995:

0 emissions of reactive organic compounds and nitrogen oxides may
seriously interfere with efforts by the County to comply with federal.
requirements for attainment of the ozone health standard;

o emissions of nitrogen oxides may cause violations of the nitrogen
dioxide standard,-and may contribute to acidrain;

0 emissions of sulfur oxides may cause violation of sulfur dioxide ' and
sulfate standard s, and may further contribute to acid precipitation;

0 emissions of carbon.monoxide should,.not be significant;

0 particulate emissions will probably not be significant.

It is concluded that mitigation o f these impacts will require application of
reasonably stringent emission control measures. As most ofthe developments
will be in federal waters, emission control measures must be promulgated at
the Federal level.

D.- RECOMMENDATIONS

The following are recommendations for future acti on based upon the findings
of this report:

OFFSHORE ACTIVITIES:

0 At the same time activities offshore Vent ura County in State and
Federal waters are projected to increase, continued funding of the
County's program to access the impacts of those activities has been
eliminated. State and Federal revenue-sharing legislation which
provides for assistance to affected local governments should be
supported.

ONSHORE FACILITIES RELATED TO OFFSHORE DRILLING:

o Ventura County should continue to support the transportation of Santa
Barbara Channel crude oil via pipeline versus tankering.

"20.8" PLAN:

0 As there are no "significant" 208 Plan impacts at either the Countywide
or local-city level, no recommendations are proposed.

AQMP:

0 The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District has repeatedly called
for an "air quality monitoring study" in order to more precisely
determine the impacts of OCS activities on Ventura County air quality
and upon the Air Quality Management Plan. The County has maintained
that no further leasing should occur before such a study is completed
and mitigation measures are developed.

CHAPTER II
STATUS OF OFFSHORE OIL IN THE SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL
AND RELATED ONSHORE FACILITIES

A. OFFSHORE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

The Santa Barbara Channel has been the scene of offshore drilling since the
early 1800'.s, when shallow wells were drilled from piers off Summerland.
The following sections provide an overview -of past and present oil
activities in the Santa Barbara Channel for both the OCS and State
tidelands.

1. State Lands Activities

The first State leases were issued in the Santa Barbara Channel in
1929. Most of the State leasing offshore Ventura County occurred
during the 60's. In 1969, following the Santa Barbara oilspill, a
moratorium on drilling in the Channel was initiated. In '1974, the
moratorium was lifted for platform development and for case-by-case
exploratory work. Exploration and development activities in State
waters have historically been concentrated offshore Santa Barbara
County, in the Western Channel, however, more recently, there has been
some activity offshore Ventura County. Within the last two years,
State tidelands activities have increased, primarily proposals for
resumption of -exploratory drilling. The status of platforms in State
waters is shown in Table.l. Table 2 shows all activities approved for
State waters since the,moratorium was lifted in 1974.

Currently in State waters offshore Santa Barbara County, there are two
exploratory rigs.. and seven production platforms. Of f shore Ventura
County, the only exploration or development in State waters is from
.Rincon Island. An exploratory rig, however, is proposed to be sited in
State waters offshore Mandalay Beach in the near future.

2. OCS Activities

There have been nine oil and gas lease sales in the Pacific Region,
five of which have involved portions of the Santa Barbara Channel and
are summarized below. In addition, Table .3 provides statistics for
these lease sales.

The first sale in 1966 covered one block,.which was leased to protect
the block from drainage via slant drilling by adjacent wells in -the
Carpinteria Offshore Field. Phillips Petroleum has erected two
platforms in this one block lease area, Hogan and Houchin, from which
92 development wells have been drilled, 47 of which are currently
producing oil.

In the 1968 Lease Sale, the first full scale oil and gas sale offshore
Southern California, 71 blocks in the Santa Barbara Channel were
leased, 34 of which.are still active. As of June 1981, 126 exploratory
wells have been drilled as a result of the 1968 Sale. This Sale"has

resulted in 247 development -wells, drilled from seven producing
platforms (Hondo, Grace, Hillhouse, 'Union's Platforms A, B, and C), of
which 176 are producing. In addition, Platforms Gina and Gilda, sited
offshore Oxnard, have recently begun production.

Lease Sale 35 (1975) resulted in the leasing of 56 blocks off Southern
California; however, only seven of which are still active, while the
remainder have expired. A total of 40 exploratory wells have been
drilled; however, no production wells have yet been drilled in the
.Santa Barbara Channel from this sale.

Lease Sale 48 (1979) resulted in the leasing of 54 tracts, which are
still active. As of June 1981, six exploratory wells have been
drilled.

-Lease Sale 68 (1982) resulted in the leasing of 29 tracts, totaling
147,.066 acres. The sale originally included 208 tracts covering 1.2
.million acres; however, tracts .1ying within the Channel Islands Marine
Sanctuary, the Santa Barbara Ecological Preserve Buffer Zone, and those
which would have conflicted with Defense Department operations, were
removed from the sale. In addition, the sale of 24 tracts off Point
Dume, Santa Monica Bay, and Laguna Beach were*blocked as a result of a
lawsuit filed by the State of California. The U.S. Supreme Court
recently agreed to hear this case on Appeal.

Currently, a total of 12 platforms are operating in the Santa Barbara
Channel OCS, and several additional platforms are planned. A listing
of existing and proposed OCS platforms are provided in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively.

Several major oil and gas discoveries have been made recently by
Chevron, Texaco, and Phillips, all centered approximately 10 miles
offshore Point Conception.

CONCLUSION

Currently, there *are three production platforms, and two exploratory drillships
in OCS waters offshore Ventura County. In State Tidelands offshore the County,
there are no exploratory rigs or development platforms, except for development
activities from Rincon Island. The siting of an exploratory rig off Mandalay Beach
is pending Coastal Commission action. Offshore drilling activities affecting
Ventura County are expected to increase in the future due to the fact that most
of the OCS offshore Ventura County (between the islands and County) has been
leased, but not yet developed, and the remaining tracts will be offered in Lease
Sale #80, proposed for 1984. It is anticipated, however, that the majority of
the OCS exploration and development activities will continue to occur offshore
Santa Barbara County. No more than six, and probably five, platforms are
expected in the OCS offshore Ventura County at any given time. Acceleration of
leasing and development activities is expected for the State Tidelines offshore
Ventura County, since many of these leases are about to expire. No more than two
development platforms are expected in State waters offshore Ventura County at any
given time.

B ONSHORE FACILITIES RELATED TO OFFSHORE OIL A14D GAS DEVELOPMENT IN THE SANTA
BARBARA CHANNEL

There are four major categories of onshore facilities necessary for the
development of oil and gas resources in the Santa Barbara Channel:
processing (separation and treatment) facilities marine tanker terminals,
support facilities, and refineries. Existing and proposed facilties are
described below and are illustrated on Map 3 in the "Appendix."

Processing Facilities

Processing facilities are designed to separate impurities, including oil,
natural gas, and formation water, in the crude oil waste stream. If the gas
is sour, the excess hydrogen sulfide is removed at a gas treatment plant.
Small processing facilities are scattered along the Santa Barbara-Ventura
County coastline.

There are a total of seven active processing facilities in Santa Barbara
County which process offshore oil and gas. These include Union-Point
Conception, Arco Gaviota, Chevron- Gaviota, Shel.1-Molino, Phillips -Taj igua s,
Arco-Ellwood, and Arco-Coal Oil Point. Due to declining production in the
State tidelands offshore Santa Barbara County, most of these facilities are
functioning with considerable excess cap Iacity.

However, in response to expected increases in OCS production, capacities
will need to be increased in the future, either through expansion of
existing sites or consolidation into one or more major process ing/termina I
facilities. 'Currently, Chevron-Gaviota is proposing to expand their
capacity -in order to treat Chevron field production off Point Conception.
Oil would be. transported ashore at Point Conception and, thence via pipeline
to the Chevron-Gaviota facility. The Arco processing facility at Coal Oil
Point is also proposed for expansion.

Ventura County:has :six facilities which-process offshore oil and gas. The
largest of these is :Mobil-Rincon, which is owned by a consortium of seven
oil companies. The facility is located atop a bluff on the inland side of
Highway 101 and is not visible from the highway. The facility has a net
design capacity of 95,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) and 60 million cubic
feet per day (M11CF/D) of natural gas. Only approximately 60% of this
capa city, however, is currently being utilized. In addition, only 32 acres
of the 140 acre site is currently developed. Thus, the Mobil-Rincon
facility could be a candidate for future expansion to accommodate much of
the anticipated production in the Santa,Barbara Channel. Three other small
separation and treatment facilities are located just east of Mobil-Rincon
along Old Highway 1..

