Anonymous
By the California State Lands Commission
[On Monday], against the backdrop of the magnificent Pacific Ocean, the California State Lands Commission and state and local leaders showcased the successful removal of the last two oil production shorezone piers in California, restoring the coastline and marking an enormous milestone in California’s transition away from fossil fuels.
California once again reaffirms its steadfast commitment towards a future free of fossil fuels.” said Lieutenant Governor and Commission Chair, Eleni Kounalakis. “The successful removal of the state’s last two oil piers showcases the power of collective action and California’s determination to restore our coastal waters and leave a legacy of environmental resilience for generations to come.”
“Removing these last remaining oil piers is truly a watershed moment and a particularly significant milestone in our work to transition away from fossil fuels,” said Malia M. Cohen, Commissioner and State Controller. “We look forward to bringing the same collaboration and teamwork that underpinned this project to the other oil and gas decommissioning projects the Commission is spearheading.”
Pictured from left-to-right: 3rd District Supervisor Joan Hartmann, 1st District Supervisor Das Williams, CA State Controller Malia M. Cohen, 2nd District Supervisor Laura Capps, District 1 Goleta City Councilmember Luz Reyes-Martín, City of Goleta Mayor Pro Tempore Kyle Richards, City of Goleta Mayor Paula Perotte, District 2 Goleta City Councilmember James Kyriaco and Hannah-Beth Jackson; Not pictured: Senator Monique Limón and Assemblymember Gregg Hart
“Removing these large, antiquated oil production piers is a tangible example of our commitment to clean energy,” said Joe Stephenshaw, Commissioner and Director of the Department of Finance. “We’re excited to take the same teamwork and diligence involved in this project and apply it to additional offshore oil and gas decommissioning projects as we continue our work toward a carbon-neutral future.”
“The removal of the deteriorated Ellwood Oil Field piers ensures greater safety for our community, “said Senator Limón. “We can now both see and walk down our beach, which has been restored for safe use by the public and surrounding ecosystems. I look forward to collaborating with State Lands as they continue to work on more projects throughout the Santa Barbara Channel.”
“As we move toward a future beyond fossil fuels, we must address their historic legacy,” said California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot. “Removing the last of the defunct oil piers along the Santa Barbara coast is a big milestone. It improves coastal access, recreation and enjoyment while restoring natural habitat for fish and wildlife. I’m proud of the work of the State Lands Commission to drive this environmental restoration over so many years.”
Pictured left-to-right: City of Goleta Mayor Paula Perotte, Coastal Band of Chumash Nation Treasurer Rosemary Castillo, CA Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, CA Sate Controller Malia M. Cohen and 2nd District Supervisor Laura Capps
“This significant milestone marks a monumental step forward in protecting our precious coastal environment and fostering a sustainable future for our state,” said Assemblymember Hart. “I commend the California State Lands Commission and City of Goleta for your vision, leadership, and dedication to safeguard our coastlines and preserve our natural resources.”
“This is a momentous occasion marking the end of oil and gas production at the Ellwood Oil Field – a relic of how energy was produced in the last century,” said Joan Hartmann, 3rd District Supervisor. “The timing of the final decommissioning at this site perfectly coincides with another momentous occasion just up the coast from here – construction on the Central Coast’s first wind farm was completed earlier this month, ushering a new era of clean energy production in this beautiful place we call home.”
“With the removal of the State Lease 421 wells, caissons, and piers, Haskell’s Beach as we stand here today looks more like 1923 than 2023,” said City of Goleta Mayor Paula Perotte. “The old oil and gas era legacy wells and piers from the 421 mineral lease are gone and no longer pose an oil spill threat. This is a significant accomplishment for the safety of our community and ocean environment.”
“Our community is excited about restoring the Ellwood area to its natural state. The removal of the Ellwood oil piers follows the termination of the Ellwood marine terminal and will soon be followed by the removal of the oil storage tanks next to Devereux,” said Linda Krop, Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center. “The removal of these industrial facilities from our beaches and bluffs will restore a unique and precious recreation area that also provides habitat to amazing seabirds and other wildlife. We applaud the State Lands Commission for removing the dilapidated oil infrastructure and restoring natural beauty on the Central Coast.”
