Saturday, August 29, 2015

CALIFORNIA- oil, gas, coal and fracking, drought and firies- IDLE NO MORE FIRST PEOPLES- save your lands as we in Canada are saving ours - we deserve better - so many years of waste and personal greed imho.... we must do better- USA is in Climate ruins over 2 million fracking wells alone/UK is starting 2 follow suit/the White Man and Greedy Men have already destroyed the First Peoples of Americas, Africa and Asia... Austalia.... imho/we mourn for the firefighters who died in vain trying to save us all - greed and indifference and God is now so angry with us all /USA a Climate Disaster-Check TedTurner story



Oh for f**K's sake California???


Sweet Jesus-- California Dumps a Trillion Gallon of Fresh Water in Ocean – Declares Water Shortage via



 California No Water. No Farmer. No Food. TRAILER via



 from 2007-JUST IMAGINE NOW!!! Rural Communities Exploited by Nestle for Your Bottled Water


--------------



California's Oil Refineries

California's refineries are located in the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles area and the Central Valley. Each day approximately two million barrels (a barrel is equal to 42 U.S. gallons) of petroleum are processed into a variety of products, with gasoline representing about half of the total product volume. (A list of refineries, their location and capacity is shown in the table below.)
Refineries can be classified as topping, hydroskimming or complex. Topping refineries are the least sophisticated and contain only the atmospheric distillation tower and possibly a vacuum distillation tower. The topping refiner's ability to produce finished products depends on the quality of the petroleum being processed. A hydroskimming refinery has reforming and desulfurization process units in addition to basic topping units. This allows the refiner to increase the octane levels of motor gasoline and reduce the sulfur content of diesel fuel. Complex refineries are the most sophisticated refinery type and have additional process units to "crack" the heavy gas oils and distillate oils into lighter, more valuable products.
Using a variety of processes including distillation, reforming, hydrocracking, catalytic cracking, coking, alkylation and blending, the refinery produces many different products. The four basic groups are motor gasolines, aviation fuel, distillate fuel and residual fuel. On a statewide average, about 12 percent of the product from California's refineries is aviation fuel, 13 percent is distillate fuel and 9 percent is residual fuel.
Complex refineries have the highest utilization rate at approximately 95 percent. Utilization rate is the ratio of barrels input to the refinery to the operating capacity of the refinery. Complex refineries are able to produce a greater proportion of light products, such as gasoline, and operate near capacity because of California's large demand for gasoline. Permitting Issues. It is unlikely that new refineries will be built in California. In fact, from 1985 to 1995, 10 California refineries closed, resulting in a 20 percent reduction in refining capacity. Further refinery closures are expected for small refineries with capacities of less than 50,000 barrels per day. The cost of complying with environmental regulations and low product prices will continue to make it difficult to continue operating older, less efficient refineries.
To comply with federal and state regulations, California refiners invested approximately $5.8 billion to upgrade their facilities to produce cleaner fuels, including reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuel. These upgrades received permits since low-sulfur diesel fuel regulations went into effect in 1993. Requirements to produce federal reformulated gasoline took effect at the beginning of 1995, and more stringent state requirements for CARB reformulated gasoline went into effect statewide on April 1, 1996. That requirement was removed by Governor Gray Davis when it was found that the oxygenate, methyl tertiary butyl-ether or MTBE, was leaking from some underground storage tanks and polluting water supplies. MTBE was phased out and removed as of December 31, 2003, and replaced by ethanol.
For information about oil production and imports to refineries, please see our main oil page.

Refineries Outside of California That Can Produce California Gasoline
Domestic sources include refineries located in Washington State and the US Gulf Coast. Foreign sources include Eastern Canada, Finland, Germany, US Virgin Islands, Middle East, and Asia.


California Oil Refinery Locations and Capacities
Classification of refiners based on crude oil capacity (barrels per day)
Information as of November 2014
Refinery Name Barrels
Per Day 		CARB Diesel CARB Gasoline
Tesoro-Carson 240,000 Yes Yes
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., El Segundo Refinery 276,000 Yes Yes
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Richmond Refinery 245,271 Yes Yes
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, Golden Eagle Martinez/Avon Refinery 166,000 Yes Yes
Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery 156,400 Yes Yes
ExxonMobil Refining & Supply Company, Torrance Refinery 149,500 Yes Yes
Valero Benicia Refinery 132,000 Yes Yes
Phillips 66, Wilmington Refinery 139,000 Yes Yes
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, Wilmington Refinery 103,800 Yes Yes
Valero Wilmington Refinery 78,000 Yes Yes
Phillips 66, Rodeo San Francisco Refinery 78,400 Yes Yes
ALON USA, Bakersfield Refinery 66,000 Yes Yes
Paramount Petroleum Corporation, Paramount Refinery 50,000 No Yes
Phillips 66, Santa Maria Refinery 41,800 No No
Edgington Oil Company, Long Beach Refinery 26,000 No No
Kern Oil & Refining Company, Bakersfield Refinery 26,000 Yes Yes
San Joaquin Refining Company Inc., Bakersfield Refinery 15,000 Yes No
Greka Energy, Santa Maria Refinery 9,500 No No
Lunday Thagard, South Gate Refinery 8,500 No No
Valero Wilmington Asphalt Refinery 6,300 No No
Note: Data on this table represents total crude oil capacity not gasoline, distillate production, diesel fuel production or production of other products. Production potential varies depending on time of year and status of the refinery. A rule of thumb is that roughly  50 percent of total capacity is gasoline production (about 1.0 million barrels of gasoline - 42 million gallons - is produced per day).
Source: California Energy Commission Fuels Office Staff.



Terminal Facilities
California's nearly 100 terminals receive petroleum and petroleum products by tanker, barge, pipeline, rail or truck. Most of California's terminals are marine terminals. At these facilities petroleum or product is transferred from or to tankers or barges. Tankers loaded with Alaska North Slope petroleum, for example, enter marine terminals in northern and southern California, where the crude oil is then sent to refineries by pipeline for processing. An example of pipeline receipts of petroleum at a terminal is heavy California petroleum produced in the Bakersfield area that is sent by pipeline to a refinery at Martinez.
Terminals also serve as refiner's wholesale distribution points for products. Product, such as gasoline, is sold to distributors (jobbers) who then sell to consumers through the distributors' own retail stations. The distributor may also resell the gasoline to other station dealers. Gasoline can also be sold directly to station dealers from the terminal. The marketing structure differs depending on the type of product being sold.
A terminal can be linked with several refineries and storage facilities and be supplied by privately-owned pipelines or a common carrier line. Total capacity at a terminal can range from a few thousand barrels to a few million barrels. The most apparent equipment at a terminal are the tanks used for storage and separation of different product grades. The number of tanks can range from a few to more than 70. Other equipment found includes piping, pumps, valves, and meters needed for bulk receipts and for loading racks used for small deliveries to trucks. Marine terminals have vessel length and water depth limits that dictate the size of tankers that can off-load at the facility.
Permitting Issues. Some of the environmental and safety issues associated with permitting petroleum and petroleum product terminals include:
  • Changes in visual quality
  • Disturbances to vegetation and wildlife
  • Emissions from floating roof tanks
  • Potential water and soil contamination from earthquake-damaged tanks
  • Increased tanker traffic and potential for spills at marine facilities



References
  1. U.S. Petroleum Refining, Meeting Requirements for Cleaner Fuels and Refineries, Volume I, National Petroleum Council, August, 1993. This document is a comprehensive assessment of how environmental regulations impact the petroleum refining industry and U.S. consumers.

  2. Fuels Report, California Energy Commission, December, 1995, Publication No. P300-95-017. The Fuels Report describes emerging trends and long range forecasts of the demand, supply and price of petroleum, petroleum products, natural gas, coal and synthetic and other fuels. It is the state's principal fuels policy document.

  3. Petroleum Industry Information Reporting Act submittals from the petroleum industry to the California Energy Commission.

  4. Quarterly Oil Report, Fourth Quarter 1993, April 1994, California Energy Commission, Publication No. P300-94-003. This report describes petroleum fuels market trends, price trends, refinery activity, oil production trends and petroleum company financial performance. It contains aggregated petroleum statistics for California based on industry submittals to the Commission including refinery utilization rates.

  5. 1994 Annual Report, Western States Petroleum Association.