Phillips-La Conchita is located a few miles east of the Santa Barbara County
line, on the inland side of the 101 Freeway. The plant's design capacity is
27,000 BOPD and 22 MMCD/D of natural gas however, current throughput is
only approximately 20% and 15% of capacity,'respectively.

Along the County's south coast, Union Oil's Mandalay Beach separation and
treatment facility processes crude from platforms Gina and Gilda. This
facility has a capacity of 22,000 BOPD, however the design of the facility
provides for doubling this capacity should conditions warrant.

Marine Terminals

There are currently three active marine (tanker) terminal facilities in
Santa Barbara County which include: Union Cojo Bay, Getty-Gaviota, and
Aminoil-Coal Oil Point. In addition, there is a terminal at El Capitan
which is currently inactive. The Exxon-Capitan facility is expected to be
phased out in the future because of land use conflicts. Cojo Bay.is a small
facility which is relatively inactive. Two competing major marine terminal
facilities are currently proposed for the Getty-Gaviota site and for Las
Floras Canyon (Exxon). Both propose to serve existing and future Western
Channel and Santa Maria Basin production. Aminoil is proposing a minor
expansion of its Coal Oil Point facility, however, the need for this
proposal may be satisfied by either of the major marine terminal proposals.

There are three marine terminals in Ventura County, however, none are
currently used to transport Channel crude to other locations. All crude
which is produced offshore Ventura County and most which is produced onshore
is transported via pipeline. Getty Oil Company does not operate any major
pipelines in' Ventura County and, therefore, utilizes its Ventura River
marine tanker terminal to transport its onshore production to a refining
center via tanker. A second terminal facility located in Ventura Marina is
used to store both onshore and offshore production to be pipelined out of
the area. In the past, this terminal has been used for onloading marine
tankers. The Union-Mandalay terminal, located near Oxnard Shores, is used
only for offloading of fuel for Edison's steam power plant boilers.

Support Facilities
There are currently three primary support facilities which serve the Santa
Barbara Channel - the Chevron-Carpinteria site in Santa Barbara County, and
La Conchita and Port Hueneme in Ventura County. Carpinteria has eight boats
operating and serves the platforms directly offshore (Henry, Hillhouse, A,
B, C, Hogar, and Houchan). Supply boats are limited there because of the
shallow water depths. La Conchita is used primarily as a staging area for
the fabrication of offshore pipelines. Port Hueneme functions as the
Channel's primary supply and and crew base facility, where 22 supply and 10
crew boats are currently operating. An additional eight crew boats are
located there which are available. Channel Islands Harbor has one supply
boat and one crew boat operating, in addition to three other available crew
boats. These serve Platform's Heidi, Hope, Hazel and Hilda. Ventura Harbor
has two active crew boats and another five available, serving Platforms Gina
and Gilda. The harbor also has two utility, or mini-supply boats available.
The Ellwood Pier, located to the west of Coal Oil Point is also used as a
crew base, however, the pier is currently being reconstructed because of
damage from this year's storm.

Because of the distance to Port Hueneme from the western channel, the
establishment of an additional supply base in San Luis Obispo County is
being studied by that County.

Refineries

USA Petrochem, located in the lower Ventura River Valley, has a capacity of
30,000 B/D, and a current throughput of about 18-2 1,000 B/D. Petroch'em's
primary product is heavy fuel oil,, however, because of changing market
conditions, they have proposed to modify the facility's permit. to enable
production of higher grade fuels (i.e, diesel, gasoline, jet fuels-, !etc.).
Although this modification request is not an expansion, it will, if
approved, provide the incentive for Petrochem to refine a greater amount of
Channel crude, thereby reducing the necessity for tankering to out-of-state
or County refining centers. @According to the -State Energy Commission,
similar modifications are planned for 15 of the State's 37 refineries.

CONCLUSION

A number of small-scale processing and treatment and marine terminal facilities
are located along the Santa Barbara-Ventura County coastline. In anticipation of
increased development in the western Santa Barbara Channel, :oil companies are
nominating various sites in Santa Barbara County for a consolidated marine
terminal and processing facility. In addition, a location for a supply/crew base
,to serve the western Channel is being explored. Ventura County appears to have
sufficient capabilities to expand existing processing and treatment facilities at
Mandalay and Rincon to accomodate any future activities offshore the County.
Ventura County currently does not use any of its marine terminals for
transhipment of Channel crude and does not envision a need for a major marine
terminal facility in the future. Crude from the County's offshore platforms
(Gina, Gilda, and Grace) is pumped onshore and then into an onshore pipeline
network.

CHAPTER III

REVISED PROJECTIONS FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
ACTIVITIES AND RESULTANT POPULATION INCREASES

In March 1981, a report assessing the socioeconomic impacts of offshore oil on
Ventura County was developed by the Planning Division. The report utilized
projections of future OCS and State Tidelands activity contained in the Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District-s 1981 Emissions Inventory as a baseline to
project future population and related socioeconomic impacts. Extrapolating
information from a revised (February 1983, Draft) APCD Emissions Inventory, this
chapter updates the 1981 Socioeconomic Impacts report. It was also necessary to
update the projections of future State Lands activities, as APCD's revised
inventory only contains OCS projections. This was accomplished through
discussions with State Lands Commission Commission staff (March/April 1983) and
review of State Lands documents.

A. Revised Offshore Activity Projections

1. Exploration

Projections of exploration activities are shown in Table 1. The total
number of exploratory wells are expected to decline over the next few
years as existing wells are either abandoned or replaced with
development wells. However, the number of exploratory wells is
expected to increase significantly in 1986, due largely to activities
in State waters where leases are about to expire. A total of 38 wells
are expected to be operating during that year, 11 OCS and 27 State.
Exploratory activities are then expected to decline after 1986.

2. Development

Table 2 provides estimates of the number of future platforms expected
in Federal and State waters through 1991. As indicated, the number of
platforms in the Channel are expected to increase from the current 19
to 21 toward the end of 1983, after which that number will remain
constant until 1985. In 1985, the total number of platforms is
projected to increase to 33. This represents a 74% increase over the
current number of platforms, and is attributed primarily to State
Tidelands activities. Offshore development is expected to continue
escalating through 1991, at which time a peak of 63 platforms are
projected, 34 in State waters and 29 in Federal OCS.

B. Revised Offshore Oil Induced Population Projections

The projected increases in offshore development activity discussed above
will result in population growth. Projected population increases are
presented in Table 3. As indicated, resulant population growth is expected
to increase toward the end of 1983 and then stabilize until 1985. In 1985,

the projections show a sharp increase. Gradual, but significant increases
follow through 1991, the peak year, when offshore development generates a
total of 23,452 per sons.

C. Comparison with 1981 Offshore Activity and Popu lation Projections

A review of current and proposed activities indicates that the projections
contained in the 1981 Socioeconomic Impacts report underestimated the level
of offshore activity and resultant population increases by a factor of
approximately 2.5 times., For example, a total of 21 platforms are expected
in 1983 as compared to the previous estimate of 9 platforms. As indicated
in Table 3, the resulting population projections for that year were
therefore similarly underestimated in the 1981 Report, 3,350 persons
(Scenario C) versus 7,817 persons (Secenario D). -

CONCLUSION

Since much of the Western Channel has already been explored, a slow decline in
exploratory drilling is expected offshore Santa Barbara County as development
drilling increases. Offshore Ventura County, many areas leased in Sales 35, 48,
and 68 have yet to be fully explored, and therefore exploratory activities in
those areas may be expected to increase slightly. A cumulative total of 63 State
and OCS development platforms are projected for 1991 for the Santa Barbara
Channel (assuming no directional drilling from shore), generating 23,452 persons.
The majority of the projected development will continue to occur in the Western
Channel. Population related socioeconomic impacts associated with offshore
drilling has historically focused on Ventura County, where the major supply base,
Port Hueneme, and most support industries are located. However, in the future
some of these impacts may shift to Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties
should major support facilities be constructed there.

CHAPTER IV

IMPACT OF REVISED OFFSHORE OIL POPULATION PROJECTIONS ON THE
VENTURA COUNTY AREAWIDE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT MANAGEMENT "208" PLAN

Ventura County has adopted two Federally required environmental management plans,
the "208" Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, and the Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP). These plans contain population projections to the year
2000. The 208/AQMP projections have historically been used to guide residential
growth within the County in order to minimize impacts upon public facilities, as
well as to reduce air quality impacts so as to meet the requirements of the Clean
Air Act.

