If an oil company is allowed to drill beneath Hermosa Beach, the city might have to contend with oil spills, headache-producing odors, dangerous air emissions and other potentially harmful environmental and health effects, according to newly released reports.

But if drilling is rejected by voters, the city will have to cough up $17.5 million to the oil company seeking to extract the crude and natural gas.

City officials are poring over the massive analyses released publicly last week to better understand the ramifications if voters approve an oil-drilling measure tentatively set for election in November.

“We’ve created time to flush this stuff out,” Mayor Michael DiVirgilio said. “Obviously, the things that will catch the most attention are all the impacts, particularly the ones that aren’t able to be mitigated down to a standard threshold. Our goal is to provide a lot of data so the public can have as full a view as possible.”

The draft environmental impact report for E&B Natural Resources Management Corp.’s Hermosa Beach Oil Recovery Project was released Thursday. In more than 1,000 pages, the report details eight areas of concern — aesthetics, air quality, biology, hydrology, land use, noise, recreation and safety.

The city concurrently released two of its own reports Thursday on how the project would impact the health of residents as well as the city’s budget.

Additionally, results from a months-long series of meetings labeled “a community dialogue” were presented Tuesday, and they indicated that residents’ quality-of-life priorities run counter to oil drilling.

“I think the community dialogue and these oil-drilling reports are hugely connected,” Councilwoman Nanette Barragan said. “One, if you look at what the community dialogue wants to see for the future of our city, it doesn’t align with oil drilling. The quality-of-life issues they care about are outdoor recreational activities, beaches, etc.”

Barragan, elected for the first time in November, campaigned against the project while DiVirgilio has remained neutral until more information was released.

“We wanted to provide a lot of data so the public can have as full as possible a view,” he said. “In that light, I’m totally proud of what came out this week with the draft EIR, two reports and the community dialogue. In most communities, all that happens is the EIR and, maybe, a community dialogue.”

E&B Natural Resources Management Corp. wants to relocate the city’s maintenance yard at Valley Drive and Sixth Street to make way for 30 wells attached to pipes that would reach heretofore unreachable oil and natural gas in onshore tidelands and offshore uplands. Recovered energy would be funneled through Redondo Beach and Torrance to purchasers.

The city currently has a ban on oil production, but this proposal was allowed as part of a 2012 settlement between Hermosa Beach and MacPherson Oil Co., which sued the city for breach of contract in 1998 because residents revoked its previously acquired rights to drill. If residents approve the project in a citywide vote in November, construction would begin shortly after.

The lawsuit settlement requires that the city pay E&B $17.5 million if voters reject the project, and only $3.5 million if it is approved. The city already has $6 million in reserves for that purpose. Hermosa Beach’s own financial analysis states that, if the project is rejected, it would likely finance the remaining $11.5 million with annual payments of $825,000 for 30 years.

One stark contrast among the various reports is that E&B estimates the city could receive as much as $519 million in total royalties and other economic benefits over the 35-year life of the project, while the city’s independent financial analysis put that figure at $270 million at most.

There would be four phases of construction, beginning with a year and a half spent preparing the site, including four months of constant drilling by an 87-foot-tall rig.

Stacey Armato, a member of Stop Hermosa Beach Oil, said the organization is pleased with its initial review of these reports.

“The major findings in all three reports support what we have been saying for the last year: it’s not healthy, it’s not safe, and it’s not a good deal for the city or schools,” Armato said in a written statement. “There are serious health impacts itemized throughout the health impact analysis.”

The draft EIR states that possible negative health impacts could come from harmful mono-nitrogen oxides emissions, strong unpleasant odors, and oil leaks or spills. Recommended mitigation measures, which would not completely remove all threats, include a leak detection system, pipe maintenance, on-site trained oil-cleanup personnel, an Oil Spill Contingency Plan, underground well cellars lined with impermeable membranes, blowout prevention equipment, oil separators in the streets to catch leaks, an Odor Minimization Plan, and measures to contain dust so that air vapors from the site don’t carry harmful chemicals.

Once operational, the site would produce a maximum of 8,000 barrels of oil and 2.5 million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day.

The current public comment period for the draft EIR will end on April 14. The city is planning to hold workshops to discuss the pros and cons of the project during this period. If the draft report is approved, a final EIR would need to be issued and approved before construction could begin.