Sources:
Refinery list - California Energy Commission staff, updated regularly.
Background information and discussion - Energy Aware Planning Guide II: Energy Facilities, California Energy Commission, Publication No. 700-96-006, December 1996, Appendices B-24 and B-25.in

---------------------------



California Natural Gas Data and Statistics

Overview

Photographic image of natural gas stove burner from iStock Photo - Stock_000004760070
Demand for natural gas falls mainly into four sectors - residential, commercial, industrial, and electric power generation. Very small amounts are also used for vehicle fuel, and for production and transmitting natural gas to consumers. While the supply of natural gas in the United States and production in the Lower 48 states has increased greatly since 2008, California produces little, and imports 90 percent of natural gas. Most imports are delivered via interstate pipelines from the Southwest, Rocky Mountains, and Canada. California, which is located at the end of the southwestern interstate pipeline system, is vulnerable to disruptions in supply and fluctuations in transportation prices. California has increased both the number of pipeline connections to sources outside the state and gas storage capacity. These measures provide access to multiple supply sources and help mitigate the impact of disruption in supply or price spikes on any one supply basin or pipeline.
Dispatchable natural gas-fired generation is the dominant source of electricity and accounted for 43 percent of all generation in California in 2012. As California and the rest of the nation strive to integrate a higher percentage of renewable-derived energy into their electricity generation portfolio, the role of natural gas will likely change. In addition, the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station and retirement of once-through cooling generation facilities in California will require replacement generation, some of which will likely come from natural gas-fired generation.

Facts & Stats

Popular Energy Commission Reports

Weekly and Monthly Data

Production and Supply

Consumption and Demand

Prices (Rates) & Costs

Infrastructure

Pipeline Companies

Natural Gas Utilities







-----------------

California’s Dirty Secret: The Five Coal Plants Supplying Our Electricity

FILED UNDER: Government & Business, Power, Coal, Power, renewable energy
The “invisible” fossil fuel that may be powering your lifestyle

The Navajo Generating Station is coal-fired power plant in Arizona, just outside the Grand Canyon National Park. It's one of two coal plants that supplies more than 40% of Los Angeles' power.
Here in California, you hear a lot about our “green” reputation.  We have one of the most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals in the country, and the state is certainly a hotbed for new solar and wind energy investments and installations. We also have a law that says electricity providers have to get 33% of their power from renewable sources by 2020.
So… you might be surprised to hear that coal — that’s right, dirty ol’ coal — is still very much a part of the power supply in parts of Southern California. If you’re one of the 1.4 million residents of Los Angeles who gets power from the city’s Department of Water and Power, about 40% of your electricity comes from coal.
But how’s that possible?  Here in California, we don’t have much in the way of coal deposits, and no significant coal power plants. But we do have several public utilities that own portions of out-of-state coal power plants, and that entitles them to lots of less-than-clean, coal-fired energy.
There are five out-of-state coal plants providing power to California, and according to the Sierra Club, two of them — the Four Corners Power Plant and the San Juan Generating Station, both in New Mexico — are the two top mercury-emitting power plants in the United States. Here’s the lineup:
1. Navajo Generating Station – Arizona
Total Capacity: 2,409 Megawatts (MW)
2. Reid Gardner Generating Plant – Nevada
Total Capacity: 612 MW
  • California’s Department of Water Resources owns more than 67% of this plant (183 MW).  According to the DWR, Reid Gardner supplies more than 18% of the agency’s power. Its contract expires in 2013, and DWR has said it will not renew the agreement.
  • In 2007, the Environmental Integrity Project rated Reid Gardner Generating Plant as the nation’s dirtiest coal plant in terms of CO2 emissions. (3,500 lbs of CO2 emitted per megawatt-hour, compared with an average of 2,000 lbs.)
3. Intermountain Power Plant – Utah
Total Capacity: 1,640 MW
  • Several California companies, primarily LA’s DWP, own rights to 96% (1,574 MW) of energy generation.
4. Four Corners Power Plant – New Mexico
Total Capacity: 2,070 MW
  • Southern California Edison, which supplies power to approximately 14 million Californians, owns 48% of this plant (786 MW). The utility has applied to sell its share by 2012.
5. San Juan Generating Station – New Mexico
Total Capacity: 1,848 MW
  • Two of the plants four units are owned in large part by California cities, towns, and agencies.
  • As Sommer reported in her radio piece, PNM, the parent company of the San Juan GeneratingStation, “has struggled to meet air quality standards and the Environmental Protection Agency ordered the plant to install new pollution control equipment.”
Here’s a map from the Sierra Club showing where the coal plants that supply California are located.

View California Coal Plants in a larger map
Listen to Lauren Sommer’s radio report about California’s struggle to quit coal.










    Avatar








    S.W. Ela • 4 years ago

    Excellent reporting!
    Now consider reporting on how the grid lines currently bringing dirty coal power from the five plants can be used to bring wind, solar, and geothermal power to California, especially as the coal plants progressively get closed down.








    Avatar








    star • 4 years ago

    I agree, excellent. Is the Reid plant related to the esteemed Senator?








    Avatar








    Don Brown • 4 years ago

    I work for PNM, the New Mexico electric utility that operates San Juan Generating Station on behalf of 8 other owners, and this piece contains significant factual errors about the plant:
    * Contrary to allegations by the Sierra Club, the San Juan plant is one of the top-performing coal plants in the nation in terms of mercury removal. In fact, the plant already is prepared to meet proposed, new EPA limits on mercury emissions. More info: http://goo.gl/rZH0L
    * The plant fully complies with the federal Clean Air Act and we are proud of its environmental performance. In fact, plant owners just recently spent $320 million to install state-of-the-art emissions controls. As a result of those upgrades, emissions of nitrogen dioxide fell by 44 percent, sulfur dioxide by 71 percent, particulate matter by 72 percent and mercury by 87 percent.
    * The EPA has approved its own plan to require the plant to install additional controls to improve visibility in area parks and wilderness areas. We are appealing this ruling because of the enormous expense of the EPA-required technology. The State of New Mexico has approved its own plan for San Juan that would further improve air quality and meet federal requirements but do so at one-tenth of the cost ($77 million versus about $750 million or more for the EPA-required technology). We support the state plan and are willing to make this new investment. Ultimately, the costs of complying with either plan will be borne by the 2 million electric users in New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and California the plant serves and who depend on the plant for reliable, affordable power.
    We are committed to continuing to improve the plant's performance and would appreciate the opportunity to comment in advance of publication on any future stories regarding San Juan Generating Station. More info on the plant is available at www.pnm.com/sanjuan. Thank you.
    Don Brown
    Customer and Corporate Communications
    PNM
    Albuquerque, N.M.


-----------------



HOTEL CALIFORNIA-    1976- BEST QUOTE OF OUR 60s and early 70s-   Lost soul, high, in desert of lost hope, is spiritually dying, but sees a hotel, like a mission church, with a beautiful woman, death, inviting him inside to rest.  Heaven or Hell, guided by Death, he hears other residents welcoming him to their lost world.   California or californication is often a symbol for a lost cursed land of plenty but wasted, in its ruined beauty it seduces lost souls to their ruin.  Lady Death has all the riches of Benzs and her vapid pretty boys, empty of feelings, the "guests" dance in the heat of Hell.  The wine/spirit of 1969 is gone, the idealism of the Sixties, abandoned to empty pleasures that need excuses to tolerate.  The room is copy of brothel with champagne riches.  The people there put themselves there via empty chases after sensation and that lure keeps them chasing.   They try to eat and kill their sins, but The Beast, Satan, can not be killed.    Escape is impossible.  You can check out, die, anytime but can never escape your wasted life.
The Eagles Hotel California [Remastered] 01 Hotel California-1969
·         Written by Don Felder, Glenn Frey and Don Henley, this song is about materialism and excess. California is used as the setting, but it could relate to anywhere in America. Don Henley in the London Daily Mail November 9, 2007 said: "Some of the wilder interpretations of that song have been amazing. It was really about the excesses of American culture and certain girls we knew. But it was also about the uneasy balance between art and commerce."

On November 25, 2007 Henley appeared on the TV news show 60 Minutes, where he was told, "everyone wants to know what this song means." Henley replied: "I know, it's so boring. It's a song about the dark underbelly of the American Dream, and about excess in America which was something we knew about."

