The California Coastal Commission unanimously objected on August 13, 2026 to DCOR LLC’s proposal for hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, at 16 wells on Platform Gilda in federal waters off Ventura, California. The proposal would have been the first fracking off California’s coast in more than a decade. The vote comes after the commission released two staff reports on the project in July.
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.