Subscribe now

The commission staff determined that the proposed project was inconsistent with California coastal protection policies because it would extend production from aging offshore infrastructure and increase the risk of oil spills that could harm marine ecosystems, commercial fishing, and other coastal resources. Commissioners also objected to a separate consistency determination submitted by the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management covering the project.

DCOR proposed to conduct fracking operations over five years, increasing oil production on Platform Gilda from approximately 1,100 barrels per day as high as 4,000 barrels per day. The project’s environmental review projected production of approximately 14 million barrels of oil and 13 million additional cubic feet of natural gas over the next 20 years. An analysis submitted to the commission estimated that fracking would yield approximately 8 million to 8.5 million more barrels than continued conventional production.

Platform Gilda, installed in 1981 and located roughly nine miles offshore of Ventura County, has produced approximately 42.6 million barrels of oil and 51.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas as of the end of 2025, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

Because the platform is more than three nautical miles offshore, in the federal Outer Continental Shelf, the project is outside state waters and is not directly covered by California’s statewide prohibition on hydraulic fracturing.

Offshore fracking, however, has been subject to a federal court prohibition since a 2019 order barred federal agencies from authorizing well-stimulation treatments until they completed the environmental reviews required by federal law. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit upheld rulings that the federal government had violated the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and Coastal Zone Management Act. The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review that decision.

In March, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) initiated a fast-tracked environmental review of the project and completed the review in April. The Trump administration contended that this review satisfies the required environmental reviews.

California officials have challenged the expedited federal process, arguing that BOEM is bound by the Ninth Circuit decision and subsequent district court injunction requiring BOEM to complete a full EIS and comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) before approving any permits for well stimulation treatments.

The federal Coastal Zone Management Act, however, gives the Coastal Commission authority to determine whether federally authorized projects that could affect California’s coastal resources are consistent with the state’s federally approved coastal management program.

The commission’s objection prevents the federal government from authorizing DCOR’s proposal unless the company successfully appeals to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. The secretary may override the state if the project is found consistent with the objectives of the Coastal Zone Management Act or necessary for national security.

The vote also comes as the Trump administration is reviewing California’s federal coastal authority.

Subscribe now

According to the staff report to DCOR, the project would significantly increase oil production while extending the operating life of aging offshore infrastructure, creating unacceptable risks to marine resources, commercial fisheries, coastal recreation, and public safety.

DCOR’s proposed fracking operations would be carried out over five years and are expected to increase oil production at the platform from 1,100 barrels per day to 4,000 barrels per day. The project would also recover approximately 14 million barrels of oil and 13 million additional cubic feet of natural gas over the next 20 years that would otherwise remain in the reservoir.

The wells are located in federal waters and are therefore not subject to California’s statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing. The Coastal Commission staff notes, however, that the project lies adjacent to some of California’s most environmentally sensitive marine resources. The area includes the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, marine protected areas, critical habitat for threatened and endangered species, biologically important whale habitat, essential fish habitat, and productive commercial fishing grounds.

A central concern throughout the report is the age of Platform Gilda and its associated infrastructure. The platform and pipelines have operated for approximately 45 years, more than double the 18-year operating life anticipated when originally approved in 1980. Staff concludes that increasing production through hydraulic fracturing would place additional stress on aging wells, pipelines, and processing equipment while substantially increasing the amount of oil transported through the system.

The report also cites DCOR’s recent operating history. The commission staff notes that facilities operated by the company were involved in two of Southern California’s most significant offshore incidents in recent years—the 2021 Huntington Beach pipeline spill and the 2026 offshore natural gas leak and platform fire near Carpinteria. According to the report, these incidents demonstrate that inspection and maintenance programs cannot eliminate the risk of spills from aging offshore facilities.

The California Coastal Commission will consider the recommendation on August 13, when it considers both DCOR’s federal consistency certification and a separate consistency determination submitted by the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM).

If the Commission adopts staff’s recommendation and objects to DCOR’s consistency certification, the company may appeal the decision to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Secretary may override the state’s objection only if the project is consistent with the objectives of the Act or is necessary in the interest of national security.

The project has been part of the Trump administration’s conflict with California over offshore oil production. In March, BOEM initiated a fast-tracked environmental review to evaluate the proposal and completed the review in late April over the opposition of California Attorney General Rob Bonta.