“Today is a celebration of effective government teamwork built upon and motivated by decades of citizen perseverance, spurred by the 1969 oil spill that our local activists catapulted into the global Earth Day movement,” said Santa Barbara County District 2 Supervisors Laura Capps who represents the area. “As a kid born shortly after that catastrophe, I played on these beaches that were then laden with tar and grew up with deep respect for the environmental activism that is now part of the Santa Barbara County DNA. The removal of pier 421 signals a more sustainable future and reinforces our collective belief to protect our marine ecosystems and wildlife – ensuring its health and beauty for the generations of kids to come.”
In the early 1900s, a large latticework of oil producing piers and onshore storage and processing facilities spanned the Santa Barbara coastline. The recently decommissioned oil piers and caissons, the last two remaining oil piers, were installed nearly a century ago to develop oil and gas from the Ellwood Oil Field. The deteriorating piers and caissons were a physical coastal obstruction and a potential public safety and environmental hazard.
The Commission embarked on the decommissioning project after Venoco filed for bankruptcy and relinquished its leases to the state. The State Lands Commission owns and manages millions of acres of public land, including tide and submerged lands and the beds of navigable rivers, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, inlets, and straits. It also owns hundreds of thousands of acres of land, known as school lands, that are scattered across the desert and in northeastern California, and works to prevent oil spills at marine oilterminals and invasive species introductions from vessels arriving at California ports.
Information about the oil pier removal project is available on the Commission’s website.
The historic legacy of the petroleum industry in California, aside from all the devastating environmental effects, is the over 21 billion dollars in cleanup being dumped on taxpayers.
And that’s just the estimate for California.
10:06@
You’re not paying attention to the subject. The 20+ billion dollars hasn’t yet been spent. That’s the low-end estimate for decommissioning of all the petroleum extraction and transport infrastructure that has been (and more will be) abandoned by the industry after they have sucked out all the profit. The mess is left for the taxpayer to clean up and render safe. Future spills are extra.
I would like to see that $ broken down to where all that money went.
Is there a link or site?
Just curious since we, the Cub Scouts, were filling sandbags at Hendry’s in 1969. How many spills large and small, since, etc.
California cannot and will not transition away from fossil fuels. Rather, California will shift the production of the fuel it consumes to other states and countries.
California can transition away from fossil fuels, if they would have just started building nuclear power plants a decade ago.
Why would we transition from one dan=gerous energy source to another? Makes no sense.
4:36 – Nope. Just more carbon shill nonsense. Luckily, most people in California are smarter than that.
Compared to both petroleum fuels and nuclear fission, non-carbon energy sources are better, faster, cheaper, and safer.
“In case you haven’t noticed, technology has come a very very long way ” – great point. This is what I’ve been saying along about bird strikes on wind turbines, blade recycling, panel recycling, etc.
Fission is actually one of the cheapest energy sources. You need to look not at the construction costs of a single plant, but the cost per MW it produces, which is one of the absolute lowest. You’re also focusing on reactor tech and designs from the 1970’s and even prior. In case you haven’t noticed, technology has come a very very long way since then. They have designs that can not melt down even in worst case scenarios using fuel that is much easier and safer to store once spent. The best time to start building new reactors was a decade ago, the next best time is now. Do not fall for the anti-nuclear propaganda, it is the quickest way to safely wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
2:50 – More baloney. There are no certified fission reactor designs that use anything but 1970s technology. No reactor started now will come on line in less than two decades. There is nothing safe about fission waste, and no safe long-term storage methods, despite your misinformation about vitrification storage.
The billions that would be spent over two decades to get a single reactor running would be better spent on what is already better, faster, safer, and cheaper – non-carbon and non-fission power.
The problem is, solar, wind and batteries simply can’t meet the world’s energy needs and have tremendous environmental and humanitarian impacts. Nuclear power can provide the energy we need. Nuclear power takes up an insignificant amount of space and does not destroy millions of acres of fragile desert habitat. Nuclear power has no emissions. Nuclear power is safe, and the small amount of waste it generates can be easily stored. There is also no reason it needs to take 20 years to build a new nuclear power plant. China is building 24 nuclear power plants within its own borders, and many more in its partner countries around the world. We need to get moving now and catch up!
