Hermosa Beach City Council Members Took An Oath To Protect & Serve
Chris Miller (Daughter of Famous Ski Movie producer Warren Miller) delivers a power speech to the City Council. "You took at oath of office to protect and serve its' residents. This is not what Hermosa Beach stands for and I do not want to be owned by an oil company. The California Tide Lands Trust was founded to protected the Coastal areas above the surface and was not developed to sell out what is below the surface."
Land & Coastal Use Planning Process is 3 Years Minimum
Hermosa Beach City Council Member Pete Tucker asks Tom Bakaly at 2 minutes into this video a very important question. He asks why are we rushing the EIR process into a 6-9 month timeline when the Land and Coastal planning documentation takes 3 years minimum.
AES's largest customer is J.P. Morgan according to the AES company fact sheet on the web site. A bank as your largest customer? Sounds a bit like Enron to me. This Redondo Beach power from this plant is not needed per the CAISO and CEC reports.
Power plant lines bring down property values at least 25% in the Redondo Beach & South Hermosa Beach areas and block ocean views. The power lines may go as well. This has not been studied.
AES hurts the fiscal health of the Redondo King Harbor area surrounding businesses. New waterfront developments have been put on hold because of the power plant rebuild issue. Many new restaurants would likely follow the new Shade Hotel being built on King Harbor more money would flow to the City if the power plant was gone.
Opposing it costs nothing & AES only needs the Council and others to do nothing and we all lose. Doing nothing plays right into their hands. This is not about the future zoning of the site. We definitely don't want a new power plant. See map below of what this area could be.
AES pays little in taxes only $385,000 / year in tax revenue to the city.
AES plant borders on South Hermosa Beach and most HB residents will be affected.
The loud steam blasts in the middle of the night are simply ridiculous and this beautiful park rendering (see picture below) done by the California Coast Commission would be incredible the area.
In a 3-2 vote, the Redondo Beach City Council decided to continue its discussion on a resolution opposing the repowering of AES Redondo Beach at the July 10 meeting. After a meeting that lasted more than seven hours until 1 am, the Redondo Beach City Council decided to delay its discussion on whether to pass a resolution opposing the repowering of the AES Redondo Beach power plant on Harbor Drive until the July 10. This will allow city staff time to hire an independent consultant to perform an amortization report on the current structure. Councilmen Matt Kilroy and Pat Aust both said they wanted to read such a report before making a final decision. Is this just a delay tactic? Read more on Redondo Patch and Easy Reader.
Redondo Beach City Council
Matt Kilory, Steve Aspel, Bill Brand,Pat Aust,Steve Diels
Hermosa Beach, Torrance, Manhattan Beach and Palos Verdes should participate as well in support of removing the power plant. NIMBY thinking and waiting is just plain lazy and stupid. All surrounding City Council members need to work together because this is such a big issue. Lets set politics aside and be proactive about finding a solution to do the right thing. This is not just about Redondo Beach and we all stand to benefit with cleaner air and potentially new development that we all can use. The King Harbor area has so much potential. Its a developers "wet dream" and huge private money would follow the opportunity to create something amazing.
It Redondo Beach City Council's job to find an alternative solution for the power plant land. However, we all know political people are lazy and always need LOTS of "hand holding" so they feel safe. Why would City Council members be reluctant to oppose the new power plant remodel that produces a minuscule $200,000 in tax revenue per year which is less money than the city makes from its parking garage at the pier.
Is AES threatening Redondo Beach City Council members with a law suit? Any initiative by the city residents is not likely to provide AES with any basis to sue the city. Finally, there is an amortization process through which a city, or a citizen's initiative, can allow businesses adequate time to get a return on their investment in a property before a specific use is banned. The proposed citizen initiative would eliminate industrial uses by 2020, which I think is plenty of time (8 years) for AES to get adequate return on their investment in the property, especially considering the majority of the equipment is old and obsolete, and esentially worthless at this point.
AES is no stranger to crisis and law suits. In 1992, AES flirted with disaster when its Shady Point generating facility in Oklahoma was discovered to have been discharging polluted water and to have falsified the samples it provided to the Environmental Protection Agency. In the same year, AES was forced to abandon its rebuilding of a power plant at Cedar Bay, Florida following a dispute
with state officials and the local community. These events caused AES’s share price to fall by half. AES has multiple law suits against the company (see AES Law Suits) search results.
