Remarks by Bob Nelson
492 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 4 of 20
“All right, thank you. I'm going to take the chair's privilege since most of this impacts my district. Ask some questions first here. I want to make sure I understand the county's overall direction correctly. The board has already directed staff to pursue both a prohibition on new onshore oil and gas wells and future phase out of existing onshore and gas operations. Is that correct?”
“OK, what is before us today is the first piece phase one.”
“Prohibition of new wells. And the second piece phase two is already underway. It is intended addressed eventual cessation of existing operations.”
“OK, in both days in one and phase two were directed by the board with the same action.”
“Thank you. My next question is, is oil considered a mineral resource under CEQA and is our planning and our county planning documents?”
“Can prohibition prohibiting prohibiting future wells make some oil and gas resources that otherwise might have been developed practically inaccessible?”
“OK. Did the environmental review quantify or identify the mineral resources that could become unavailable as a result of this ordinance?”
“the correct path there is going to be an environmental impact report that is being prepared as part of the amortization study and phase two the second piece correct thank you for that i do have some additional questions to go along with my questions around sequa did staff evaluate whether the loss of mineral resources availability could be environmentally significant Yes or no is fine.”
“Okay. Did staff analyze whether prohibiting future wells could affect investment decisions or the economic life of existing oil field, oil operations?”
“Did staff analyze whether phase one could affect the timing of well plugging, abandonment, or facility decommissioning?”
“OKAY. DID THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ANALYZE AND ASSOCIATED ANY OF THE ASSOCIATED EFFECTS SUCH AS TRUCKING, EQUIPMENT ACTIVITY, WASTE HANDLING, GRADING, OR SITE RESTORATION IF THE TIMING OF THE DECISIONS MIGHT CHANGE BASED ON A PROHIBITION?”
“OKAY. SO THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES ARE NOT EVALUATED AS PART OF THIS EQUAL PROCESS?”
“OKAY. THANK YOU. DID STAFF IDENTIFY EVIDENCE THAT PROHIBITING NEW WILLS IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WILL REDUCE PETROLEUM DEMAND IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY? SO BY STOPPING WILL THIS IMPACT? DID WE ANALYZE THAT?”
“SO DID WE LOOK FOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROHIBITING NEW WILLS MIGHT HAVE IMPACT ON DEMAND? no sir did we look at identifying evidence that it might have um changed demand statewide no sir um did we analyze whether some portions of the production that otherwise might occur here could instead be supplied from somewhere else outside of santa barbara county we did not did we analyze where the replacement supply would likely come from we did not did we compare the environmental impacts of producing and transporting that replacement crude with producing crude in santa barbara county not as part of…”
“Does it also say that counties should encourage exploration for new resource sites?”
“Have either of those provisions been amended or repealed?”
“Has the county previously in environmental documents relied upon those policies when finding oil development consistent with the comprehensive plan?”
“Okay. So what is staff's explanation for finding a countywide prohibition on new oil and gas wells consistent with existing conservation element policies?”
“OK. All right, that will be it for right now. I have a few other questions here before we go to public comment. Sure. Questions for my other colleagues? Supervisor Hartman?”
“Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lavagnino.”
“Thank you, Supervisor Levin. Any other questions? Supervisor Capps.”
“yeah my question was i guess was more not on the production but um i think we're talking about mineral resources that would become inaccessible um i think there's some proven mineral resources in our county that don't have current production out of them and that they might become inaccessible which sounds like they would and that's the consistency question that i have all right other questions from the board um i have i guess one couple more questions on um this the health effects so there's been some conversation about why to move forward with a prohibition and there's also a new state law…”
“OKAY. MAYBE 1 OR 2%, MAYBE PRETTY MINOR THAT ARE ACTUALLY IMPACTING POTENTIALLY UNDER THAT HEALTH PROTECTION ZONE THAT ARE PROTECTING PEOPLE'S HEALTH. DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE REMAINING RESOURCES COULD BE POTENTIALLY ACCESSED WHILE STILL STAYING OUTSIDE THAT ZONE? SO WE HAVE AREAS THAT WE'RE NOT ACCESSING NOW. you know, new wells could potentially access those resources and still be in a health protection zone, right? Is that accurate?”
“Okay. And so the public health materials in our record generally shows that risk increases with proximity, well density and production volumes, right? That's what I'm seeing in there. And we're saying that 98% of our wells are not in proximity and we don't really have dense oil fields right not like you see another like current in other places is that correct yeah that's generally correct okay and our volumes are moderate to low here relatively low okay um do we have any study um our records indicate when the health risk becomes zero at all i don't believe we have that information all right…”
“Okay. Did staff evaluate a more restrictive setback or other location-based regulations as an alternative to a countywide prohibition?”