Total Population

'The County has been divided into two halves for the purpose of projecting future
population, the "North Half" and "South Half." The overwhelming majority of the
population resides in the South Half, whereas, the North Half primarily
encompasses the Los Padres National Forest. On March 2, 1982 the Ventura County
Board of Supervisors adopted a revised the population forecast for the year 1985.
A total of 584,489 persons are projected for the South Half in 1985. The
existing, (first quarter of 1983) estimate of population for the South Half is
524,782. Thus, the population projections can accommodate an additional 59,707
persons by 1985 on a Countywide basis. Offshore oil-induced population is
projected at 12,285 for 1985. Should this additional offshore oil-induced
population cause the projections to be exceeded, public services could be
significantly impacted. However, this event appears unlikely due to the gap
which exists between current estimates of population and that of the adopted
projections.

Geographical Distribution

Offshore oil-induced population will probably not be evenly distributed
throughout the County. Instead the Planning Division has assumed that the added
population would be concentrated in the coastal areas of Oxnard, Port Hueneme,
and Ventura. The South Half of the County has been divided into growth areas
(GA's) and non-growth areas (NG's), for which population projections have been
adopted. Projections for the Oxnard, Port Hueneme and Ventura GAINGA's are shown
below (Table 12), along with corresponding population estimates. Note that
Itestimates" in this context reflect current population based upon the number of
building completions.

POPULATION ROJECTIONS/ESTIMATES
FOR AFFECTED GROWTHINON-GROWTH AREAS

TABLE 12

PORT VENTURA VENTURA
OXNARD GA OXNARD NG HUENENE GA GA NG

.1985 208/AQMP
Pop. Projections 136,576 3,900 21)000 80,114 1Y658
1983 Population
Estimates 120,515 3,363 19,039 84,043 1)768
Remaining
Population 162061 537 1,961 -4,957 -110

PROJECTED CUM`ULATIVE POPULATION FROM
OCS/STATE TIDEL ANDS.DVLP.-1985: 12,.285

As can be seen f rom reviewing Table 12, the only areas that could receive
additional population and stay within the 208/AQMP limitations are Oxnard and
Port Hueneme. Also, if off shore- induced population occurs as projected (.12,285
persons), it could' absorb over two-thirds of the remaining growth increment for
Oxnard and Port Hueneme,

In contrast, it is unlikely that significant offshore oil-related growth would
occur within the City of Ventura due to the growth management plan implemented by
the City in order to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in
-accordance with the Ventura County AQMP. , Also growth. -in, the Ventura 'NG is
constrained by sewer and water limitations.

Accommodating future growth within the Port Hueneme GA is also limited, primarily
due to a limited availability of developable land. Thus, the Port Hueneme GA has
very little capacity to accommodate future oil-induced growth; the actual
capacity will depend upon how much growth from other sources occurs within the
GA.

SUMMARY

Whereas the Ventura GAINGA and Port Hueneme GA have limited capabilities to
accommodate the projected levels of OCS/State Tidelands - related growth, the
projections for the Oxnard. GA do appear to have sufficient capacity to
accommodate such growth. Therefore, it -is reasonable to assume future offshore
oil-related population growth will focus there. While not considered
significant, the OCS/Tidelands growth will contribute to the higher costs of
providing public services and these may not be offset by the additional revenues
generated. Primary among these required urban services are: schools, police and
fire, public works, water, and sanitation. For the City of Oxnard, the provision
of water may be of crucial importance since the City presently does not possess
formal entitlements to approximately 50% of its water supply. In addition, the
subject of sanitation is of significant concern, since the capacity of the City's
wastewater treatment facility is being approached.

CONCLUSION

The impact of future offshore oil induced population.would not appear to impact
the 208 Plan; i.e., the population projections contained in the Plan would likely
not be exceeded at either the Countywide or growth/non- growth area level.
However, oil induced growth may place added stress on the provision of services
in the Oxnard growth area, where the majority of growth is projected to occur.

CHAPTER V
IMPACT OF REVISED PROJECTIONS OF OFFSHORE OIL RELATED
ACTIVITY ON THE VENTURA COUNTY AIR QUALITY 11ANAGMENT PLAN (AQMP)

I. Introduction

Studies indicate that prevailing westerly win ds (winds from the west) carry
.smog forming emissions from petroleum related activities in the Santa
Barbara Channel into Ventura County. The County is a nonattainment area for
ozone (smog). Consequently, stringent controls have beenplaced on onshore
.sources of emissions that produce ozone downwind. Activities in the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) are solely under Federal jurisdiction and therefore
need not comply with rules and regulations to control onshore emissions.
The OCS is all underwater land more than three miles offshore. Current and
potential emissions from OCS activities, if unmitigated, are expected
significantly to interfere with efforts in Ventura County to comp( with
ozone -attainment requirements mandated by the Clean Air Act.M An
evaluation of current and projected emissions from these activities on
compliance with ozone attainment requirements in Ventura County is given
below, together with considerations of impacts of sulfur dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and particulate emissions from the projected OCS activities on the
County's air quality.

II. Background

Prevailing westerly winds that carry emissions from the Santa Barbara
Channel into Ventura County are shown in Figure 1. Offshore petroleum
activities produce substantial emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC)
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) - the precursors to smog formation, together with
emissions of suf lur . dioxide, carbon ..monoxide and particulate's. . Recent...
atmospheric tracer studies, and -evaluations of meteorological datalobtained
in OCS waters off Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties indicate that the
prevailing winds shown in Figure 1 carry these pollutants from offshore to
onshore Ventura and . Santa Barbara Counties. (2,3) .- The data generally
indicate that there is a greater impact of these pollutants on Ventura
County than on Santa Barbara County. (3)

Assessment of the cumulative impact of current petroleum activities, and of
expected -future activities deriving from Lease Sales 48, 68 and 80 on the
County'.s air quality is of great concern to the Ventura County Air Pollution
Control Board (Board of Supervisors). In comments on each of the Lease
Sales, the County has requested assessment of these cumulative impacts by
the Department of the Interior. This assessment - has not yet occurred.

III. Procedure for Air Quality Assessment of OCS Activities

The assessment of ozone impacts will req uire a process known as
photochemical modeling. Photochemical modeling of current or potential
ozone impacts in this case mathematically relates current or projected ROC
and NOx emissions in the source area (i.e. , throughout the Santa Barbara
Channel), to current and projected ozone levels in the receptor area (i.e.,
throughout Ventura County's south half).

Ozone production involves a very complex series of chemical reactions in the
presence of sunlight. There is no direct relationship between the amount of
ROC and NOx emissions in a source area and ozone levels in the receptor
area. Modeling of onshore impacts of OCS activities on ozone levels must
include locations of activities, spatial and temporal variations in ROC and
NOx emissions rates, sunlight intensity, and various meteorological and
topographical factors, along with consideration of the many and complex
chemical reactions.

Development and validation of a photochemical model to determine impacts of
emissions throughout the Santa Barbara Channel on ozone levels onshore costs
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars - far beyond the resources of
Ventura County. However, such a modeling project is being developed by the
California Air Resources Board (ARB), and will be conducted by the ARB in
cooperation with Ventura County and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control districts. Although presently we cannot quantify current and
projected impacts of the OCS activities on ozone levels in Ventura County
(or elsewhere), we can develop generalized statements concerning these
impacts, based on current and projected OCS emissions, together with the
evaluations of meteorological data and recent field (tracer) studies
presented in references 2 and 3, cited previously.

Modeling for impacts of emissions of sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and
particulates deriving from the OCS activities may be somewhat less complex
than ozone modeling, because the materials are essentially inert. However,
the OCS petroleum projection activities in the Santa Barbara Channel will be
scattered over a very large area. In all model efforts for cumulative
effects, it will be necessary to sum (integrate) the OCS source emissions
and their onshore, ambient air quality impacts.

IV. Current and Projected Petroleum Production Emissions in the Santa Barbara
Channel

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) -staff has recently
(February, 1983) published a draft petroleum production emission inventory
and emission forecasts for the Santa Barbara Channel OCS area. (4) The data
will subsequently be used in the modeling project being developed by the
ARB, noted above, and in future updates of the County's Air Quality
Managment Plan (AQMP). (1)

The OCS petroleum production document comprises a base year inventory for
1979 consistent with the 1979 baseyear inventory addressed in the 1992 AQMP,
(1) and forecast OCS inventories for 1987 and 1995. 'Federal ozone standards
are mandated to be attained in 1987; petroleum production in the Channel is
expected to peak before 1995. The baseyear inventory was developed from
information obtained from petroleum producers, from the Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service and U.S. Geological Survey, and from
various published reports. The two forecast inventories were based on three
different offshore petroleum production scenarios developed by VCAPCD staff.
Platform and pipeline installation, drilling, production, processing, and
crude oil transportation were considered in each scenario. Scenario A
forecasts activity levels on the assumption that existing operations ;4id

continue; scenario 11 includes A plus operations expec ted to occur in OCS
leases sold during Lease Sale 48; scenario C adds to operations included in
A and B those future OCS operations expect@-d to occur as results of Lease
Sales 68 and 80.