AES is a $9 billion public company (NYSE: AES) planning to make a $500M+ investment on a power plant that might be worth an estimated $135M (comps based on AES Huntington Beach valuation performed in 2011). AES is looking to repower the plant in 2018. They are currently using the plant only 5% of the time right now, and with an investment of $630 million for a new plant, the amount of energy needed to pay back the investment will mean lots of particulate matter in the atmosphere in Redondo, Hermosa, and surrounding communities. While the footprint will be smaller (12 acres vs the current 50 acres, 4 stacks instead of 5), any chance for revitalizing the waterfront will be lost for 50+ years as no one will want to invest in the area. Here are some points and a link to FAQs Tear Down Redondo Beach Power Plant Blog:
California Coastal Commission's study for AES power plant area
Oil drilling blowout preventers (BOPs) can be used on the drilling site itself on the surface to mitigate risk. However, blowout preventers CANNOT be used on capped wells or adjacent wells underground & in the Ocean. If an adjacent capped oil well were to blow on the ocean seabed it would cause a massive oil spill and mess on up and down the coast. The ocena seabed well could be capped but would required significant emergency effort (like the BP Spill in the Gulf) and would change the integrity of life in the South Bay as we know it. If an adjacent capped oil were to blow underground beneath homes. Lives and homes could be lost because an explosion is highly likely. Residents in Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach who own homes over a capped underground well would never know about the problem until it is too late. Do we really want to trust the that the integrity of the well was capped properly 30 or 40 years ago?
Crude oil is a flammable liquid consisting of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights that are found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface. Because hydrocarbons and gas are lighter than rock or water, they often migrate upward through adjacent rock layers until either reaching the surface or becoming trapped within porous rocks (known as reservoirs) by impermeable rocks above. However, the process is influenced by underground water flows, causing oil to migrate hundreds of kilometres horizontally or even short distances downward before becoming trapped in a reservoir. When hydrocarbons are concentrated in a trap, an oil field forms, from which the liquid can be extracted by drilling and pumping at high pressure. The down hole pressures experienced at the rock structures change depending upon the depth and the characteristic of the source rock. The deeper the well the more risky the operation. E&B is proposing deep wells.
Blowouts happen all the time and are daily occurrence in the oil industry. Don't convince yourself it can't happen here because Steve Layton knows too well from his Blowout in Louisiana which bankrupted Equinox Oil.
Here is another conclusion that supports this argument from the Coastal Commission.
I don't think people who have actually lived and own homes in Hermosa Beach, California have any intention of moving backwards to permit a century long ban of drilling in Santa Monica Bay. E&B is simply wasting our value time and City resources which could be better spent elsewhere.
E&B still has the opportunity to pack up their bags and go home to save face. 2014 is a long way away.
Toxic Pollutants Released During Oil & Gas Drilling
Here are just some of the risks sited by the California Coastal Commission in 1992 for the proposed Macpherson slant oil drilling project that was blocked by a resident revolt. Read the summary of the seven major risks addressed by the full California Coastal Commission detailed report. Its important to note that none of these issues can be fully mitigated by new technology as E&B Oil will likely claim. There are other risks associated with the project.
#1) This is an actual sign from E&B's drilling site in Long Beach, CA. The previous applicant (Macpherson Oil) proposes to locate a hazardous oil and gas industrial development in a fully developed urban area with nearby residences. Commission staff did not believe the applicant had fully analyzed the potential worst-case accidental release of hydrogen sulfide (see Wikipedia definition) that might occur. In addition, some nearby wells have historically produced significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide. As a result, the applicant agreed to fund an independent, third party review of its hazard risk analysis. The consultant, Arthur D. Little, Inc., working under the direction of Commission staff, determined that hydrogen sulfide, an acutely toxic gas, could be encountered during drilling and/or production and could pose a significant safety risk to offsite populations.
Hydrogen sulfide is lethal within a few breaths at concentrations of 1,000 parts
per million (ppm), and kills within ½-hour at concentrations of 300 ppm. Injuries
may occur at lower concentrations and occupational safety standards are
triggered at 10 ppm.
#2) The project poses a risk of fire and explosion.