He offered yet another interpretation in the 2013 History of the Eaglesdocumentary: "It's a song about a journey from innocence to experience."
------------------ 



Fracking wastewater in California full of harmful, cancerous chemicals – report

Get short URL
Reuters / Stringer
Reuters / Stringer / Reuters
Disclosures in California revealed this week that a bevy of toxic, cancer-linked chemicals in fracking wastewater are routinely injected back into the ground. State regulators of the oil and gas industry, meanwhile, admitted to substandard oversight.
Tags, , , , , , , , ,
More than a year after California’s unprecedented law requiring transparency over contents of hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- wastewater, a new report by the Environmental Working Group showed that the state has allowed a variety of carcinogenic chemicals to be pumped back into the ground after use, thereby freeing oil and gas deposits.
The group said that “more than a dozen hazardous chemicals and metals as well as radiation were detected in the wastewater, some at average levels that are hundreds or thousands of times higher than the state’s drinking water standards or public health goals.”
READ MORE: ‘Fracking loophole’ allows drilling companies to use unregulated toxins – report
The report – ‘Toxic Stew: What’s in Fracking Wastewater’ – stemmed from the state’s 2013 disclosure law which mandates the comprehensive testing and public release of the chemicals in drilling wastewater. The oil and gas industry has fought hard – with cover from government regulators like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California’s own Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources – to obfuscate and conceal what it injects into the Earth.
“Petroleum chemicals, heavy metals and radioactive elements, plus high levels of dissolved solids, are among the pollutants found in fracking wastewater samples tested under the new disclosure program,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
“They include benzene, chromium-6, lead and arsenic – all listed under California’s Proposition 65 as causes of cancer or reproductive harm. Nearly every one of the 293 samples tested contained benzene at levels ranging from twice to more than 7,000 times the state drinking water standard. The wastewater also carried, on average, thousands of times more radioactive radium than the state’s public health goals consider safe, as well as elevated levels of potentially harmful ions such as nitrate and chloride.”
State officials have said there is “no evidence to date that California aquifers currently used for drinking water have been contaminated by fracking chemicals,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
READ MORE: California aquifers contaminated with billions of gallons of fracking wastewater
Yet, in October, the state found that the oil and gas industry had illegally injected about three billion gallons of fracking wastewater into central California drinking water and farm irrigation aquifers.
Last week, the state ordered a halt to drilling at 12 wastewater injection wells in California’s Central Valley "out of an abundance of caution for public health,” said Steve Bohlen, head of the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources. The state has shut down 23 of the hundreds of injection wells located in aquifers that are not approved for wastewater, the Los Angeles Times reported.
To unleash oil or natural gas from shale or other areas, the fracking process requires blasting large volumes of highly pressurized water, sand, and other chemicals into layers of rock.
Once used, toxic fracking wastewater is then either stored in deep underground wells, disposed of in open pits for evaporation, sprayed into waste fields, or used over again.
Fracking has been linked to groundwater contamination, heightened earthquake activity, exacerbation of drought conditions, and a variety of health concerns for humans and the local environment.
Oil and gas companies are under increasingly intense pressure nationwide to respond over increased transparency of chemicals used in the fracking process. As RT has reported, industry has avoided divulging -- often under the cover of official regulatory agencies -- just what chemicals are involved in their toxic injection fluids. Yet drillers insist the chemicals do not endanger human health, contradicting findings by scientists and environmentalists.
READ MORE: US geological agency calls for data sharing on fracking-induced tremors
Critics -- including the US Government Accountability Office -- have long contended that the EPA has been soft on the industry because they believe the agency is reluctant to stand in the way of what has quickly become a very profitable business model amid the oil and gas boom in North America.

State regulators

California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, meanwhile, took a grilling this week in Sacramento, as a Senate panel lambasted the agency for failing to adequately protect drinking water from oil and gas development, among other “endemic” shortcomings.
"There has been a serious imbalance between the role regulating the oil and gas industry and the role of protecting the public," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Officials from the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) admitted that the agency had for years allowed for the breaking of federal law when companies injected fracking and other wastewater into hundreds of disposal wells within protected aquifers.
The DOGGR officials blamed past errors on inconsistent record-keeping and outdated data collection.
In its new report, the Environmental Working Group noted that “the mandated [fracking chemical] disclosure data on the state’s website is still incomplete and confusing,” and that “California allows drillers to request permission to keep the exact recipe of their fracking fluid off the publicly accessible website.”
READ MORE: Living near fracking sites deteriorates health - study
Last month, it was reported that California officials permitted oil and gas companies to dispose of waste and other fluids into aquifers containing drinking and irrigation water more than 2,500 times. Significantly, 46 percent of these permits were authorized within the last four years – the same timeframe during which the EPA warned California that regulators were not sufficiently protecting underground water reserves in the drought-stricken state.
State regulators subsequently offered the EPA a new plan that detailed how California would change its permit approval process. The plan also addresses how the state would confront contamination risks. Steve Bohlen, the head of DOGGR, said last month that 140 of the affected injection sites were actively pumping waste into aquifers holding good quality water.
READ MORE: Severe drought in California spreading at unprecedented rate
In July 2014, seven companies were hit with cease and desist letters in California after 11 wastewater injection sites were shut down over contamination concerns.
Despite popular support, a moratorium on fracking in the state was killed in the California Senate last May. The oil industry spent nearly $1.5 million in three months fighting the bill.
California is the third-largest oil producing state in the US, but it’s also in its fourth year of a severe drought, highlighting the need to keep its water reserves safe.




-----------------



California and fracking

Share/Save/Bookmark
The oil and gas industry is touting the potential of fracking in California to tap the largest tight oil formation in the continental United States, which they say contains up to 64 percent of the nation's deep-rock oil deposits.[1] Fracking in California is primarily used to extract oil. In some cases fracking is taking place on private land without the owner's knowledge.[2]
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), whose members account for 80 percent of the oil and natural gas drilled in California, said WSPA companies fracked 628 oil wells in 2011 -- about a quarter of all oil and gas wells drilled across the state that year.[3] In 2013 California's Department of Conservation director Mark Nechodom estimated the state "might see around 650 hydraulic fracturing jobs a year."[4]
More common than fracking in California is acid jobs, an old well completion method that involves pumping chemicals such as hydrofluoric acid into wells to melt rocks and other impediments to oil flow. Companies are not required to report when they do it.[5] A report released in January 2015 stated that nearly half of all new oil wells in the state of California employed the use of fracking.[6]

Contents

Introduction

The Division of Oil and Gas of the California Department of Conservation does not monitor, track or regulate hydraulic fracturing,[7] stating in a Feb. 16, 2012 update to its website that “fracking is used for a brief period to stimulate production of oil and gas wells” in California, but “the Division doesn’t believe the practice is nearly as widespread as it is in the eastern U.S. for shale gas production,” negating the need for monitoring. What the Division does not say, according to the Environmental Working Group, is that most fracking in California is used for oil, not gas, production.[8]
Center for Biological Diversity researchers note that ten California counties: Colusa, Glenn, Kern, Los Angeles, Monterey, Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Sutter, Kings and Ventura.[9] The exact number of fracked wells in the state is unknown, but the Environmental Working Group states that it "is clear that the total likely reaches into the thousands. Industry documents show that by the mid-1990s, more than 600 wells had been fracked in one Kern County oil field alone. Representatives of Halliburton told EWG in the fall of 2011 that 50-to-60 percent of new wells being drilled in Kern County were hydraulically fractured."[8]
In a 2008 paper prepared for a meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Pinnacle Technologies reported the fracking process "has been applied to a large scale in many Central and Southern California fields to enable economic development and reasonable hydrocarbon recovery. Example formations include the Belridge Diatomite, Stevens Sands, Etchegoin, Antelope shale, McLure shale, McDonald shale, Point of Rocks sands, Kreyenhagen shale, Ranger sands, the UP Ford Shale, and the Monterey shale.” It also stated that "[b]ased on the initial experience and formation properties, it is believed that hydraulic fracturing has a significant potential in many Northern California gas reservoirs.”[10]
In June 2013 the Los Angeles Times reported that a USC/LA Times poll showed that more than 70% of California voters favored banning or heavily regulating chemical injections into the ground to tap oil and natural gas.[11] It was reported in September 2013 that Californians (51 percent) continue to oppose than favor (32 percent) increased use of fracking, according to a statewide survey released Wednesday evening by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California.[12]