Only senario C is considered here, as this scenario comprises the expected,
nearly complete levels of developments in the Santa Barbara Channel.
Emissions of major concern are those of ROC and NOx that affect attainment
of the ozone standard in the County. Emissions of total suspended
particulate (TSP) are included because standards for TSP are also exceeded
in the County. However, a change in the TSP health standard is anticipated
that excludes the portion of TSP that is not health related; therefore, the
impact of OCS activities on attainment of the TSP standard will be deferred
until a new standard is promulgated. Emission of sulfur dioxide (So 2) are
included because although ambient levels of SO 2 in the County are well below
standards, acid and sulfate particulates derive from SO emissions. State
standards for sulfates have been infrequently exceeWed in the County.
Emission of carbon monoxide (CO) are considered because although CO
standards in the County have not been exceeded, they have been approached.

A summary of the current and projected oil production rates from scenario C
and related emission rates follows, together with emission rates from all
onshore petroleum production sources presented in the 1982 AQMP (1,4).
Details of the onshore baseline and Scenario C offshore emissions are
provided in the attached Tables from the referenc@'d Inventory document. (4)

Full Development in Santa Barbara Channel

Scenario C

1979 Baseline 1987 1995

Petroleum production, 10,971,000 93,003,000 64,443,000
barrel-s per year

Emissions, Tons per Year

All onshore petroleum 1979 1987 1995
production sources,
19790)
ROC 3,673 178 327
NOx 9,299 1,106 5,769 2)065
TSP 104 78 321 92
so 2 58 91 3,471 2,897
CO 1,275 312 1,483 619

V. Evaluation of Air Quality Impacts

Data in the above Table are considered in the f ollow'ing evaluations. The
petroleum production rate in the Channel is expected to peak ar 'ound 1990 at
about 120 million barrels per year. Emissions associated with production
are expected to peak during roughly the same period,, 1987 1990. Baseline,
1979 emissions from onshore petroleum sources are- listed for comparison
only; they will decrease as offshore emissions increase) due to decreasing
production and more effective control of onshore emissions. However, 1979
emissions of ROC and NOx onshore the County must be reduced over- 40% to
approximately 17,000 tons per year and 19,000, tons per year respectj@ely in
order to attain the ozone ambient air quality standard Countywide. This
onshore reduction is not expected to occur, although substantial reduction
is expected. Thus, the potential offshore activities will further interfere
with Countywide attainment of the ozone standard by 1987. Furthermore, it
is expected that under commonly occurring meteorological conditions the
large increase in NOx emissions offshore may cause "exceedance" of health
standards for nitrogen dioxide in the County, and may result in substantial
amounts of acid precipitation including acid fog, and nitrate particulates
as the emissions are transported onshore.

By 1978, SO emissions in the Channel will increase almost forty-fold over
2 .
1979 SO chemical emissions, and will represent about a sixty-fold increase
over all onshore, 1979 petroleum production sources of SO in the County.
2
It is likely that, again under commonly occurring marine meterological
conditions, by 1987 the health standards for SO may be exceeded in the
County due to this increase. The sulfate standar@ may also be exceeded, as
sulfates derive from SO 2. It is also likely that together with the NOX
emissions, the SO 2 emissions will contribute to acid precipitation in the
County.

Substantial amounts of primary particulate emissions are not expected from
the increase oil production activities offshore, and a significant portion
will probably consist of larger and heavier particles. that will tend to fall
out before reaching shoreline. In addition, a new, health-related standard
for TSP is being proposed, as mentioned above Therefore, although the
effect of petroleum production activities in the Channel on attainment of
TSP standards is uncertain, it probably will not be significant.

About 70% of CO emissions in the County derive from. operation of motor
vehicles, and substantial reductions in these CO emissions are expected. It
is doubtful that offshore emissions of CO will significantly affect
countywide, ambient CO levels.

VI. Summary of Impacts

Under conditions of the expected, nearly complete level of petroleum related
developments in the Santa Barbara Channel OCS waters, it is expected that
emissions due to these developments will peak about 1987. Impacts of these
emissions on air quality onshore Ventura County by 1987 are expected to be a
follows:

0 Emissions of ROC and NOx together may further interfere with efforts of
the@County to comply with ozone attainment requirements.

0 Emissions of NOx may cause violations of NO standards and may
contru.bute to acid precipitaiton, including acid ?09.

..0. -tmissions of SO may cause violaitons of the SO and sulfate health
2
standards, and may contribute to acid fog.

.0 Impacts of primary particulate emissions on TSP.levels are.unknown, but
probably are not significant.

0 The additional CO, emissions should not significantly affect ambient CO
levels in the County.

VII. Mitigation Measures

As mentioned earlier, air quality requirements applied by the Department of
the Interior allow petroleum industry activities in OCS waters to occur
without application . of reasonably stringent emission control measures.
Emission controls resulting from normal, technoeconomically appropriate
engineering,. actice are applied to forecasts of the three production
scenarios. In order to mitigate the impacts on air quality onshore
Ventura County (and other coastal areas), the Federal government must
require reasonable stringent. measures comparable to those required onshore
to control emissions from OCS petroleum development, production, processing,
and transportation activities. In order to substantially mitigate air
quality (and other) impacts of OCS activities,. Ventura County has expressed
a policy preference for construction of a coastalpipeline to transport the
crude from the -Santa Barbara Channel to refineries in the Los Angeles area.

REFERENCES (Ch. V)

1. Ventura County Air Quality Management Plan, 1982, Final Draft.

Adopted by Board of Supervisors of Ventura County, March 23, 1982.

2. Characterization of Marine and Coastal Winds Associated with
Violations of the National Embient Air Quality Standard for
Ozone in Ventura County. Appendix N to above AQMP. July, 1980.

3. Sunirhary Review of Current Studies Regarding Air Quality Impacts
of Offshore Oil and Gas Activities in the Santa Barbara Channel
on Onxhore Receptors in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.
Appendix N-82 to above AQMP. January, 1982.

4. Santa Barbara Channel Outer Continental Shelf Petroleum
Production Emission Inventory. Draft Report. Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District. February, 1983.

MP:r

FIGURES

FIGURE I

CHRONOLOGY OF SIGFIFICAMT EVENTS
FOR CALIFORNIA OCS

@IP96 The world's first commercial offshore 4oil develop-
ment has its start in the Santa Barbara Channel.

1906 More than 400 wells -are drilled from -wooden piers
alona the shores of Surnmerland, adjacent to the
city of Santa Barbara.. All permits are issued by
littoral owners.

1921 The California Legislature enacts Chapter 303,
authorizing the Surveyor General to issue pros-
pecting pernits or leases on State land, including
tide and submerged la,nd. A large number of per-
mits are issued for the submerged lands offshore
from Orange, Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties.

1927-29 Wscovery of Rincon, Ellwood, and Capitan fields
off Santa Barbara County

1929 The State Legislature enacts Chapter 536, closing
-the tide and submerged lands to further oil -and
..gas le.asing because of substantial overproduction
of crude oil and citizen protest over coastal
use.

In the Rincon field the first piling-supported
offshore drilling platform is constructed.

In Plarch , the California Legislature enacts the
State Lands Act, creating the State Lands Clomrlis-
sion and aranti,na it exclusive jurisdiction over
all ungranted tidelands and submerged lands owned
by the State, with the power to administer,
control and lease these lands.

1945 In September, by Proclamation No. 2667, President
Truman declares the United States has paramount
richts to the natural reso'urces.of the OCS fron
th; low water mark seaward. , Law suits foll.ow,
which in effect halt new oil and gas leases.

10,51) In flay Congress passes the Submerged Lands Act of
1953, granting state control over lands within 3
geographical miles of the mean high tide line.

In August, Concross passes the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act, setting out procedures for
federal oil and nas leasinc through the Department
of. the Int-rior.

F.-
Source: Cal Energy Comm. 'Annual
Petroleum:Rev. June 1983

1955 The California Legislature passes the Cunningham-
Shell Act, which creates a marine sanctuary adja-
cent to the shore, along the ci ty of Santa
Barbara's coastline; prohibits drilling in many
coastal scenic areas and leasing anywhere in state
waters except to prevent drainage fr-on, adjacent
federal leases.