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/china-leads-building-nuclear-power-plants
The only energy sources with tremendous environmental and humanitarian impacts are the ones you champion – carbon and fission. And only a complete fool or complete shill would think storage of high-level radionuclides from fission is an easy task.
VOICE – yes, let’s load up CA with nuclear plants. The annual, out of control fires and constant earthquakes make CA the prime spot for piling up uranium.
“minimal impact on the environment.” – Except when it does. Funny the same people complaining about battery storage and the risk of fire (highly unlikely with today’s tech) are also pushing nuclear as a “safe” energy source.
Nuclear is hard to beat for being clean having minimal impact on the environment. Solar and wind require covering hundreds of thousands of acres with panels and windmills, which has a high impact on wildlife that is not yet fully understood. Here is a recent article about the environmental harm caused by solar.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/21/solar-farms-energy-power-california-mojave-desert
However, there is no substitute for the energy storing capacity of hydrocarbons. Air travel, for example, will continue to require liquid fuels since there is no technologically feasible alternative. The same goes for over the road transportation, electric trucks are a cute idea but physics says it isn’t going to happen.
Sac, can you explain how you believe a wildfire near a nuclear power plant could cause a release of radiation?
CHIP – only if you explain how you honestly believe that wind and solar are worse for the environment than coal and oil.
But seriously, if you don’t understand how fire can pose a risk to a nuclear power plant, well…. not sure I can help you.
Ok sac, solar panels would have to cover millions of acres to generate enough power to meet our needs. They don’t generate power at night or on cloudy days. Their production requires environmentally destructive mining and manufacturing processes. They have a relatively short economic life and are often replaced after 10 years or so with newer panels. Their productivity drops to the point they are no longer useful after 20 years or so. There is no economically viable way to recycle dead solar panels and they pose a massive disposal problem. Now, can you explain how a wildfire could penetrate the containment vessels at San onofre or Diablo canyon?
Sac, there is nothing renewable about solar panels or destroying fragile desert habitats with them. Ironically, the destruction of underground desert life also releases carbon as outlined in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/21/solar-farms-energy-power-california-mojave-desert
It’s tragic that so many people like you have prevented the development of nuclear power based on false beliefs and irrational fears such as a wildfire somehow penetrating a massive reinforced concrete containment structure located on a beach that could easily survive a plane crash. That’s not going to happen!
“Ok sac, solar panels would have to cover millions of acres to generate enough power to meet our needs”. – solar alone is not a proposed solution.
“They don’t generate power at night or on cloudy days. ” – That’s why we have battery storage facilities.
“Their production requires environmentally destructive mining and manufacturing processes.” – yes, but that is still far less than oil and coal production. This is an easily verified fact that I’ve cited numerous times.
“They have a relatively short economic life and are often replaced after 10 years or so with newer panels.” – Not true. not at all. “The estimated operational lifespan of a PV module is about 30-35 years, although some may produce power much longer.” https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/end-life-management-solar-photovoltaics#:~:text=The%20estimated%20operational%20lifespan%20of,may%20produce%20power%20much%20longer.
“Their productivity drops to the point they are no longer useful after 20 years or so.” – Wrong again. See quote/cite above.
“There is no economically viable way to recycle dead solar panels and they pose a massive disposal problem. ” – No, wrong again. Read the above article and many others like it. The tech is developing quickly, even if it’s not perfect now.
“Now, can you explain how a wildfire could penetrate the containment vessels at San onofre or Diablo canyon?” – Lol… you are really hung up on that, huh? You lie constantly about energy production and you still don’t understand how a fire in a nuclear plant could be a problem? Sure, it’s a pretty low risk, but you’re missing the point here. Nuclear plants can be devastating to the environment and the humans in and around them. Putting them in a place prone to multiple natural disasters doesn’t seem like a good idea.
I’d worry less about me thinking fires pose a risk and more about where you’re getting your “facts” about renewable energy. Wherever it is, they’re always almost 100% wrong.