History

Hydraulic fracturing - creating fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations - has been used on thousands of wells in California for over fifty years, according to a review of scientific articles by the Environmental Working Group.[8][1] The current fracking technique of high-pressure water, chemicals, and sand is often seen as originating in the late 1990s, in the Barnett Shale in Texas.[13]
In November 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported that Gov. Brown fired Derek Chernow, then head of the Department of Conservation, as well as Chernow's deputy, Elena Miller, after they generated a memo highly critical of "unconventional" oil extraction methods, primarily steam injection but also encompassing fracking. The process was put under a microscope in 2011 after an oil company worker died in Kern county from falling into a boiling cesspool of fracking discharge. Brown pushed Chernow to relax the regulations in 2011, but instead Chernow generated the memo concluding that relaxing regulations would violate federal laws. Shortly thereafter, Brown fired Chernow and his deputy, and installed Mark Nechodom, who sided with Brown and reduced the heightened scrutiny that had been placed on underground injection. In January 2012, The Times reported that Occidental Petroleum made a $250,00 contribution to Brown. Shortly after, the state Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources said it did not plan to monitor or manage use of the technology unless the legislature requires it or the agency is handed “evidence of manifest damage and harm.”[14]
In 2012, regulators told the Los Angeles Times that they monitor drilling operations "quite thoroughly" under existing law, but also said there is a "need for more disclosure of what chemicals are used in oil production." According to the Times: "State Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills), chairwoman of the Committee on Natural Resources and Water, wrote to state regulators [in 2011] asking basic questions: 'Where does fracking take place; How often is it used; And what are the potential risks?' Regulators had few answers, saying they had 'limited data' because the state has no reporting requirements."[1]
Many state regulators assert that fracking in California is "radically different" from drilling in other parts of the U.S., saying the process has long been performed in the state for shorter duration with much less water to loosen crude in depleted oil wells.[1]
At a March 28, 2012 hearing, lawmakers criticized the Gov. Brown administration's lack of actions on fracking, and state environmental officials requested that energy companies disclose where they conduct fracking operations and what chemicals they inject into the ground to tap oil deposits. At the time, only 78 of the tens of thousands of California oil field injection wells where fracking may be taking place were listed on a national fracking registry. Regulators also are considering whether to launch an independent study to assess effects of the practice, and are planning to undertake a statewide "listening" tour for public comment. [15]

Oil and gas estimates


Montery Shale Formation in California.
California is estimated to have more tight oil (shale oil) than shale gas. Most estimates focus on the Monterey Shale, a rib-shaped formation that extends from northern California down to the Los Angeles area, offshore, and onto the outlying islands, spanning 1,750 square miles. Counties include Kern County, Orange County, Ventura County, Monterey County and Santa Barbara County, California. It is composed of many substances[16] and is not flat like other shales due to frequent earthquakes.[17] Some companies have called the Monterey Shale "arguably the largest shale play in the US."[18]
Estimates vary about how much oil lies in the state's shale rock formations. The estimate of "technically recoverable oil" is determined by multiplying the total amount of "oil-in-place" by the “recovery factor,” or the percentage of oil that can be recovered with today’s technology.[19]
Venoco, one of the companies with a significant presence in Monterey, once said there might be 300 billion barrels of oil in the Monterey Shale, but their first well was labeled "uneconomical," and their estimate has been seen as far too high.[20]
In 2011, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said there could be up to 15 billion barrels of crude in the Monterey Shale,[20] an estimate repeated by the Department of Energy[21] and NY Times.[22]
In May 2014 the EIA said 600 million barrels of oil can be extracted from the Monterey Shale with existing technology, cutting by 97% its earlier estimate of 13.7 billion barrels.[23]

Production

The Energy Information Administration estimated that Monterey would produce 550 million barrels total per well, but “operators today are reporting typical flowrates averaging only around 350 to 400″ barrels per day, according to a November 2012 article in World Oil (fee required). According to Dave Roberts at Grist: "At 400 barrels a day, it would take a well 3,767 years to hit 550 million barrels."[19]
Geologist J. David Hughes of the Post Carbon Institute argued that "initial productivity per well from existing Monterey wells is on average half to a quarter" of EIA assumptions, and cumulative recovery of oil per well "is likely to average a third or less of that assumed by the EIA." This estimate comes from his 2013 analysis of existing data: "1,363 wells have been drilled in shale reservoirs of the Monterey Formation. Oil production from these wells peaked in 2002, and as of February 2013 only 557 wells were still in production. Most of these wells appear to be recovering migrated oil, not 'tight oil' from or near source rock as is the case in the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays." He concludes that the EIA's 15 million barrel estimate is likely highly inflated.[24]

Drilling wells

The database maintained by the oil and gas industry’s website Frac Focus, where companies can voluntarily disclose information about their fracking practices, lists 78 wells in California as of Feb. 21, 2012. According to the Environmental Working Group: "Of these, one is in Los Angeles, one in Ventura County and two are off the coast of Long Beach. One is shown near Santa Barbara on a map, but the attached documentation places the well in Kern County. The other 73 wells are also in Kern County. All of these wells were fracked sometime in 2011 or 2012. Listings on Frac Focus are entirely voluntary and are known to be incomplete, so this accounting is not likely to be comprehensive."[8]

Use of diesel fuels

In 2011, a Congressional investigation determined that 26,444 gallons of diesel fuel had been injected into California wells in hydraulic fracturing fluids from 2005-2009.[8]

Natural gas

In 2011 notices to drill new natural gas wells in Northern California were received at a rate not seen in over twenty years. As of August 2011, the California Department of Conservation issued 178 permits to drill new wells in Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tehama counties. At that rate, 267 notices would be filed by the end of 2012, compared to 137 in 2000 and 78 in 1995.[25]

Los Angeles County

Inglewood

In 2012 it was reported that PXP was using fracking in the Inglewood oil field, the nation's largest urban oil field, which has been operating in Los Angeles since the 1920s and extends up through parts of the central coast and San Joaquin Valley.
A 2006 release of noxious gases at the Inglewood Field galvanized community members and environmental groups to sue Los Angeles County, forcing it to augment protections the county had previously created in partnership with PXP. The parties reached a settlement in 2011 that further limited PXP's oil drilling activities, including reducing the number of wells the company could drill. As part of the settlement agreement, PXP agreed to conduct a study that examined the feasibility and impact of current and future fracking at the oil field. It would be the first study to look at the impact of fracking in California, including its impact on groundwater.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, the community that surrounds the oil field did not know about the 2012 test fracking until March 9, after the fracking was complete. According to FracFocus, the two vertical wells were fracked in September 2011 and January 2012. PXP used up to 168,000 gallons of water laced with chemicals in one well to a depth of about one and half miles. The Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, is concerned the impact such practices may have on the above water supplies.[26]
Over one million people live within five miles of the site. The fracking site also sits atop a fault line capable of 7.4 magnitude earthquake.[27]
On October 10, 2012, the environmental consulting firm Cardno ENTRIX released a report commissioned by PXP, entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing Study: PXP Inglewood Oil Field,” which concluded that fracking could be done safely in the area and seismicity could be mitigated. Cardno Entrix had previously been hired by TransCanada to do the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Keystone XL Pipeline. PXP and Los Angeles County contracted with JPMartin Energy Strategy LLC to peer review the report. J.P. Martin is director of the Shale Resources and Society Institute, which was created after a gas industry-funded lecture series on shale gas at SUNY Buffalo. SSRI produced a study in May 2012 finding no averse effects with fracking; all four co-authors were later found to have ties to the oil and gas industry, prompting 83 SUNY Buffalo faculty and staff members to call for an independent investigation into the origins of the SRSI.[28]

Long Beach

Fracking takes place off the coast of Long Beach, California on man-made oil islands. It was reported in 2013 that 203 fracking operations had taken place offshore Long Beach at six different sites over the past 20 years.[29]
A April 2015 investigative piece in OC Weekly noted that since 2012 there have been at least 22 hydraulic fracking operations completed offshore in Long Beach as well as at least 150 acidizing operations and 90 gravel packing jobs.[30]
In late June 2015 Thums Long Beach Co applied for nine fracking permits for offshore operations in Long Beach. The permits, which is the first step to get the operations approved, were okayed by the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal.[31]

Kern County

As of May 2012 there are 95 drilling wells posted on FracFocus, with the vast majority of the fracking projects reported in Kern County. FracFocus pinpoints a cluster of 58 wells fracked in 2011 between Lost Hills and McKittrick by XTO Energy/ExxonMobil. Many of the frack jobs pumped several hundred thousand gallons of water into wells about 3,000 feet deep. Another cluster of 12 wells in the Wasco-Shafter area was fracked in 2011 by Occidental Petroleum.[32]
In May 2012, Kern County's biggest oil producers, consenting to a request by state regulators, agreed to share information about their fracking operations by the end of June 2012. Chevron, Berry Petroleum Co., Bakersfield's Aera Energy LLC and other members of the Western States Petroleum Association will disclose data on their work with fracking on fracfocus.org.[33]

Monterey County

As of 2012 Venoco holds about 256,000 gross acres in the Monterey Shale formation, which starts in Monterey County and stretches across central California. An additional 60,000 acres have already been drilled. The firm has drilled more than 20 wells across the formation since 2010, and invested $100 million -- or nearly 40 percent -- of its 2012 expenditure budget to exploring for oil. The company has drilled four exploratory wells in Monterey County and plans for nine more.[34]

Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties

Based on information gathered from a 2010 oil prospectus from Venoco, investigated by the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), and confirmed by the federal government, there was fracking done in 2009 on the Gail oil platform in the Sockeye field in federally controlled waters near Santa Cruz Island in the Channel Islands.
In another financial disclosure document there are hints from Venoco's public filings that the company planned to enhance, through prop fracture (an older method of enhancing older wells) or possibly fracking, their other active offshore oilfield in California state waters, known as the South Ellwood -- a field approximately seven miles long and part of the northern flank of the Santa Barbara channel and extending to the Ventura basin.[35]

Offshore

In July 2013 the news site Truthout reported that federal regulators approved at least two hydraulic fracturing operations on oil rigs in the Santa Barbara Channel off the coast of California since 2009 without an updated environmental review to account for modern fracking technology. Regulators approved both operations by signing off on modifications to existing drilling permits. In an internal email, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Chief of Staff Thomas Lillie wondered how the agency could allow fracking offshore without producing an environmental impact statement (EIS) on the effects. No studies have been performed on the effects of fracking fluids on the marine environment.[36]
It was later reported that the BSEE gave “categorical exclusions” to oil companies for frack jobs on existing offshore oil rigs, allowing them to proceed with the activity in the federal waters off California without public disclosure or environmental impact analysis. According to federal guidelines, categorical exclusions are intended for projects that don’t warrant an environmental review because they don’t normally “result in significant environmental harm.”[37]
According to a BSEE fact sheet, fracking has occurred 11 times in the Pacific drilling region during the past 25 years, although BSEE officials say the number is only an estimate. Under heavy pressure from environmental groups and state politicians, the California Coastal Commission launched an investigation into offshore fracking, saying it was not aware that fracking technology was being used offshore. On August 6, nine California lawmakers sent letters to the Interior Department and the EPA demanding a federal investigation into offshore fracking, and asking the coastal commission to review federal offshore fracking permits and use its authority to block fracking activities that could harm the California coast.[36]
An October 2013 Environmental Defense Center review and analysis of federal records received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) showed that at least 15 fracs have occurred offshore California, with several more proposals pending. But according to EDC: "More fracs have almost certainly been conducted, however, as federal regulators were until recently unaware that the practice was being used." Saying the offshore frac jobs raise questions about compliance with environmental laws, EDC recommends a "moratorium on offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation unless and until such technologies are proven safe through a public and transparent comprehensive scientific review" and to "prohibit the use of categorical exclusions (exemptions from environmental review) to authorize offshore fracking and other forms of well stimulation."[38]
According to interviews and drilling records obtained by the Associated Press in October 2013, energy companies employed offshore fracking at least 203 times at six locations over the past two decades. The drilling sites included waters off Long Beach, Seal Beach, and Huntington Beach, all popular tourist areas.[39]

Oil spill in Santa Barbara

In response to a moderate sized oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in May 2015, environmental groups warned that such spills are likely to happen again as long as offshore oil drilling, including fracking, continues to take place off the coast of California.[40]

Public lands

In October 2013 Los Angeles County leaders voted unanimously to oppose a plan to drill for oil in publicly owned parkland in the Whittier hills, saying the proposal would undermine open space protection throughout the county. The drilling was proposed by Matrix Oil Co. in agreement with the city of Whittier, neither of which said they will recognize the county's vote. Litigation is underway. The dispute is over whether the city has the right to allow oil drilling on 1,280 acres it purchased in 1994 with about $17 million of Proposition A funds, which were intended for conservation purposes. Under terms of the proposed lease, Matrix would use slant-drilling technology to tap an estimated 20 million barrels of tight oil, in exchange for the city receiving royalties. Whittier officials believe that they are legally entitled to the oil because they say the city retained the mineral rights, even if the land was purchased with county bond money for conservation purposes.[41]

Fracked oil by rail


California Oil Imports Rising.
In October 2014 the Wall Street Journal reported that California rail depots that will begin to handle oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale. In order to handle the demand, Alon USA Energy Inc. is building the state’s largest oil-train terminal Kern Country. That terminal, which is to be completed in 2015, will receive 150,000 barrels of oil a day in Bakersfield, California. Additionally, Plains All American Pipeline is opening a 70,000-barrel-a-day oil-train terminal, also located in Bakersfield. The oil for this terminal will also come from fracked gas from North Dakota's Bakken Shale.[42]

Water use and wastewater

The average fracked well in California used 166,714 gallons of water, according to a 2013 Ceres report.[43]
In 2011, onshore oil and gas drilling wells in California produced more than 2.5 trillion barrels of produced water; over 126 million was produced at the Inglewood oil field of Los Angeles County.[44]
A 2014 report by World Resources Institute found that ten gas deposits "sit atop aquifers that are being withdrawn at rates that far exceed their natural recharge rate," including California's Monterey formation, which covers the southwest coastal region around Los Angeles and inland near Bakersfield as well as in Texas and the Rocky Mountains.[45]
In 2014, fracking in California used 75 million gallons of water.[46]

Risk assessments

As of 2012, California has not assessed fracking’s risks to California’s groundwater, according to a 2012 Environmental Working Group (EWG) report. The report cites a 2011 letter in which Sen. Fran Pavley asked state regulators to “provide the results of any risk assessments that the State of California has conducted regarding potential groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracturing.” The agency responded: “The division does not know of any state risk assessment regarding potential groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracture.”[8]
According to Clean Water Action (CWA), fracking poses many risks for California's water supply since a single frack well can use upwards of hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water. Additionally, CWA second's EWG's report that fracking could pollute groundwater supplies in the state.[47]
A 2015 report by EWG, which analyzed data released by the state during the first year of new reporting requirements, found high levels of benzene in fracking wastewater. Additionally, the study revealed "the presence of hundreds of chemicals, including many linked to cancer, nervous system damage and reproductive disorders."[48]

Leaks, spills, and accidents

In 2009, a jury in Kern County found that 96 million barrels of wastewater from drilling had leached from holding ponds onto a farmer's property, resulting in contamination of the aquifer beneath his land.[49] According to the Environmental Working Group: "It’s unknown if any of this wastewater came from hydraulic fracturing; what is clear is that California’s ground and drinking water are not being adequately protected from the hazards of fracking and oil and gas operations in general."[8]
In 2010, contaminants from a wastewater injection well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park.[50]

California aquifers contaminated

In July 2014 California state regulators shut down 11 fracking wastewater injection wells over concerns that the wastewater might have contaminated aquifers used for drinking water and farm irrigation. Following the shutdown, the EPA ordered a report within 60 days. In October 2014, the California State Water Resources Board has sent a letter to the EPA which confirmed that "at least nine of those sites were in fact dumping wastewater contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants into aquifers protected by state law and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act."[51]

Benzene

Data released in February 2015 from a report on California fracking found that there was 700 times the federal standard amount of Benzene in fracking waste fluids. The raw data showed that 98% of wastewater samples taken from 329 fracking sites in the state had dangerous levels of benzene, which is a known carcinogen. The data was gathered over a one year period by the Center for Biological Diversity.[52]

Illicit dumping

In February 2015, Kern County water officials discovered hundreds of unlined fracking wastewater pits that were operating without permits. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board found that more than one-third of the region’s active disposal pits were operating without proper permits. The unlined pits raise concerns that groundwater could be contaminated in the area. The operators of these sites will not be shut down, but will have to apply for permits and monitor the sites if they are near water sources.[53]

Farming impacts

In August 2015 California State Assemblyman Mike Gatto, who represents the Los Angeles. area, introduced a bill that will be considered as part of the California Legislature’s Special Session on health. The bill, if it passes, would require labels to be placed on food that was grown using fracking wastewater.[54]

Injection wells

Over 25,000 oilfield injection wells are operating in the state. Injection wells are used to increase oil recovery and to dispose of the salt and fresh water produced with oil and natural gas. Class II wells involve injecting fluids associated with oil and natural gas production operations - generally the brine that is produced when oil and gas are extracted from the earth.[55]
On July 7, 2014 California's Division of Oil and Gas and Geothermal Resources "issued cease and desist orders to seven energy companies warning that they may be injecting their waste into aquifers that could be a source of drinking water, and stating that their waste disposal 'poses danger to life, health, property, and natural resources.'" In all 11 companies were ordered to stop injections, while 100 more were being reviewed in California's Central Valley, which has been impacted by a severe three-year drought. State officials were concerned that toxic waste from injection wells could enter groundwater supplies that farmers are using to irrigate crops in the region.[56]
In March 2015 California regulators ordered a halt to wastewater injection operations at 12 underground well sites in Kern County. The action was part of a systematic statewide review of injection related to the oil and gas industry.[57]