1963 in May. the first Federal Lease Sale,'Pl. no com-
mercial discoveries are made and all 57 leases are
subsequently relinquished between 1965 and 1967.

1964 California Senate Bill No. 60 leads to the
development of the eastern portion of the Wilming-
ton oil field on tidelands grantpd to the city of
Long Beach.

1965 In 'May the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the
Santa Barbara Channel was not "inland waters" of
the state and that the 3-mile line should follow
the mainline coast and around each Channel Island,
thus ending 12 years of jurisdictional dispute
between the federal and California governments.

1966 First and only federal drainage sale, Lease Sale
P3, is held in December to prohibit drainage by
adjacent state wells in the Carpenteria offshore
field. The tract today is the site of two plat-
forms, Hogan and, Houchin, erected by Phillips
Petroleum.
1968 Lease Sale P4*in February results in the leasing
of 71- 3-mile square tracts in the Santa Barbara
Channel and the subsequent discovery of Dos
Cuadras Field.

10,69 Major oil spill of 77,000 barrels from a blow out
in January on Platform, A operated by Union Oil on.
federal tract 0241 in the Dos Cuadras Field leads
to a seven year leasing moratorium for the Pacific
OCS.

In January, the last state offshore lease sale
(one parcel to Chevron) is offered before Sfat--
Lands Connission declares a moratorium on all-new
exploratory or production drilling in state
wators.

Passaoe of the National Envircnrnental Policy Act,
nandatino t@at all proposed federal OCS activities
be subject to its environmental review process.

19 7C Passage of the California Environmental Quality
Act requiring.all proposed state and federal OCS
exploration and production plans with onshore
facilities to meet its environmental review
process.
1972 State voters in -June pass Propositian- 11-0, the
Coastal I,nitiative, setting up temporary regional
coastal commissions to prepare the Coastal Plan, a
blueprint for.permanent coastal management.

1973 As part of its Project Independence, the Nixon
Administration proposes :an accelerated federal
leasing program.

1974 Oil industry seeks approval of permits to resume
drilling on undeveloped state leases.

1975 Lease Sale #35 in December results in the leasing
of 56 tracts in Southern California from Santa
Barbara to the Mexican border. Only four leases
in San Pedro Bayrenain active.

197F The California Legislature enacts the Coastal Act
of 10,76, the product of the Coastal Initiative,
declaring the California coast a state resource to
bo protected by the-State through a cooperative
program with local jurisdictions -and establishino
-the Californi-a Coastal Commission.

1976 Congress amends the Federal Coastal 1one-Manage-
ment Act 'to give states explicit authority to
assure that oil.company exploration and develop-
ment plans for OCS leases -are consistent with
federally-approved state coastal management
programs.

1977 Joint Ind.ustry/Government Pipeline Working Group
under the chairmanship of Santa Barbara County's
Environmental Resources Division forms to develop
the information, findings, and recommendations for
determining the feasibility of an onshore pipeline
for transporting OCS crude oi I to California
refineries in lieu of tankering.

California's Permit Streamlining Act
(AB 884)
simplifies and accelerates public agencies' deci-
sions on construction -projects, un@er the CEQA
procedures, including those OCS proposals with
onshore facilities,

1977 The National Oceanic and At.-iospheric Administra-
tion approves in Nloveinber t.he.. California Coastal
tianaaerient Proqram

1978 Prepared under contract to the Joint
Industry/Government Group. Hallanger Engineers'
report, released in October', identi@ies the tech-
nical problems and economic costs of various
t transport
onshore alternative pipeline systems Co
OCS crude oil.

1978 Congress amends the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act, requiring the Secretary of the Interior to
review annually and to revise periodically the
federal 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing program.

1979 Federal aovernment decontrols domestic price of
high-sulfur, high-viscosity crude oil, allowing
its price to rise to international oil ma rkei
price levels. The majority of California OCS
crude is believed to be of this quality.

1979 The z3oint Industry/Government Group in May issues
a draft report, Santa Barbara Channel Onshore Oil
Pipeline FeasibiTify tudy, recommending construc-
line for Western Channel
Ti-o n-o a new onshore pipe
oil production and a policy that permits and
development plans be approved only if an onshore
pipeline and not tankers be used to transport
crude oil to Los Angeles.

1979 In June, Lease Sale #48 results in 54 leases in
the Santa Barbara Channel and in the San Pedro
Bay

AB 3396 introduced in October would fund a state
pipeline for OCS. Subsequently dies in
commi ttee.

Oil industry and state representatives meet in May
to discuss the pipeline issue.

1980 Oil industry establishes in October a Southern
California Coastal Pipeline Feasibility Study to
exami ne further the technical feasibility and
environmental impacts of a multi-user pipeline
from Santa Barbara to Los Angeles refineries.
1980-62 State Lands Commission approves applications -for
exploratory drillinq in new areas within existinq
state leases.

198i Santa Barbara County's Local Coastal Plan is
certified by the California Coastal Comrissio,n in
Miarch, thereby allowing the County to administer
its own permit progran for all development in its
coastal zone.

In May, the most controversial sale to date, #53,
result in 55 leases eventually being granted and
19 others held in escrow, pending a court decision
on an appeal fil,ed by DOI, it is now before the
Supreme Court.
1982 The Petroleum Transportation Committee,' an out-
growth of the Joint Industry/Government Group,
forms under chairmanship of Santa Barbara County's
Resource Management Department to study further
the marine transport issue.

Secretary of the Interior Watt in January estab-
lishes the Mineral Management Service to implement
OCS policy and procedures. and to carry out
functions previously performed by several'offices
within USGS and BLM as well as all fu"nctions
relating to OCS programs transferred from DOE.

In June, Lease Sale #68 offers 140 tracts,
covering 716,866 acres, from 3 to 84 miles off-
shore Ealifornia from Pt. Concepti.on to the
Mexican border. Of the 35 tracts bid upon,,29 are
c actually leased from 147,066 acres.

I-n July, OPR released a Memorandum of Under-
staAding clescribing existing policies of regu-
latory agencies with permit jurisdiction over OCS
projects and presenting a general scheme for
future evaluation of proposals.

In August, reoffering Sale RS--:2, the first sale of
the new accelerated five-year lease schedule,
includes 12 offshore.California. tracts from Sales
53; 10 bids are accepted by DOI.

In September, Exxon, the-County of Santa Barbara,
and the Air Resources Board signed a Mkmorandum of
Aqreement ou'linina certain areas of consensus,
with the emphasis on air,emi.ssions, for Exxor's
proDosal for production facilities for the Santa
Ynez Unit in the San@ta Barbara Channel.

In @!overnber, Exxon filed its PCD for the Sar-ta
Ynez Unit.

SLC vcted in December to offer for lease 8 state
offshore tracts between Point Conception and Point
Arauello.

Federal state ana local permitting actions in response to the
1973 Exxon DPP were timely. After publishing its final environ-
mental statenent in May 1974, the Department of the Interior in
August 1974, approved the entire plan but stipulated that Exxon
must make "diliaent" efforts to permit the onshore option before
reverting to the OS&T. In August 1974, the California State Lands
Commission awarded Exxon a lease for its marine terminal. Arid in
February 1975, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in a
controversial decision, later subjected to and upheld by
referendum., adopted a rezoning ordinance and approved conditional
use permits for the onshore option.

Final action on the 1973 Exxon DPP rested with the Regional and
California Coastal Commissions. The South Central Regional
Coastal Commission approved a coastal permit in September 1975,
but the decision was appealed to the California Coastal
Commission. The basis of the appeal was that marine transporta-
tion of Santa Ynez crude oil would have adverse envi-ronmental and
ecolocical effects and that these effects could be eliminated
through the use of a pipeline to transport crude to refineries.

Reviewing the Exxon proposal on its own merits and in the context
of expected Santa Barbara Channel development, -the California
Coastal Commission (CCC) staff concluded preliminarily that the
construction of a common carrier pipeline transporting crude from
Exxon anci other OCS operators would eliminate tanker-associated
traffic safety, spill risk, and air emission problems, and that
such a pipeline to the Los Angeles area would be technically and
economically feasible.5

The decision by the CCC was to reserve. responsibility for
determining the feasibility of a pipeline to the CCC, require
Exxon to commit itself to eventual construction of a pipeline, and
allow marine transportation on only an interim basis. In March
1976, Exxon, objecting to giving decision responsibility to the
CCC and to the notion that a public agency could shutdown its only
means of processing Santa Ynez crude, chose to pursue its O.S&T
option.