11:53 – It’s clear that you’ve swallowed all the propaganda about fission power being prompted by the carbon fuels industry to prolong use of carbon-based fuels. Fission power is hideously expensive, excruciatingly slow to come on line, and produces waste products that are lethal for millennia.
You also didn’t pay any attention to all the corrosion problems in fission plant cooling systems, and the degradation in the integrity of concrete containment vessels by neutron flux.
Typical – when your entire motivation is political, inconvenient facts are easy to ignore.
Another thing you ignored is the recent development of solar panel recycling technology by a french firm that is able to recover over 90% of solar panel materials for re-use.
CHIP – you don’t understand the term, obviously. “Renewable” describes the energy source – sun, wind, water, etc., as opposed to coal and oil, which will run out. Yes, solar and wind power are not 100% “green” and no one ever at any time anywhere said they are.
Let me ask you this. If you had to choose between cutting off your legs or cutting off a finger tip, which would you choose? If you could choose between terminal cancer and the flu, which would you choose? How about living in an alley dumpster or living in a studio apartment? You see, all these choices suck, but in each case, one choice is not nearly as bad as the other.
Wind and solar, while currently being dirty in component construction, are still far cleaner than coal and oil, which are both dirty in production AND use, with no technology developing to make them cleaner. What do you choose?
Yup, safely stored for 50+ years at 76 reactor facilities in 34 states in about 8,500 dry casks, which could all fit inside a single sports arena. These casks are totally passive and don’t need any cooling or active systems to keep them safe. The French are even recycling this material.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel
Voice of politics – Your naivete is amazing. Either that, or you think everyone is as gullible as you are.
Some relevant citations from:
https://www.gao.gov/nuclear-waste-disposal/
The nation has over 85,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants. DOE is responsible for disposing of this high-level waste in a permanent geologic repository, but has yet to build such a facility because policymakers have been at an impasse over what to do with this spent fuel since 2010. As a result, the amount of spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants across the country continues to grow by about 2,000 metric tons a year. Meanwhile, the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades. If Congress were to authorize a new consent-based process for siting a repository, it could help break the impasse over a permanent solution for commercial spent nuclear fuel.
Transuranic nuclear waste is waste contaminated by nuclear elements heavier than uranium, such as diluted plutonium. The United States has only one deep geologic repository for the disposal of defense-related transuranic waste—the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico. However, DOE may face delays in expanding WIPP to dispose of all defense transuranic waste, and is still recovering from accidents in 2014 that resulted in suspending operations.
Great point, VOR, now how long is that stuff dangerously radioactive again? Like, thirty, forty years or something?
Chip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Cut power to the reactor and you can’t control the cooling mechanisms right? Can a wildfire destroy power lines?
I am 100% willing to accept that I am misunderstanding this possibility. Please correct me.
Chip–you’re saying THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY WAY TO FUEL AIR TRANSPORTATION OTHER THAN HYDROCARBONS? See, I put that in caps because I want to be sure I am reading you right.
If you know that to be absolutely true for all eternity then what else have you predicted? I will definitely stake you on a trip to Vegas bro.
The fool is the person who isn’t aware we’re currently and safely storing nuclear waste across the country and have been doing so for 50+ years.
VOICE – so nuclear waste poses no hazards? What about the thousands who die from uranium poisoning in the mines? It’s not just the waste that is hazardous.
Doesn’t sound like 8:23 is acquainted with the big problems we’re having with the storage of highly radioactive waste. Didn’t he pay attention to the whole Yucca Mountain fiasco? That left the US nuclear power plants, and nuclear weapons development labs, without any designated long-term storage for their high-level radioactive waste (spent fuel), currently stored on-site in steel and concrete casks (dry cask storage) at 76 reactor facilities in 34 states. We may have survived this ad-hoc strategy for decades, but these wastes remain life-threatening for tens of thousands of years.
The DOE is actively looking for a site to store the fission waste. Since it’s such a small amount, only a football stadium filled 30 feet deep, Chip and VOR would no doubt be happy to host it, especially since they feel it is so absolutely safe.