#4) Withdrawal of reservoir fluids and associated changes in reservoir pressures may lead to subsidence. Subsidence of the nearshore area could lead to changes in beach profiles and result in loss of sandy beach. Subsidence can also cause increase seismic activity.
#5) Re-injection of produced fluids poses a remote risk of increased
earthquake activity.
#6) Project-related operations could result in an accidental oil spill from the
production facility/drilling site (a maximum 2,800-barrel spill), a tanker truck (a
maximum 175-barrel spill), and/or a pipeline (a maximum 141-barrel spill).
#7) I think this signs from E&B Oil explains our spilling concerns.
#8) Reduction of clean air to breath. Don't believe the lies that it won't stink.
#9) Drilling and well work-over activities require a 75 to 135-foot tall drilling
rig which (a) contrasts sharply with existing neighborhood building heights, (b) will be somewhat visible from several coastal public viewing areas, and (c) isincompatible with the low-profile visual character of this beach community. Apparently E&B Natural Resources will be proposing a smaller drilling rig.
#10) The applicant proposes to remove 12 parking spaces, six of which are
Public Access currently available to the public on weekends for beach access.
In 1972, alarmed that private development was cutting off public access to the shore, Californians rallied to “Save Our Coast.” They declared by voter initiative that “it is the policy of the State to preserve, protect, and where possible, to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations.” The initiative created the California Coastal Commission to make land use decisions in the Coastal Zone while additional planning occurred.
In 1976, the Legislature enacted the California Coastal Act, which established a farreaching coastal protection program and made permanent the California Coastal Commission as it exists today. The Commission plans and regulates development and natural resource use along the coast in partnership with local governments and in keeping with the requirements of the Coastal Act. What does the California Coastal Commission do? The Commission’s authority under the Coastal Act is comprehensive. The Commission makes coastal development permit decisions and reviews local coastal programs Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) prepared by local governments and submitted for Commission approval. It also reviews federal activities that affect the Coastal Zone.
What is Hermosa Beach's Coastal Zone? Our Coastal Zone reaches from three miles our to sea and stretches to an inland boundary. This zone applies to anything above the surface of the ground and below.
Does the Commission have authority over oil and gas development? Yes. The Commission has permitting jurisdiction over all oil and gas development within the State’s three-mile range.
What standards does the Commission use in its permit and land use planning decisions?
The Commission carries out Coastal Act policies, which seek to:
• Provide for environmentally sound expansion of industrial ports and electric power plants and for siting of coastal dependent industries.
• Protect against loss of life and property from coastal hazards
• Protect and expand public shoreline access and recreational opportunities
• Protect scenic landscapes and views of the sea
• Establish stable urban-rural boundaries and guide new development into areas with adequate services
Who are the Coastal Commission members? The California Coastal Commission has 12 voting members and 3 non-voting members. Southern California representatives include: Elected to Coastal Commission in 1997 Brian Brennan (Ventura City Council and former President of Surfrider Foundation) Richard Bloom (Santa Monica City Council). Read here other bios of Coastal Commissioners. Watch this video with Brian Brennan and learn about his history and environmental sustainability priorities.
Local District Offices
South Coast Los Angeles - 200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 590-5071
Below is a draft of our settlement agreement comments we are compiling from residents. We welcome your comments so please email us with your comment structured similar to below. If you want to read the full 45 page agreement you can download it on the HermosaBCH.org or at Google Docs.
Recitals, Page 1, A Macpherson also obtained all of the necessary Permits to Construct for the Oil Project from the South Coast Air Quality Management District In November 1995 the residents of the City passed City Measure E an initiative measure that banned oil drilling in the City. Comment- South Coast Air Quality Permit ran out or cancelled March 30, 2000. Recitals, Page 1, A In early 1998 and notwithstanding the passage of Measure E the California Coastal Commission authorized issuance of Coastal Development Permit No 29E86 to Macpherson far the Oil Project subject to conditions Comment - Coastal Developmental Permit No. 29E86 never issued. Recitals, Page 2, D Substantial revenue stream to be generated for City and the Hermosa Beach School District as a result of the payment to City and School District of royalties in association with the production of oil and gas reserves by E&B Comment - How can School benefit from tidelands trust?
Definitions, Page 3, 2.10 School Lease means the lease between Macpherson and the Hermosa Beach School District Comment - No lease on School property found. Where is this?