Since 1076, institutional initiative and authority in OCS matters
at the state and local level has been significantly transformed.
In particular, in Movember 1977, the Coastal Commission acquired
sole authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CVIA) to
determine whether the issuance of a federal permit to conduct
activities on the federal OCS is "consistent" with California's
Coastal Zone "anacement Procram (CZ"P). Failure to obtain such a

5. Ibid.

con,! tency determination is sufficient to prevent new develop-
ment.9 Simi I a rly., the county of Santa Ra rba ra throuch its
submission under.the State Coastal Act of a Local Coastal PI * an
(LCP), became the permitting authority for all onshore development
withinthe coastal zone of Santa-Barbara County.
In 1977, the county of Santa Ba rba ra establi-shed a' Joint
Industry/Government Pipeline Working Group to further study the
issue of pipelining and to provide a forum within which the
county, industry, and interested state agencies could resolve
-thei..differencps and coordinate plans. This group commissioned a
1978 pipeline @feasibility study by Hallanger En gi neers who
determined that -a heated 18-inch crude oil pipeline carrying
114.,000 b/d to Los Angeles was technically feasible. At the time,
economic f`63Sibility could not be established due to inadequate
proven reserves unless Exxon would commit'its reserves to the
pipeline. Exxon maintained its position of preferring to tanker
its crude oil..

In 1980, the Southern California Coastal Pipeline Feasibility
Study Group, in the light of inc-reased OCS reserve estimates,
sponsored I-einvestigating the feasibilit 'y of a pipeline to Los
Anceles in a Coastal@Pipeline Study, Part A.7 The conclusion of
this study, performed by Bechtel Petroleum, Inc., was that none of
the factors ex3mined8 posed problems which@would make the pipeline
technically infeasible. However, during the course of the Part A
study additional is'sues relevant to 'pipeline feasibility were
identified by Exxon. The most potentially important issue was the
question whethe.- Los Angeles refineries could process OCS oil
without extensive retrofits and/or , significant environmental'
impacts.

To settle this latter question, Part C of the Coastal Pipeline
Study was commissioned to estimate the modifications necessary for
Los Anqeles refineries to process OCS crude, alonq with other
feasibility questions. The study found that a pipeline to Los
Angeles would require the modificat*ion of. Los Angeles area

6. A d e E _IS__1 0 -no f"inconsistency" may be appealed to the U.S.-
Secretary. of Commerce.

7. Sponsors included: Chevron Pipeline Company; Getty Oi-I
Company; Four Corners Pipeline Company; Shell Oil Company;
Continental Pipeline Company; @Iobil Oil Corpor3tion/West
Coast Pipeline; Phillips Petroleum Company; Texaco Inc; Union
Oil Company of California; Exxon Company, USA; and the
Ca I i f orn ia En e rgy Commi s s i on.

Factors included production forecast, crude characteristics,
route, capital costs, hydraulics, and environmental quality
impacts.

refineries to process OCS crude oil for a total investment of $1.9
billion and an incremental annual operating cost of $240
million.q

Concurrently with the conduct of the above studies, companies
which.held federal OCS leases continued to prepare plans to
develop the lease tracts they controlled. Exxon, in 1981,
initially discussed a proposal to develop additional Santa-Ynez
unit reserves with various state and county agencies. Out
of these discussions emerqed a document entitled LMemorandum of
Agreement II" (MOA II).10 In tA0A II, Exxon presented its plan for
development of the Santa Ynez unit. Exxon promised to include
various pollution mitigation measures, including removal of its
OS&T: (1). if'Santa Barbara County and the state agencies aporove
the,plan, and (2) if.Santa Barbara County makes a determinati
on
within five months. of @the siqning. of MOA II that pipeline
transportation is@ infeasible for Exxon.11 Also included in.HOA II
is the proviso. that should Exxon not receive the permits it seeks,
Exxon will -forego onshore processing and pursue an alternative
plan to expand the OS&T without additional pollution control
measures. MOA II was signed in October 1981 by representatives of
Santa -Barbara County, the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control
District, the California Air Resources Board, and Exxon.

Finally, in December 1982 Exxon submitted its 'Development and
Proauction'Plan (DPP) for the Santa Ynez unit. As promised in the
NOA, Exxon plans to add three to four new production platforms,
either onshore treatment facilities to process 140,000 b/d or
expanded OS&T capacity to treat 80,000 b/,d, and a marine terminal
for tankering crude. Exxon again restates its intention to not
cornit its Santa Ynez crude oil to a pipeline. The reasons
advanced are: that Santa Ynez crude because of its physical
characteristics cannot be refined and therefore cannot be marketed
on the West Coast, and therefore Exxon needs the flexibility to be
able to move its crude to any refining center in the United States
it deems appropriate.'

Southern California Coast Pipeline: Feasibility Study, Part
C, BecFtel Petroleum, Inc., December 1982.

10. An earlier memorandum, NOA 1, was signed in connection with
Exxon's initial Santa Ynez development.

11. This eueadline has since been extended to July, 1983.

FIGURE .2

MAJOR CRUDE OIL
PIPELINES IN CALIFORNIA

TEXACO
- - - UNION
GET'rY
man m FOUR CORNERS
MOBIL
SHELL
01625601141 CHEVRON

.San Francisco

Bakersfield
Estero Say

Ura
Von
Los Angeles
MOO

SOURCE:, CEC, Annual.Petroleum Re,
June 1983

-SANTA
..:.,'.VENT(jr?,
-60U
11 f? A NTY'

0.08

0
,j
OJAI V LLEY
OJAI
AIRSHED
Oll PIRU
14
FILLMORE

0.06
SANTA 4%
PAULA
K E
e EM

NARD PLAI
ELE@Vl lolls-@tloo [I. ENTURA AIRSHE SIMI VALLEY -
-1-i 0.01 V'
0 LOCATI ON OF S proximate 0/., 0.10
%y WIND VELOCITY INSTRUMENTA'11014 006 0.07 0
O.oa o EL RIO 0
3%- Yl
5 MILES w THOUSAND
AMARILLO OAKS
OXNARD
0,05
% P04T
HUENEME
POINT
0. 0 U G
6

SAN SANTA ANACAPA
I-IIGUEL Gfiuz ISLAND FIGURE 3
PREVAILING WINDS
WIND VELOCITY INSTRUMENTATION
-DAILY OZONE MAXIMUM, ppm SOURCE: V
M PE NNT -MUAMVE=DAJ= SEl"YEjjdfERj& M Mj

TABLES

TABLE I -State of, Califomia status of, Platforms

Field or State Water
PRC Number depth
Platform Operator location number of slots (feet) Status

Herman Texaco West 2725 0 88 Inactive platform; 19 subsea
Tidelands completions (inactive@, Final envi-
ronmental impact report (FEIR),
resumption of exploratory
drilling from within lease-
not from platform.

Helen Texaco Cuarta Field 2206 .40 94 Inactive platform; 9 idle wells.
FEIR, resumption of explora-
tory drilling from w.ithin'lease-
not from platform.

Holly ARCO South Elwood 3242 .30 211 Redrilling in operation. FEIR,
Field 3120 resumption of exploratory drill-
ing from within lease-not from
platform; 9 -active wells also in
PRC 31.20 resuming exploratory
drilling.
Hilda Chevron Summerland 1824 24 .106 Producfng platform.
Field

Hazel Chevron Surnmerland 1924 25 .100 Producing platform.
Field

Heidi Chevron Carpinteria 3150 125 Producing platform. I producing
Field well also in PRC 3133 from
Platform Heidi; resumption of
drilling into P-3133 from Heidi
.has been approved.

Hope Chevron Carpinteria 3150 .60 136 Producing platform. 4 producing
wells also in PRC 4000 from
Platform Hope; also servesas
transfer facility for OCS
production.

Emmy 'Aminoil Huntington 425 53 47 Development drilling ongoing.
Beach

Eva Union Huntington 3033 39 57 Producing platform; also serves
Beach as transfer facility for OCS
production.

SOURCE: Sanders, 1982.