Earthquakes

According to USGS Earthquake Science Center’s Art McGarr, there are no high-volume waste-water injection wells in California located within areas of high population density, to his knowledge. There is also, however, no way to verify this due to the lack of state and federal disclosure laws.[58] Wastewater injection into disposal wells has been linked to a series of small earthquakes in Ohio[59] and the U.S. mid-continent.[60]

Exemptions

A 2012 ProPublica investigation into the threat to water supplies from underground injection of waste found the EPA has granted energy and mining companies exemptions to release toxic material in more than 1,500 places in aquifers across the country. The EPA may issue exemptions if aquifers are too remote, too dirty, or too deep to supply affordable drinking water; however, EPA documents showed the agency has issued permits for portions of reservoirs that are in use, assuming contaminants will stay within the finite area exempted. More than 100 exemptions for natural aquifers have been granted in California, some to dispose of drilling and fracking waste in the state's driest parts. Though most date back to the 1980s, the most recent exemption was approved in 2009 in Kern County, an agricultural area.[61]

Other oil recovery methods

Acidizing

Acidizing, also referred to as “matrix acidization,” typically involves the injection of high volumes of hydrofluoric acid, a powerful solvent (abbreviated as “HF”) into the oil well to dissolve rock deep underground and allow oil to flow up through the well. Conventional fracking, in which water and other chemicals are pumped at high pressure to create fissures in the rocks, reportedly does not work well in many parts of the Monterey Shale – a rock formation known for its complexity and low permeability, which makes fracking less effective. Acidizing, in contrast, is popular in California because the oil-bearing shale is already naturally fractured and buckled from tectonic activity.[62]
Hydrofluoric acid corrodes glass, steel, and rock. Drillers have been injecting it underground for years in diluted quantities (up to 9% HF) to get out the last bits of oil from nearly depleted wells, and injecting in stronger concentrations to dissolve oil-bearing shale. The concentrations of HF acid used by oil companies are unknown, as is what happens over the long term to the rock, and to the HF acid-laced water. Drillers must get a permit from the state Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Regulations, but do not have to tell the state if they are fracking, using acid, or something else, although SB4, passed in September 2013, does include fracking and acidizing under state purview.[63]
HF is one of the most hazardous industrial chemicals in use, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The United Steelworkers want its use phased out of oil refineries entirely, calling it a risk too great for the steelworkers and the 26 million Americans living near refineries. The California Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration is not tracking HF acid usage underground within the state.[63]
Currently, large amounts of HF (precise volumes are an industry secret) are routinely trucked around California and mixed at oilfields, creating the potential for spills and leaks.[62]

Cyclic Steam Stimulation

Steam injection is an increasingly common method of extracting heavy crude oil. It is considered an enhanced oil recovery (EOR) method and is the main type of thermal stimulation of oil reservoirs. There are several different forms of the technology, with the two main ones being Cyclic Steam Stimulation and Steam Flooding. Steam injection is widely used in the San Joaquin Valley and other parts of California.
Some have compared the process of Cyclic Steam Stimulation (CSS) to a chemical-free version of fracking. Unlike the more common well stimulation practice called steam flooding, cyclic steaming injects steam at high pressure specifically to break up relatively shallow, diatomaceous soil. California state regulators began scrutinizing the practice in the aftermath of a Chevron manager's sinkhole death at the Midway-Sunset oil field in 2011.[64] The theory behind the sinkhole is that high-pressure steam "migrated" from a nearby injection project and escaped through Chevron's problem well.[65]
According to the Bakersfield Californian, CSS created ongoing problems at the oil fields: "Other oil fields in Kern County have repeatedly experienced seepage and even violent volcanoes in which oil, water, and rocks can shoot 50 to 60 yards through the air. In fact, about a month and a half after [Chevron manager] Taylor's death, one such eruption at the sinkhole site continued for three days. That event prompted DOGGR to shut down steam injection activity within 500 feet of Chevron's 'broken' well."[65]

Citizen activism

State lawsuit

On October 16, 2012, environmental groups sued the state of California, accusing state regulators at the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources with failing to evaluate the risks of fracking, even as fracking was used for 600 wells in 2011. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthworks, the Environmental Working Group, and the Sierra Club.[66]
In July 2016, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the state of California for "finalizing an inadequate environmental review of fracking eight days before the release of a state-mandated study showing that fracking and oil industry pollution threatens air, water and public health."[67]

Federal lawsuit

Hydraulic Fracturing in Inglewood
In late December 2011, environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Land Management claiming the bureau leased more than 2,500 acres of public land in Monterey and Fresno counties to oil companies without doing a thorough analysis of the potential environmental impacts of fracking.[68] The lessees have 10 years to develop the land, after which it reverts back to the federal government if not drilled.[69]
On April 8, 2013 a federal judge ruled that the Obama Administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued oil leases in Monterey County, Calif., without considering the environmental impacts. As reported by Bloomberg: "U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal in San Jose, California, said the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on outdated reviews, conducted before the extraction process known as fracking spurred massive development of energy deposits, when the U.S. sold four leases in 2011 for 2,700 acres of federal land in Monterey and Fresno counties."[70]

Santa Barbara County

In June 2011, Los Alamos rancher and vineyard owner Steve Lyons contacted Santa Barbara county officials after discovering that Venoco had fracked a well on his property. After a series of public hearings and forums, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors decided unanimously in December 2011 that companies planning to frack would have to apply for a special permit from the county planning commission.[71]
Voters in Santa Barbara voted against a ballot measure in November 2014 that would have banned the practice of fracking in the county. The "no" vote constituted 63% of the total vote tally.[72][73]
In December 2014 the Environmental Defense Center filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of the Interior. The suit claims that Environmental Defense Center and two of its subsidiary agencies "approved 51 permits to drill from oil and gas platforms in the Santa Barbara Channel without properly conducting environmental studies or permitting public comment."[74]

San Benito

In November 2014 voters in Santa Benito County banned the practice of fracking through a ballot initiative.[72] San Benito voters passed the ban with 57% support. Oil companies spent $7.7 million to defeat fracking ban ballot measures in California in 2014, outspending opponents by nearly $7 million. The companies include Chevron Corp. and Occidental Petroleum. The spending was more than Neel Kashkari, a Republican running to be California’s governor spent on his campaign in 2014.[75][76][77]
In February 2015 Citadel Exploration, based in Newport Beach, California, sued to block San Benito County's voter-approved fracking ban in San Benito County Superior Court. Citadel claimed that local governments don't have the authority to impose bans.[78]

Mendocino County

In November 2014 67% of voters in Mendocino County voted to ban the practice of fracking in the county.[79]

Monterey County

After a Monterey county administrator approved a Venoco permit for nine exploratory wells using hydraulic fracturing, a local land trust appealed. The issue was set to be heard at an Oct. 26, 2011 planning commission meeting, but Venoco pulled its permit application after the commission released a meeting agenda noting that it recommended supporting the appeal and denying the project.[8]

Los Angeles County

On May 15, 2012, Food & Water Watch joined with Gasland's Josh Fox, Environment California, Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community, Grassroots Coalition, and residents of surrounding neighborhoods to call for a ban on fracking in California, presenting the signatures of 50,000 Californians who have signed petitions supporting a ban. The protest was held at the Inglewood Oil Field in Baldwin Hills, the largest urban oilfield in the nation that also sits atop a fault line capable of 7.4 magnitude earthquake.[80]
On June 12, 2012 Food & Water Watch held a protest outside Culver City City Hall, demanding that fracking in Culver City and beyond be banned. In addition, a group called “Moms Against Fracking + Dads Too” was also meeting to participate in the protest event.[81]
On February 20, 2013 a group of California residents yesterday denounced the state's proposed rules on hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas. About 80 people who filled a hotel ballroom here rattled off what they saw as flaws with the draft regulations, including that the proposed rule fails to provide enough advance warning when fracking will occur and would not force public disclosure of all chemicals used.[82]
Long Beach, California has employed fracking for the past 17 years. The city's Department of Gas and Oil estimates less than 10 percent of wells involve the process. Long Beach averages five 'fracs' per year, all under the oversight of the state's Department of Oil and Gas. Additionally no contamination has been detected in local groundwater supplies, which produce about 60 percent of Long Beach's drinking water. This oil is being produced in the Wilmington field, near the Long Beach Oil Field.[83]
In November 2014, residents of La Habra Heights, a town in Los Angeles County, succeed in qualifying a fracking ban for March 2015 ballot.[84] However, the measure was deafted in early March 2015 during the city election.[85]

Demonstrators disrupt DOGGR workshop

On March 24, 2015 activists disrupted a workshop held in Long Beach, California by Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) on “aquifer exemption”. The activists offered DOGGR officials fracking water and unrolled a banner which read, "Gov. Brown, Stop Letting Big Oil Poison Our Water". The activists were removed from the meeting.[86]