The Closing, Page 4, 3.2 Confidentiality Agreement previously signed on behalf of each of the Parties on February 17 2012 Comment - Where is a copy of this?
Macpherson's Obligations At Closing: Page 5, 4.1
1031 exchange as provided in Article X
hereof all of Macpherson the School Lease and any other leases releases set forth in
paragraph VI Comments - Like-kind exchange, what's Macpherson doing here? What other leases are involved in this agreement?
E&B's Obligations At Closing: Page 5, 4.3a Said assignment
reserves to Macpherson from E B and its successors and assigns an
overriding royalty of 1.5% of one hundred 100% of gross hydrocarbon production but otherwise Comment - Macpherson keeps part of this going here. E&B's Obligations At Closing: Page 6, 4.3c
constitutes the E&B Loan of $17,500,000
Comment - Note this loan and how it's to be repaid by the city.
E&B's Obligations At Closing: Page 6, 4.4b Upon issuance of the drilling permit or in the event the City cannot issue the drilling permit as the sole result of action or inaction undertaken by and under the control of E&B (including without limitation) the failure of the California Coast Commission to issue a coast development permit. immediately
thereafter forgive $14,000,000 of the E&B Loan
Comment - Failure to meet conditions and most of loan is forgiven? Where does the fact we are giving E&B a $15M property factor into the cost? Total costs is more like $18.5M and more cheaper to vote no. City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 7, 4.6a
Place on the ballot at a special municipal election in a manner that
comports with all applicable law within six 6 months of a request to do so by
E&B Comment - Within 6 months call election!!!! "....notwithstanding inconsistent change in City's Municipal Code." ???? City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 7, 4.6b
Vacate and make the City maintenance yard available for the construction of
the Project as when and in the manner and subject to the conditions provided
for in the Lease and repay Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars of the E&B Loan through a deduction of royalties equal to 1.5% of gross proceeds. Comment - Vacate and make the City maintenance yard available? And where in the world is the city going to put it. Steve Burrell could never find another location for it, here or in Redondo Beach. Let's get real. this is an important issue. This property is worth $15M and we are paying them $3M on top? Total deal looks like $18.5M to vote yes. City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 8, 4.6d
Grant as reasonably required by E&B all necessary rights of way easements franchises and other rights as necessary for subsurface pipelines <
and other facilities and appurtenances in order for E&B to drill for produce
market transport and sell all oil and gas produced from the subject lease Comment - Whoa Ho! Check out this demand. Dig up the streets or the greenbelt? And where will it terminate in Redondo Beach or AES?
City's Obligations Following Closing: Page 9, 5.4
The parties recognize that Macpherson is materially changing its legal position and rights and property holdings in reliance upon the final and binding effect of this Agreement and any rescission of this Agreement would be a wholly inadequate remedy for Macpherson because rescission cannot possibly return to Macpherson the legal position and rights it held prior to the consummation of this Agreement Comment - We need an attorney to explain this paragraph. It's legalese is convoluted.
Mutual Releases: Page 9, 6.1
Effective upon the successful completion of the Closing in accordance with the conditions described in paragraph 3 Comment - What are these conditions in 3.3
Mutual Releases: Page 10, 6.1
the City hereby fully and finally waives releases and permanently discharges Macpherson and its respective partners officers employees agents representatives and attorneys the Releases from any claims arising under the Lease any continuation extension amendment restatement or replacement of the Lease Comment - Whoa Ho! What's this? What about compensation due the city for the past Environmental reports, attorneys fees due the city, etc? Mutual Releases: Page 10, 6.4
Except as may be provided in this Agreement each of the Parties waives any and all claims for the recovery of any costs expenses or fees including attorney fees associated with the matters and claims released in this Agreement Comment - Attorneys fees from earlier court cases? Have they been paid? Defense of Litigation: Page 11, VII In the event that one or more lawsuits are filed challenging this Agreement and/or the actions implementing or contemplated by this Agreement the Parties to the extent named as parties defendant in the lawsuit will cooperate in good faith in the defense of the litigation and shall initially bear their respective attorneys fees and costs With the exception of a lawsuit challenging the approval of this Agreement itself should the Ballot Measure described in paragraph 46a pass E&B shall indemnify the City for all attorneys fees and costs incurred by City in the defense of litigation encompassed by this paragraph and also for any attorney fees and costs awarded to a plaintiff against City if any in such litigation Comment - Does this mean the city can collect attorney fees if sued for this agreement? Representations & Warranties: Page 11, 8.1c They acknowledge that the Stinnett Well has been plugged and abandoned and agree that Csity inability to convey the Stinnett Well to E B shall not constitute a breach of this Agreement or the Lease. Comment - Dave Lucero, what was the result of your looking into this well on the City's Yard?