Reprinted 'from Roger, Golden, 8, Halpren.
Pacific Summary Report, Dec. 10,62

TABLE 2 -Oil and gas activity approved for State waters since the moratorium was lifted in 1974

Approval
Lease Company date* Project

Redrilling

427 Mobil 11/21/74 4 wells

3120 ARCO 4/30/75 13 wells from
3242 Holly

186 Exxon 4/28/76 28 wells

91 Aminoil 1/26/77 144 wells from Emmy,
163 183 wells from upland
425 locations
426
392

410 Cabot 3/31/77 6 wells

New Development

3095 Chevron 1/14/75 20 wells from Esther

3120 ARCO 4/30/75 17 wells from Holly
3242

186 Exxon 4/28/76 3 wells

1824 Chevron 10/28/76 36 wells
3150
4000

410 Cabot 3/31/77 5 wells

145 Energy Dev. 9/24/80 17 wells

1466 ARCO 10/30/80 1 well

3133 Exxon 12/17/81 --

TABLE 2 -oil and gas activity approved for State waters since the moratorium was lifted in 1974
Continued

Approval
Lease Company date* Project

Exploration

2879 Union 5/29/80 4 wells

'308 ARCO 10/8/80 9 wells
309

2920 Shell 12/16/80 1 well

3314 Shell 4/29/81 8 wells

208 Aminoil 13 wells

3120 ARCO
3242

2206 Texaco .4/27/82 5 wells
2725
2955

2933 Phillips -5/27/82 4 wells

*Approval dates reflect approval from the California State Lands Commission. Some
activity may not have yet been approved by other State agencies, such as the California
Coastal Commission or the Air Resources Board.
SOURCE- Reprin ted.from Roger, Golden, & Halpren.
Pacific Summary Report, Dec. 1982

.......... .

TABLE 3 -Statistics for Federal Pacific OCS.lease sales

Total bonus No. of Tot. amt. Highest
Lease Sa:r sale" Tracts Ac(esb Tracts Acrests Tracts Acres leased tracts Average Total bids bids rec'd per-acre
%ale da e type Area offered bid on bid on leased leased (in thousands? per acrec rentals rec'd (in thousands) bidc

rt 5/10/6) G Central 129 669,777 58 112.91@ 57 312,905 $ 12,807 S iii S 938,838 70 S 11,990 S oil
(196)) Calif.

P2 lo/l/64 G Oreg. 1% 1 o9o, 074 101 580,853 lot 580,8)) 35,534 $ 61 $1,742.562 227 $ 53,580 S 376
(1760 Wash.

r3 17113/64 0 Soulliern 1 1,995 1 1,993 1 1.99) 21,189 $10,618 9,980 7 S 89,937 $10,618
(1960 Calif.

2/6168 G Southern 110 540,409 75 393,34t 71 363,191 S 6OZ,719 S 1,660 $t,090.14) 16q S1,293,401 511,374
(1968) Calif.

35 12/11/75 G Southern
Calif. 731 1,257,593 70 )84,540 346 310,049 417,312 1,1106 $ 930,147 166 S 901,960 $18,260

48 6129/79 G Soothern
Calif. 148 192,845 55 294,018 )4 289,260 572,823 1,937 $ 867,499 112 $ 994,684 $37,280
531, 1/28191 C Central 111 601,61) 91 432,80 55 2?2.ttl S2,036,9ilt 6,913 $ 936,744 101 $4,993,911 $57,916
Calif.

0 (.11119Z G Southern
Calif. 140 716,866 )3 176,25) 79 147,066 t17.873 901 $ 443,91) 66 5 210,486 S10,083

RS-2 811182 G Central 27 133,716 12 @68,318 le 6,9)2 S 12,311 $ 216 S 184.320 19 $ 14,440 $ 11611
Callf.e I I
Totals 1,09) 3,827,096 488 2,633,108 14 0 2,333,380 1,15(, $8,658,089 ---

aG indicatei general oil and gas lease %ale; n Indicates drainage oil and gas lease sale; GM indicates government
mot ion oil and gas lease sale.
bOCS Sales are generally marle In terms of acres. To obtain the metric equivalent (hectares), divide the acreages by
2.47,

cNumbers Are rounded off to nearest dollar.

dStAtistics for Lease Sale 53 include all bids. The decision to accept or reject 19 bids received on some tracts is
penditig results of litigation. The sum of high bids on the 19 tracts I.n litigation Is $220,632.077.

el,teu(lering Sale RS-2 statistics only given for tracts in the Pacific OICS.

SOURCE: MMS. 1982.

TABLE 4 -Existing platforms on the Pacific OCS

Number Water Distance Sulfur
OCS-P Unit/ Installation o f depth to API content
Platform Operator number (field) date well slots (ft) shore (mi) gravity M weight)

Ellen Shell 0300 (Beta) 1990 80 265 8.8 15.4 3.5
Elly' Shell 0300 (Beta) 1980 256 8.8 Treatment platform
Gina Union 0202 (Hueneme 1981 15 95 3.6 16.0 3.54
Of f shore)
Gilda Union 0216 Santa Clara 1981 96 210 8.5 23A 3.2
.48 10.4 28.7 2.3
Grace Chevron 0217 Santa Clara 1979 318

24.8 1.72
Hogan Phillips 0166 (Carpinteria 1967 66 151 3.7
Offshore)
Houchin Phillips 0166 (Carpinteria 1967 60 161 5.1 24.8 1.72
Offshore)
Habitat Texaco 0234 Pitas Point 198rl 24 302 9.0 Gas production only
H 25.5 1.3
enry Sun 0240 (Carpi 'nteria i979 28 174 4.4
Of f shore)
Hillhouse Sun 0240 (Dos Cuadras 1969 60 190 5.7 26.5 1.1
Offshore)
A Union 0241 (Dos Cuadras 1968 57 184 5.9 25.0 under 1.0
Of f shore)
B Union, 0241 (Dos Cuadras 1968 63 187 5.7 25.0 under 1.0
Of f shore)
C Union 0241 (Dos Cuadras 1977 60 194 5.6 25.01 under 1.0
Offshore)
Hondo Exxon 0188 Santa Ynez 1976 28 850 5.5 18. 8 4.5

TABLE 5 -Proposed platforms for the Pacific OCS

Water Distance
OCS-P Unit/ Number of depth to shore Installation
Platform Opera tor number (f ield) well slots (feet) (miles) date

Edith Chevron 02116 (Beta Northwest) 70 161 1A 1911

Eureka Shell 0301 (Beta) 60 699 10.0 1984

Gail Chevron 0205 Santa Clara 36 740 13.5 1986
(Sockeye)

Hermosa Chevron 0316 New Discovery 48 605 10.0 1983
Tract

n.a. Texaco 0315 New Discovery n.a. 788 12.0 1985
Tract

Hondo "B" Exxonl 0190 Santa Ynez 60 1,200 6.0 1987
(Hondo)

Pescado "A"2 Exxonl 0182 Santa Ynez 60 1,075 8 1989
Pescado "a 1-3 0183 28 1,0-25 7.9 1992 or 1998
Pescado "62" 0182 (Pescado) 60 1,140 9 1988

Sacate Exxonl 0193 Santa Ynez 28 620 5.0 1999
(Saca te)

TABLE 6

STATE TIDELANDS/OCS PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY

SCENARIO D

STATE OCS
YEAR PLATFORMS PLATFORMS TOTAL

1983 7 14 21

1984 7 14 21

1985 16 17 33
198'6 17 19 36

1987. 18 24 42

1988 27 26 53

1989 29 27 56

19W 29 28 57

1991 34 29 63

SOURCE: Resource Management Agency, May 1983

TABLE 7

STATE TIDELANDS/OCS PROJECTED EXPLORATION

SCENARIO D

CUMULATIVE
OCS WELLS
CUMULATIVE ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL AND
YEAR OCS WELLS STATE RIGS STATE WELLS STATE WELLS

1980 6 15 21

1981 13 .8 21

1982 13 22 35

1983, 14 7 21 35

1984 12 1 3 15

1985 13 1 3. 16,

1986 11 9 27 38

1987 .5 2 11

1988 2 0 0 .2

1989 1 5 15 16

SOURCE: Resource Management Agency, May 1983

TABLE 8

PROJECTED EMPLOYEMENT PER YEAR RESULTING FROM.
CUMULATIVE OCS/STATE TIDELANDS DEVELOPMENT

SCENARIO D

1983 1984 -1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991

.57
Number Platforms 21 21 33 36 42 53 56 63

Direct Employment 2,961 2,961 4,653 5,076 5,922 7)473 7,896 8,037 8,883
(141/Platform)

Indirect Employment 592 592 931 1,015 1,184 1,495 1,579 1,607 1,777
(5:1 Ratio)

Induced Employment 4,264 4,264 6,701 7,309 8,527 10,762 11,370 11,573 12,792
(1.2 Multiplier)

Total Employment 7,817 7,817 12,285 13,400 15,633 19,730 20,845 21,217 23,452

Scenario C 3,350 4,467 5,211 5,584 4,467 3,722 1,861 1,489 1,117
(10/1980) Comparison

SCOURCE: Resource Management Agenty, May 1983

TAPLE 9

ItIDUSTRY 7NJ
PET'r.'OLEUM L fIENTORY
OCS EKHSTONS SUNil-IRY

12 _12

- - - ---------------- - -------------------------------
Emissions ttonsiyr)
Iocation TOC ROC Noy TSP sr. CC.

