Aera Energy Fined 98k

Without admitting any wrongdoing, Aera Energy, LLC will pay nearly $100,000 in penalties, fees and other costs as a result of six oil spills in Ventura County, officials announced yesterday. In addition, the company must improve leak detection, according to the agreement.

The spills occurred between March 26, 2006, and Jan. 5, 2008, District Attorney Greg Totten said in a prepared statement. Petroleum or residuals of petroleum reached creeks or waterways in six incidents in violation of state law, prosecutors alleged.

The California energy company is owner/operator of roughly4,300 acres of crude oil- and natural gas-producing propertyand will also will be required to take other actions under thepermanent injunction obtained Friday by the district attorneyin the environmental protection civil case, which was filedagainst Aera on Dec. 26.

According to Laurel McWaters, deputy district attorney, theinjunction requires the company to install a supplemental oilspill containment basin in Canada De Las Encinas, a tributaryto the Ventura River, by the end of this year.

The judgment requires the company to pay $80,000 in civilpenalties, with half of that going to the Ventura County Fishand Wildlife Propagation Fund and the other half to theCalifornia Fish and Game Preservation Fund, McWaters said.
Aera will also be required to pay $4,415 for investigative costs incurred by the Department of Fish and Game, $4,244 as restitution for natural resource damages and $10,000 to the Environmental Project of the California District Attorneys Association.
Aera Energy agreed to settle to “avoid costly and uncertainlitigation,” according to a statement issued by Susan C.Hersberger, a company spokeswoman. She said the companycooperated with the district attorney and takes these matters“very seriously.”

“The spills covered by the settlement were reported immediatelyto the appropriate agencies and thoroughly cleaned up with nolasting impact to the environment,” Hersberger said, addingthat the company continues to make progress in addressing leaksand spills through pipeline testing, inspection and replacementand other steps.
Prosecutors allege that the incidents involved East Hall CanyonCreek, Canyon Creek, Cable Canyon Creek and Hall Canyon Creek.
McWaters said the Department of Fish and Game will continue tomonitor the company and make sure it complies with theinjunction.

Banning Ranch and the Aera Energy Connection

Many concerned citizens have inquired about just who is the Newport Banning Ranch LLC? The composition of the LLC is three corporations which are Aera Energy LLC, Cherokee LLC and Brooks Street. Looking at Aera Energy proves how a large corporation is playing an integral part in our small, tranquil community.

First, Aera Energy LLC is a joint venture between Shell Oil and Mobil Oil. Now what Aera Energy (Shell Oil and Mobil Oil) plan to do with Banning Ranch is the exact endeavor they are attempting in another Southern California community. The following was taken from the Aera Energy LLC Wikipedia site:

Aera Energy LLC is involved in a controversy over its attempts to develop ecologically important land in Southern Los Angeles County, California. Activists from local communities have fought for over 30 years to preserve this area, which they believe to be one of the last major wildlife corridors in Southern California.3
Aera Energy and its parent companies, Shell Oil and ExxonMobil, own 3,000 acres (12 km2) of land in the hills between Diamond Bar and Brea, California. Since 1894 the area has served as a low capacity, yet productive oil field and as a pastureland for cows. Since the cities of Brea and Diamond Bar have expanded immensely over the last 103 years, the land has inadvertently served as a wildlife corridor between the 4,000-acre (16 km2) preserve in Whittier and the 13,000-acre (53 km2) preserve in Chino Hills State Park. If the corridor is preserved it will serve as a link between nature preserves that extend from the San Gabriel River in the west to Temecula far in the southeast.

With diminished oil output and the escalating value of Southern California land, Aera has sought to develop their territory into a 3600 home residential area, complete with parks and a golf course. They plan to leave 55% of the site as open land to appease those seeking a corridor.

Beyond the environmental concern, opponents argue that the influx of new people will congest an area already seen as impacted. Many believe the development will further degrade the environment through increases in coastal runoff and more waste production, strain local water supplies and the transportation infrastructure, and overcrowd schools and other public services.

In 2003, Los Angeles and Orange Counties prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) to assess Aera's development proposal. It was determined that Aera's land is located in what Los Angeles County refers to as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA). In April 2006, the Technical Committee that analyzed the DEIR found Aera's development plan not to be in compliance with regulations governing SEA's. Aera was given three choices to continue: build with a negative recommendation from a large committee over their head, undertake the costly venture of replanning the development, or convince a city to annex the territory to remove its unincorporated status. Aera chose option three and turned to the city of Diamond Bar to annex the territory. Diamond Bar is not subject to the rules governing SEA's since Los Angeles only classifies unincorporated territory as Significant Ecological Areas. As of July 30, 2006, the annexation has not yet occurred.

As the matter has not been solved yet, several websites have been created to inform the public of both sides' arguments. Aera Energy's website details their development plan. Several coalitions have been formed to organize local community members' fight against Aera. Two of the most prominent are the Sierra Club Los Angeles Chapters' Save the Wildlife Corridor and Save the Missing Middle.

That is just one example how Aera is approaching the environment. You can read how Aera Energy was sued, and lost, for illegally dumping polluted waste water onto a farm field in Kern County.

Aera Energy does not appear to show any apprehension about going after open space for commercial and residential development purposes.

Contact your local officals and be heard.

For anyone interested, here is where you can let council members know what you think about 1400 condos on the last wild coastal area. Go get em!

ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS: CityCouncil@city.newport-beach.ca.us


Assistant City ManagerSharon Wood: 949-644-3222 or swood@newportbeachca.gov


INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS:


Michael F. Hennmhenn527@hotmail.com

Steven Rosanskyparahdigm@aol.com

Don Webbdwebb@newportbeachca.gov

Leslie Daiglelesliejdaigle@aol.com

Edward D. Selichedselich@roadrunner.com

Nancy Gardnergardnerncy@aol.com

Keith D. Currycurryk@pfm.com

Contact your local officials and voice your support for saving the entire Banning Ranch Property.