Representations &Warranties: Page 12, 8.2c
The force majeure provisions in paragraph 30 of the Lease apply and have applied during the pendency of the Action and the CUP remains valid.
Comment - CUP is for a "Conditional" Use Permit. The Use Permit itself was never issued, or was it? Wasn't the Fire Code in doubt? In the CUP it states, "All CUP required studies and reports must be submitted to the City and approved before permit issuance."
Representations &Warranties By All Parties Page 12, 8.3a The Parties have received all corporate and other approvals necessary to enter into this Agreement on their behalf and that the persons signing this Agreement on their behalf are fully authorized to commit and bind the Parties to each and all of the commitments terms and conditions hereof and to release the claims described herein and that all documents and instruments relating thereto are or upon execution and delivery will be valid and binding obligations enforceable Comment - Not so! The California Coastal Commission issued "approval with a long list of conditions" but never issued a "Permit" for Macpherson to drill in Hermosa Beach. So how does this affect this Settlement Agreement? Is Macpherson claiming to have abided by all the requirements of 15 b. of Lease No. 2 (it has with the City), i.e. "The Lessee shall also apply for and obtain all necessary permits from the City of Hermosa Beach...The Lessee shall also be responsible, at its sole expense, for alI necessary permits and approvals to be obtained from the California Coastal Commission...." Representations &Warranties By All Parties Page 12, 8.3d The Parties have prior to the execution of this Agreement obtained the advice of independent legal counsel of their own selection regarding the substance of this Agreement and the claims released herein Comment - Was the advice "independent"? Representations &Warranties By All Parties Page 13, 9.2 This Agreement and the Confidentiality Agreement discussed in Paragraphs 32 and 3 are an integrated contract and sets forth the entire agreement between the Parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein
Comment - If the Confidentiality Agreement is part of this, please, let's have a look at it.
Representations &Warranties By All Parties Page 13, 9.5 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each of the Parties and their respective representatives partners officers employees agents heirs devisees successors and assigns Comment - How about to the benefit of the people of Hermosa Beach?
These maps are speculative drawings based in information we have gathered from the Macpherson proposals. E&B oil has not submitted their drilling proposal yet.
Map of the proposed Hermosa Beach slant oil drilling site will reach out into the ocean. What is slant oil drilling? The drilling will also go underground into Redondo Beach likely. The California Coastal Commission has full authority of this drilling and has thus tidelands restrictions on where money from oil can be spent. The oil site will also be less than 100 feet from homes when Colorado requires a 350 foot setback and California recommend 300 feet.
Do we really know what is underground nor want to disturb the environment with oil drilling pipes possibly poking through the ocean floor? Do want want to risk the dangers of the ocean floor and our beaches sinking (subsiding)?
The proposed drilling site effects more than 50% of residents of Hermosa Beach. Noise, air pollution, explosions or dangerous gases are all a potential consequence. Not to mention the drilling site will be within a few hundred yards of your kids playing in the park. If you run on the greenbelt in Manhattan Beach or Hermosa Beach there could be an oil pipeline to under it to Chevron Refinery in Torrance and/or a natural gas pipeline AES Power Plant in Redondo Beach.
Lets not forget about the fault line that runs across the Santa Monica Bay and the South Bay. We have had several earthquakes offshore in Hermosa Beach and Santa Moncia bay in the past few years.
27 oil wells and 3 water injection wells for Fracking and Natural Gas
Horrible Air Quality
I am told by oil experts in the business that the odor from gases and drilling will be "awful" around the site. There is no way to contain the odor or poisonous gases that come up our of the ground. This map depicts 3 different wind scenarios we get in the area. An onshore, offshore and no wind where the smell and gases get trapped in the valley.