- - - -------- - - - ----------- - -
East Channel OCS 3-74.9 140.0 773.5 53.4 152. 8 220.2
Mid Channel OCS 24.3 22.0 211.0 15.4 16.-3 54.11
West Channel OCS 17. 0 15.? 119.9 9. 2 20.3 38.0
Pt. Conception OCS 0.1 1.3 001 1.3 0.3

Total 366.3 178.0 1105.5 78.3 90.3

Emissions (tonskjr)
Categorv TOC ROC NO,- TSF S 02 Co

Eciril-SoUcas
Platform Installation 5. 2 .5.0 62.2 3.8 4.0 11.8
ExploratoN Drilling 47.4 41.9 498.8 35.6 33.1 107.9
Production Drilling 14.5 12o9 155. '41 11.1 20.0 33.8
Production Operations - Cotpression 3.8 1.1 49.2 lo6 19.7
Production Operations - Pumping 2.7 0.8 26.2 .0.9 7.3
Production Operations - Water Injection
Processing Operations - Heater Tre3ting
Processing Operatioris - Gl-@col Regerier-.Uon
Processing Operat4ons - Sour Gas Treatment
Fugitive Emissions 231.2 57.7
Tanker Loading
Tan@,er Exhaust Hotelling

Pipeline Installation 0.5 0.4 5.6 0.3 0.3 1.1
Support Boats - Platform Installation 3.4 3.41 30.4 8.4
Support Boats - Pipeline Instal,lation 0.6 O.S 5.4 0.4 0.4 1.5
Support Boats - Erploratorv Drilling 24.9 23-a 117.7 9.6 11.2 5".8
Support Boats - Production Drilling 20.4 19.5 96.7 7.9 9.1 43.21
Support Boats - Production 11.3 10.7 53.1 4.3 5.0 24.0
Tanker Enhaust - Cruising 0.4 @0.4 5.0 0.@ 5.3 1.0

- - ----- - - ---- - ----- - ------------ - -- - --------------- - -- --------------- ---
Total 366.3 178.0 110ri.ei 1/8.3 ?0.8 3 121. 5

Process Rate As5unptions:
11 Ilallo,,,k5 Instailed: 2
2) Miles of Pipeline Laid: 15
3) Explorator-i Footage 1!rilled: 111000 ft/vr (12 wells)
4) Production Footage Drille-d: 701"100 ft/,jr ('@!rj wells)
5) 1 Producing I)ells: '11
6) Production: 3971 (1000 bbis/yr)t '91, (?!h
cf/yr)
7) Tanker Loads (V.ZT): 0
8) Tanker Trips: 6

'TABLE 10

PETROLEM INDUSTRY INVENTORY
OCS EM CUhl,4.A.Ry

LSK-3 au3rio-c

------ - ------------- ---- - --------- - - ----- - - -------------------- - --- - -------------
Emissions
Location TOC Rac NO- TSP Son Co.

------------- - --------- - --- -
East Channel OCS 542.0 210.3 1156.1 75-8 3214 - 1 320 .7'
hid Channel OCS 106.6 43.0 775.3 34.8 59.8- 211.4
West Channel CCS 264.1 184.1 1991.8 114.3 5416-S 4421 6
Ft. Conception OCS 276.8 141.1 184i.1- ?6.0 2560.1. 508:5

- - -------- - ----- - ------------
Total i189.6 576.6 576?.@3 320.8 3470.7, 14TIM0

- ------- ----- - -- - - - ---------- - --------- - ------------------ - -- - ------
Emissions (tons/90
Category TOC ROC NO TSF SO2 Co

- ----- - ------- ----------

Platfors Installation 13.0 12.5 155.5 9.S 10.0 29.5
Explorator@ Drilling 20.5 18.1 .216.1 15.5 14.4
46.9
Production Drilling 186.6 165.0 1963.6 14010 13011; 424.5
Productim Operations - Coppression 126.5 37.8 1336.7 42.2 3.0 360.3
P'roduct ion Ope r's tions - Puaping S4.V 16.6 677.1 1748 3.2, 156.2
M
Production Oeeratims - Uater Injection 29.3 8.8 3L8.6 9.3 84.1
Proc?ssing O.-erations - Heater Treating 0.2 0.1 23.3 0.9 1.6
Processir,5 Operations - Elveol Re5eneritiort 10.0 0.4 0.6
Processint Operatims - Sour Gas Treat,.jent 0.6 0 .2 0.3 0.1 3034.4 011
Fugitive E2issions 5341.6 15 3. 150
Tanker Loading 0.4 0*4
Tanker Exhaust - Hotelling 0.1 0.1 7.7 0.2 0.3 1.7

Axea-scurc2s;
Pipeline Installation 1.4 1.3 17.1 110 1.0 3,7
Support Roats, - Platfort Installation 8.5 8.0 76.0 5.5 6.0 141.0
Support Boats - Pipeline Installation 1.9 1.8 16.5 111.) 1.3 4.7
Sur-Fort kats - Exploratory Drilling 12.5 1210 4.9 5.,S 26.6
Support ?oats, - Production Brilliag 101.6 97.5 481,6 3911 45.6 215.8
Support @oats - Production 31.21 29.? 145.6 11.7 14.3 65.0
Tanker b:haust - Cruising 15.7 14.9 211.51 21.5 199.1-1 40.7
- -- - --------- - ---- - ------ - -------- - -------- - ----------------------------- -- - ----------
Total 11^0716 5781.5 5769.3 320.3 347i'v. i 4

Process Rate Asswiptions:
1) P13tforms Installed; 5
2) Miles of Pipeline Laid; 46
3) Expl,oraturv ;*ootal3e Drilled: 50000 ft/,.4r (5 wells)
4) Production Footage Drilled: 93-noo ft/,jr (93 well;1
5) t Producing 337
.6) Production: 730).3 (100.) 13137-03 (.Sdr-f/yr)
7) T;[email protected] Loads (OSIT): 47
8) Tanker Trips: 271

TAE(LE

FETROLEUM 'INDUSTRY INVENTORY
OCS EHISSIGNS SUMMA0

----- - ------- - --------- - --- - ------ - -------------- - -- --------
Ezissions (Lons/vr)
S01
Location TOC ROC NOX TSP co
7 22.6 108.0 160.3
East Channel OCS 431.0 125.7 434.4 &
Mid Channel OCS' 97.7 31.5 384.8 16#9 39.:i 107.9
lest Channel ICS 3,rJ 6 . CJ 115.1 837.0 34.3 1469.6 '4132.9
Pt. Conception OCSO 169.5 52.7 408.4 1280.3 118.21

Total 1054.8 327.0 2064.7 92.2 2897.2 6i-L 3

Emissions (tons' Isr)
I
Cate5orv TOC ROC Nox TSF S02 co

Platform Installation
Exploratorv Drilling
Production Drilling
Frodliction Operations - Compression 94.3 28.2 984.7 33.1 1.5 296.1
Production Operations - Puaping 40.1 11.8 411.8 13.3 0.7 110.7
Production Operations - Wzter Injection 22.3 6.5 228.7 7.5 0.4 61.6
Processing Operations - Heater Treating 041 177-6 0.9 1.5
Processing O:@er.Aions - Glvc3l 2egener3tion 6.6 0.14, 0.4
Processing Operations - Sour Gas Treatment 0.! 0.1
Fugitive Emissions 828.? 214.5
Tanker Loading 0.1 0.1
Tanker F--.haust - Hotelling @1.0 0.2

Atea-So=Ces
Pipeline Installation
Support Boats - Platform Installation
Support Boats - Pipeline Installation
Support Boats - Exploratory Drilling
Support Boats - Production Drillin@
Support Boats - Production 57.6 5rJ. 2 268.8 21.6 .26.4 120.0
ir.c
Tanker E-.:haust - Cr4jising 11.3 10.8 143.3 147.1 28.10

- --- - ----------- - ------- - -------------------------- - ----
Total 1054.8 327.0 2064.7 ?2.
619.3

Process Rat2 Assumptions:
11 Plalloras Insslall@d: 1
2) Miles of Pipilint? Laid: 0
3) Exploratory Footage Drilled: 0
4) Production Footage Drilled: a
,J) t Producips Wells: 1103
P r .)d 1., c t i o n 64443 (.@-jC-0 tbls,@@jr)? 91163.5 0,@cf/yr)
7) Tanker Loads (OS;T): 6
8) TarLker Trips: 171;

---
I

- - .. s;A 'r., 4111@

I
I iiilmmiiiiiliioll
3 6668 14104 3747 @ I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I