Group attempts to stop Long Beach fracking permits

In late June 2015, in response to California's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources okaying permits for nine fracking operations off the coast of Long Beach, Center for Biological Diversity urged Gov. Jerry Brown these fracks, which would be the first in California waters since 2013.[87]

Long Beach

On July 14, 2015 a group of anti-fracking activists in Long Beach gathered outside Long Beach City Hall to protest offshore fracking scheduled to take place in Long Beach Harbor. In July 2015, the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources approved fracking of about a dozen wells operated by THUMS Long Beach, including five new operations. The fracks would be the first since 2013. Activists are concerned that drilling could result in an environmental disaster, such as an oil spill.[88]

Culver City

On July 2, 2012, the Culver City Council approved a resolution urging Gov. Jerry Brown and the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources to impose a ban on hydraulic fracturing until regulations have been adopted ensuring the protection of public health, safety, and the environment. The council’s unanimous decision came a week before the completion of a PXP fracking study at the Inglewood oil field.[89]

Orange County

In Orange County, California activists are attempting to raise awareness and one day ban the practice of fracking. Activists in the city of Brea are concerned fracking may cause groundwater pollution as well as earthquakes from injection wells.[90]

Carson

On January 26, 2015, California Resources Corp announced they would no longer seek approval for a large oil drilling project in Carson, California. The company planned to drill 200 wells that was to initially employ the use of fracking. Local environmentalists had successfully lobbied the Carson City Council to pass a 45-day moratorium on new oil drilling in March 2014. California Resources Corp soon dropped their plans to frack, yet environmentalists continued to oppose the operation until it was abandoned.[91]

State level

In February 2015 dozens of environmental groups filed a legal petition that asked California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) to ban hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas in the state. The petition was preceded by a rally in Oakland that was attended by 8,000 people that supported a ban.[92]

Fracking studies

In a Government Accountability Office report released in July 2014, the independent oversight agency reported the "EPA’s role in overseeing the nation’s 172,000 wells, which either dispose of oil and gas waste, use 'enhanced' oil and gas production techniques, store fossil fuels for later use, or use diesel fuel to frack for gas or oil. These wells are referred to as 'class II' underground injection wells and are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Oversight of these wells vary by state, with some coming under the regulatory authority of the EPA, including the 1,865 class II wells in Pennsylvania. The GAO faults the EPA for inconsistent on-site inspections and guidance that dates back to the 1980′s. Of the more than 1800 class II wells in Pennsylvania, the GAO reports only 33 percent were inspected in 2012. Some states, including California, Colorado and North Dakota, require monthly reporting on injection pressure, volume and content of the fluid. As more oil and gas wells across the country generate more waste, the GAO highlights three new risks associated with these wells — earthquakes, high pressure in formations that may have reached their disposal limit, and fracking with diesel."[93]

Legislation

Regulations

SB 4 - passed California’s Senate in 2013 and Assembly on September 11, 2013. Governor Brown signed the bill into law shortly after.[94][95]
According to Earthworks, the bill means:[96]
  • Frackers will now be required to report on water use and chemical use (with exceptions for "trade secrets"), and a permitting regime will come into place;
  • Landowners, adjacent property owners, and tenants will be notified prior to fracking taking place;
  • A plan for disposal of wastewater must be in place; and
  • SB 4 is the first time that state will regulate acidizing and other forms of unconventional well stimulation for oil and gas.
Yet the Natural Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, and Environmental Working Group, which backed earlier versions of the measure, withdrew their support for the final bill, saying it was too watered down. Last-minute amendments to the bill included requiring state regulators to green-light all fracking requests by oil and gas companies in California until at least July 1, 2015 (when the state is scheduled to complete an environmental review of fracking in California), and allowing the head of DOGGR to rule whether the California Environmental Quality Act applies to oil and gas, mirroring the federal loophole that oil and gas gained from the National Environmental Policy Act.[97]
According to Earthworks: "Over the past year, we watched SB 4 weaken – especially if the bill harms our ability to apply CEQA to oil and gas fracking and acidizing in the state."[96]
On July 1, 2015 the state of California finalized its regulations for SB 4, despite the fact its own fracking study was not yet completed. The study on fracking's potential impacts was to be published on January 1, 2015, which prompted some in the environmental community to criticize the Gov. Brown for passing a law that had not yet come under official environmental and health review.[98]
On July 9, 2015, the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST) released its report on well-stimulation in California, which was pursuant to Senate Bill 4. CCST noted that, "The purpose of the report was to synthesize and assess the available scientific information associated with well stimulation treatments (WST) in California."[99] The study noted that state agencies should ban the practice of reusing fracking wastewater for any purpose that could impact human health or the environment until further testing of its potential impacts could be done. The study also stated that thus far, no California agency had conducted a systematical study of the possible impacts from the reuse of fracking wastewater.[100] The study also noted that there was lax oversight for fracking operatoins in California.[101]

Disclosure

AB 591 - introduced by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) in 2011 was originally touted as a way to require oil companies to disclose where they employ the fracking process, what chemicals they use, and how much water they pump. The lawmaker described it as a "deliberately modest step." Among the chief opponents was Halliburton, who argued that full disclosure of the chemicals in its fracking fluid would compromise valuable trade secrets.
According to the Los Angeles Times: "although Halliburton never registered as an official opponent, Halliburton and its lobbyists ran a quiet campaign to weaken the legislation, meeting privately with lawmakers and state agencies. During a committee hearing, lobbyist Terry McGann of the California Strategies firm, acknowledged that Halliburton does "want to protect the tens of millions of dollars in investments they've made for their particular hydrofracking fluid combination." The bill later stalled.[102]
The amended version of the chemical disclosure bill, AB 591, allows energy firms to withhold certain chemicals from public disclosure by filing a trade secret claim with state regulators.[103] It did not make it to the Senate for a full vote.[104]
Additionally, concerns that the new provision to the bill could open the doors to "fracking before regulations are finalized, expected in 2015." Some organizations that oppose the bill claim it could block Gov. Brown from instituting a moratorium on fracking before 2015.[105]

State and City Moratoriums

AB 972 - the bill would "Bar the supervisor from issuing a permit for an oil and gas well that will be hydraulically fractured until regulations governing its practice are adopted." Passed by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on July 2, 2012, but did not make it to the Senate for a full vote.[106]
In May 2013 a trio of bills aiming to impose a moratorium on fracking in California were given the go-ahead from the state Assembly's Appropriations Committee. It was reported, "Assemblyman Richard Bloom's (D-Santa Monica) bill would put a moratorium on fracking and require legislative action to lift it, while Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell's (D-Los Angeles) bill would only lift the moratorium after an independent commission studies the practice's environmental effects. Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian's (D-Van Nuys) bill only applies to the area surrounding sources of groundwater that could theoretically be contaminated by the release of fracking wastewater."[107]
Mitchell's bill, AB 1323, was rejected by a 37-24 vote in late May 2013.[108] It was reported that ban’s proponents blamed "lobbying by the oil industry, which spent nearly $1.5 million in three months fighting the bill."[109]

L.A. City Council

On September 4, 2013 Los Angeles City Council members Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin introduced a motion to place a moratorium on fracking within the city of Los Angeles and along the city’s water supply route. According to EcoWatch, "They were joined outside beforehand by the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch, the environmental health group Physicians for Social Responsibly-Los Angeles, Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community (CCSC) and the Sierra Club to announce the motion at a press conference."[110]

Beverly Hills Moratorium

In early May 2014 Beverly Hills became the first California city to pass a fracking moratorium after a unanimous city council vote. Although Beverly Hills has no active fracking operations, the ban took effect on June 6, 2014.[111]

Compton Moratorium

On April 15, the Compton City Council voted on enacting a moratorium on "fracking, acidizing, or any form of well-stimulation". On July 21, the Western States Petroleum Association (“WSPA”) filed a lawsuit in an attempt to overturn Compton's ban on fracking in L.A. County Superior Court. WSPA claims "such fracking bans are preempted by state regulation of well stimulation, Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) and the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources’ (“DOGGR”) regulations. WSPA alleges several other legal grounds for the ordinance’s invalidity. The industry group claims that the city failed to give adequate notice of the ordinance, violating state and federal Constitutional due process guarantees. Additionally, the lack of public debate when passing the ordinance violated the City’s policy powers. Mineral rights holders were not given a forum for public input."[112]

Santa Barbara County Moratorium

Measure P, if passed by voters in the 2014, "would prohibit high intensity oil and gas production in unincorporated Santa Barbara County," which includes fracking. Currently there are not reporting fracking operations taking place in Santa Barbara County. As of September 2014 opponents of Measure P "raised $1,950,000, while the Yes on P campaign has brought in a meager $95,000."</ref>"Santa Barbara County anti-fracking activists wildly outspent" CalCoastNews.com, September 23, 2014.</ref>