Emissions generated during the drilling/development phase include vehicle emissions; diesel emissions from large construction equipment and generators, storage/dispensing of fuels, and, if installed at this stage, flare stacks; small amounts of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and particulates from blasting activities; and dust from many sources, such as disturbing and moving soils (clearing, grading, excavating, trenching, backfilling, dumping, and truck and equipment traffic), mixing concrete, and drilling. During windless conditions (especially in areas of thermal inversion), project-related odors may be detectable at more than a mile from the source. Excess increases in dust could decrease forage palatability for wildlife and livestock and increase the potential for dust pneumonia. See source.
250 Yard Heavy Impact Zone from Noise, Odor, Dangerous Gases and Explosions. There are two parks, hundreds of homes and a jogging trail in the vicinity which I think is disgraceful. There are probably 10+ kids under the age of 10 years old that live in the red boxed area. Its just sad that no one thought through the ramifications.
One of the environmental impacts that we feel has not, was not adequately addressed initially and certainly now needs to be re-addressed, is the issue of earthquake hazards.
And we have a declaration from Dr. David Jackson who's on the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. David Jackson who's on the National Academy of Sciences. He is a respected geophysicist, was a professor at UCLA. He is on the California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council. And he said that the reinjection of water into the Hermosa Beach site, well the reinjection of water into any site will increase the likelihood of risk of earthquakes based upon an L.A. Times article and other studies that have come out recently about the fact that. Northridge has increased the risk of earthquakes in our basin. Read the State Lands Commission testimony transcript which he predicted in 1994 and its coming true in place like Ohio.
We are very concerned about the impact upon the oil and a as sanctuary in the Santa Monica Bay. Pipelines will go into the bay but could rupture in case of an earthquake. We're saving on the earthquake issue it wasn't properly considered by the by the city and now there's new information. New studies indicate water re-injection increases the likelihood of earthquakes.
Based on my discussion I think the deal the Hermosa Beach City Council struck is a bad one for several reasons. The only good news is we have an actual $ settlement number and its not going to bankrupt the city. Here are my top 10 talking points to be used with anyone you know.
No public forum was held. Only 1 company (E&B) bid on the deal behind closed doors.
The oil site will be within 100 feet of homes and businesses. California recommends a 300 foot setback and Colorado law requires 350 feet setback.
State Lands Commission Staff recommended against this Oil Drilling project because it expected poor results.
Hb cannot use any of the money shared "net revenue" NOT gross for anything that is not on the beach or greenbelt. See Tidelands Act.
City Council “settlement” is a collective punishment for citizens daring to reject their plans for siting an industrial project next to homes.
Schools won’t benefit much if at all from drilling. The .20 cents per barrel for the school system was a horrible deal struck in 1990's. Oil was trading at $20 per barrel in 1990's and now at $110 per barrel.
Experts claim only 2M-9M barrels are possible at this location at best. That is only $400,000 to $1.8M for schools at .20 cents per barrel over the lifetime of the project. Over a 20 year period that is nothing per year for the schools, maybe $20K to $40K per year. Can't even hire one person for that $.
Once E&B is entrenched in Hermosa Beach, say good-bye to local control. E&B will call the shots, influence local elections, etc. Hermosa Beach will be forced to jump when E&B says ‘jump’.
Oil seeping from the ocean naturally will undoubtedly be disturbed by the slant drill. Do you want more oil washing up on the beach similar to Santa Barbara and Huntington Beach?
HB can pay off E&B Oil company and it will not bankrupt the city.
Sell the city storage property next to the fire station for $7.5M
Get a $10M "Judgement Bond" from the State of California at 3% and service loan which will cost the city $300,000 per year. (not much in the grand scheme of things).
Drilling on this lot will destroy a perfectly fine $5M lot.
Drilling is noisy and you want to smell fumes of oil downwind everyday?
The oil tar sands used "if found" would be low grade oil and only used for ships and heavily machinery. It takes more energy to refine the crap than regular oil.
Lethal gases and possible explosions?
Additional ground settling and possible earthquakes.
Its low grade oil, used by crappy machinery and will have an unknown impact on the sea and surrounding environment.
Please share this with you friends and neighbors who might be helpful spreading the world that the oil settlement should be a no vote. It may not be on the ballot for a long time but it is never too early to start campaigning against something this stupid. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or concerns. If you have any neighbors that should be on the list please copy them and lets start building the campaign now.