For anyone interested, here is where you can let council members know what you think about 1400 condos on the last wild coastal area. Go get em!

ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS mail to: MEMBERSCityCouncil@city.newport-beach.ca.us


Assistant City Manager

Sharon Wood: 949-644-3222 or swood@newportbeachca.gov

INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS

Michael F. Henn mailto:Hennmhenn527@hotmail.com

Steven Rosansky mailto:Rosanskyparahdigm@aol.com

Don Webb mailto:Webbdwebb@newportbeachca.gov

Leslie Daigle mailto:Daiglelesliejdaigle@aol.com

Edward D. Selich mailto:Selichedselich@roadrunner.com

Nancy Gardner mailto:Gardnergardnerncy@aol.com

Keith D. Curry http://us.mc1108.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=curryk@pfm.com

Why Saving Banning Ranch helps everyone by Kevin Nelson

Think global, Act Local.

At a time when our planet's environment is under stress in so many ways, we are all looking for ways to help. In addition to using less energy and fewer resources in our everyday lives, we can do one other thing. We can protect the last piece of CA coastal nature, which happens to be in our backyard. We can act right here, locally, and hold Banning Ranch in trust for future generations. Save Banning Ranch.

A thought aboute Dave Myerson's opinion. By Kev Nelson

Recently Dave Myerson released his findings that there is no local money to be used in the acquiring Banning Ranch for open park space. Environmentalist Kevin Nelson released the following statement:

"The problem with this funding discussion is that the owners and the city are talking and acting as if this needs to be wrapped up in a relatively short term time frame. The importance of Banning, and places like it, should command a much longer time frame commensurate with the rarity of the resource. Just as the Endangered Species act changes the game, we are now talking about the last places left in So Cal. We who see the generational value of these places must, we absolutely must, demand a very long consideration process in deciding the fate of Banning Ranch."

Enough is enough. ---- By Kevin Nelson

So here we are in a ridiculously overcrowded region that is running out of water, is out of traffic capacity, out of open space, on a planet that is under attack from all sides ecologically speaking - and a bunch of guys from BIG OIL INC want to pave the last gem of wild land that happens to be in our midst.This is the best thing, they say. We'll give you half an ecosystystem. Are we not generous?

Hopefully, this is one con job that will not happen. We can all see through the bull that has resulted in the other mistakenly approved projects to leave us where we are. So many of us feel this way, yet cannot find the STOP button in biz-influence dominated local government. Well maybe this time, this being the last place left in our area, we will simply say NO. You cannot take this place from a future generation. NOT THIS TIME.

Banning Ranch development will add 8.5 miles of cars to our roads.

The proposed development at Banning Ranch calls for 1,375 homes and a seventy (70) room hotel. Just doing some basic research and math reveals a detrimental number of cars to our already congested streets and highways.

Average car length=16.4 ft

Average amount of cars owned by American family=2

1,375 x 2 = 2,750 automobiles

2,750 x 16.4 ft = 45,100 ft

45,100 / 5,280 (feet in one mile) = 8.5 miles

That's 8.5 miles of traffic. To put it into perspective, it is seven miles from the Newport Beach City Hall to South Coast Plaza. Wow! That is more traffic then we can handle.

Say no to the development at Banning Ranch. It will ruin your quality of life.

Area Energy really cares about the environment.

The below AP article details how Area Energy recently lost a lawsuit against a farmer who alleged that Aera dumped dirty water onto his farm and therefore polluted his irrigation water.

Cotton Farm Wins $8.5M From 'Aera Energy' Oil Co.SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY (AP) ―

AP

A jury has awarded $8.5 million to a San Joaquin Valley cotton farm in its groundwater pollution lawsuit against one of California's largest oil and gas producers. Friday's Kern County Superior Court jury's award to Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers was about $1.5 million more than what a jury previously awarded before the case was retried, said farm attorney Michael Stump. The Starrhs sued Aera Energy LLC in 2001, alleging the company knowingly allowed 600 million barrels of oil wastewater to seep into the subsurface of their farm. They claimed Aera damaged water they could have used on their crops that is less expensive than water from an aqueduct. A call to Aera on Sunday was not immediately returned, but the Bakersfield-based company has contended it did no damage.

SLAPP Lawsuits

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP") is a lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.

The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.

To win an anti-SLAPP motion, the defendant must first show that the lawsuit is based on constitutionally protected activity. Then, the burden shifts to the plaintiff, to affirmatively present evidence to show that they have a reasonable probability of prevailing on the action. The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion stays all discovery. This feature acts to greatly reduce the cost of litigation to the anti-SLAPP defendant, and can make beating the motion extremely difficult for the plaintiff, because they effectively must prove their case, without the benefit of discovery.

If the special motion is denied, the order denying the motion is immediately appeallable. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees. After an anti-SLAPP motion has been filed, a plaintiff cannot escape this mandatory fee award by amending their complaint. More than 200 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law.

California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects what the Legislature found to be abuse[4] of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003, this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions that arise from commercial statements or conduct.[5] Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed.

Grey Skies Ahead

This very corporate looking photo shows the key players that are the Newport Banning Ranch LLC. Don't let the smiling faces fool you. If these people have their way then Newport Beach and Costa Mesa will have 14,000 average daily vehicle trips added to their streets. Compound that with the further loss of open space, noise, pollution from the new vehicles, more people wanting to use John Wayne Airport and the project doesn't make much sense.

Contact every member of the Newport Beach City Council and urge them to vote NO and this project.