Notification of drilling

SB1054, as amended (March 29, 2012), would require the drilling operator to file a written notice of intention to commence drilling, and submit to the Legislature an annual written report regarding the implementation of the notice requirement. The bill does not call for a public disclosure of the chemicals being used.[113] On May 30, 2012, the Senate defeated the legislation by a bipartisan vote of 17-18. According to Republican Senator Jean Fuller of Bakersfield: "This bill would have resulted in the delay of gas and oil production in California."[114]

Water use and the California drought

In April 2012 a bill regulating water use by oil producers cleared its first legislative test. The bill, authored by Assemblymember Mark Stone, would require companies to "disclose the source and amounts of water used in production, including fracking. It also demands they get approval from state water regulators on how the water would be disposed." It passed the Assembly's Natural Resources Committee on a 6-3, party-line vote.[115]
In April 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown announced emergency water restrictions across California in an effort to battle the state's severe drought. However, oil and gas companies were not forced to curtail water use in oil and gas operations, which inculded fracking.[116] Enviornmentalists were not pleased with Gov. Brown's decision. “Governor Brown is forcing ordinary Californians to shoulder the burden of the drought by cutting their personal water use while giving the oil industry a continuing license to break the law and poison our water,” said Zack Malitz of environmental group Credo said to Reuters.[117]

Regulations

List of regulations in the state.

Governor Brown considers fracking standards

As of 2012, California had no rules specific to fracking, although the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) engineers approve fracking wells on a case by case basis. The Department of Conservation, DOGGR's parent agency, has announced plans to contract an independent scientific study of hydraulic fracturing in California. Depending on the results of that study and input gathered at community workshops, the department may begin drafting fracking regulations in 2013.[118]
In March 2012 California Governor Jerry Brown stated that his administration is looking into standards for fracking in the state. Brown stated that “California is the fourth-largest oil-producing state, and we want to continue that.”[21] That month, the lower house's subcommittee on resources tabled the Gov. Brown administration's request for an additional 18 positions in the state's oil and gas agency, saying that 35 positions and $3.2 million had already been approved in the last two years, in part to develop fracking regulations that have yet to be developed. The state's nonpartisan legislative analyst reported that 13 of those slots remain vacant.[119]
On May 9, 2012, the Assembly Subcommittee on Resources and Transportation approved Gov. Jerry Brown's request for an additional 18 positions. Lawmakers also set guidelines for fracking rules, adopting budget language that gives regulators until 2014 to finalize regulations.[120]

Regulations proposed

In December 2012, CA Gov. Brown proposed regulations that would require energy companies to disclose their fracking plans to the state 10 days before starting operations. The companies also would be required to post to an online database - FracFocus - with the locations of their work and the chemicals used, and they would face new rules for testing and monitoring their wells.
Critics said the rules would require only three days public notice of the fracking site before work begins, do not require notification of adjacent property owners, and do not include an appeals process for property owners who oppose the fracking work. The rules require for the first time that energy companies disclose the chemicals they are using, but the database for that information - FracFocus - is not subject to public records laws. And companies may claim "trade secrets" exemptions to withhold the names of the chemicals they inject.[121]
The proposed rules were released in December 2013.[122]

Well classification type

In 1983, the EPA granted the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) “primacy,” or primary authority, for regulating what are known as Class II injection wells -- including wells in which operators inject fluid deep into the earth to enhance oil recovery or to dispose of fluid wastes associated with oil and gas production (disposal wells). Class II injections wells use well injecting fluid associated with the production of oil and gas. Congress in 2005 exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act, putting the responsibility on states.[123]
In 2011 the EPA evaluated how the California state agency “oversees and manages the permitting, drilling, operation, maintenance and plugging/abandonment of Class II [underground injection wells].” The federal regulators found that the California agency’s program did not meet a number of federal requirements, and in July 2011, sent a letter to the division highlighting a variety of “program deficiencies that require more immediate attention and resolution.”[124]
According to the state Department of Conservation (DOC), DOGGR has regulations in place for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) utilizing steam flood and water flood injection through its Underground Injection Control (UIC) program, and "any alternative methods for EOR – such as hydraulic fracturing -- would require additional regulations and/or statutes." In some locales, environmental groups have made a push that fracking should be considered as “injection,” and the well that is being fractured should be considered as a UIC Class II injection well. Other state regulators in the oil and gas arena have countered that hydraulic fracturing should be considered a “well treatment” not subject to UIC. If hydraulic fracturing were considered as UIC, it would bring in a host of review and testing requirements along with oversight by USEPA:[125] the DOC states that "injection project permits often include conditions, such as approved injection zones, allowable injection pressures, and testing requirements. State regulations were designed to ensure that injected fluids are confined to the project area and zone, and that formation pressures are not exceeded to the extent that damage occurs."[126]
According to the California Independent Petroleum Association, fracking is not a Class II well, and fracking is indirectly regulated by the state's regulation of non-disposal drilling wells.[127]

Public disclosure

On March 28, 2012, the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources sent letters asking California's oil producers, on a voluntary basis, to post records of their fracking activity to FracFocus.[128] In May 2012 the oil industry group Western States Petroleum Association said its members that use fracking to extract oil will voluntarily post information about their operations on the industry website, likely by the end of June 2012.[129] Rules proposed in December 2012 would make that posting mandatory, although the information is not be subject to public records laws, and companies could claim "trade secrets" exemptions to withhold the names of the chemicals they inject.[130]

Study on hazards

In August 2013 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management reported that it will launch California's first statewide study of fracking and its potential hazards.[131]

Lobbying

As of 2012, the oil and natural gas industry spends more than $4 million a year lobbying the California legislature.[132]
The Western States Petroleum Association spent the most on lobbying in Sacramento in the first six months of 2013 of any interest group, spending over $2.3 million in the first two quarters, according to quarterly documents released by the California Secretary of State. All but one bill to regulate or ban fracking was defeated in the Legislature in 2013.[133]

Citizen groups

Industry groups

Companies

Reports

USC

A March 2013 study by USC and the Communications Institute, a Los Angeles think tank, estimated that development of the Monterey Shale could generate half a million new jobs by 2015 and 2.8 million by 2020, and boost the state’s economy by 14 percent. As reported in DeSmogBlog: "the report acknowledges financial support - though failing to disclose how much funding - from the Western States Petroleum Asssociation (WSPA)" and "one of the co-authors of the 'study' - Fred Aminzadeh - is currently an oil and gas industry employee." Aminzadeh is founder and President of global oil and gas industry consultancy firm FACT-Corp. and on the Advisory Board of both Western Standard Energy Corp. and Saratoga Resources.[134]

EWG

The 2012 Environmental Working Group report, "California regulators: See no fracking, speak no fracking," examines the issue of fracking, oil and gas, and regulations in the state and recommends that:[8]
  1. The Division of Oil and Gas update its fact sheet to acknowledge that fracking is currently taking place in California and has been for decades.
  2. The Division should identify and track where fracking is taking place and post the information on a state-run website.
  3. California state agencies should develop regulations that require oil and gas companies to disclose what chemicals they are using to frack each well (with volume and concentrations), the amount of water used, the source of the water, and whether any radioactive tracers are being used, to allow regulators, scientists and landowners to learn what substances to test for in nearby water supplies.
  4. Landowners within at least two miles of proposed drilling or fracking operations should be notified and given an opportunity to weigh in on permit decisions.
  5. Oil and gas companies should be required to pay for testing and monitoring of nearby groundwater before and after drilling and fracking by independent laboratories selected by potentially affected landowner, similar to an EPA recommendation to New York State authorities.
  6. Water recycling should be mandatory for oil and gas operations.
  7. Drilling and fracking should not be allowed close to residential areas or drinking water sources, to prevent risks.

Resources

References












  • Michael J. Mishak, "Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight," LA Times, March 14, 2012.

    1. Steve Horn, ""Frackademia" Strikes Again at USC with "Powering California" Study Release," DeSmog Blog, March 14, 2013.

    Related SourceWatch articles

    Click on the map below for state-by-state information on fracking:
    Alabama and fracking Alaska and fracking Arizona and fracking Arkansas and fracking California and fracking Colorado and fracking Connecticut and fracking Delaware and fracking Florida and fracking Georgia and fracking Hawaii and fracking Idaho and fracking Illinois and fracking Indiana and fracking Iowa and fracking Kansas and fracking Kentucky and fracking Louisiana and fracking Maine and fracking Maryland and fracking Massachusetts and fracking Michigan and fracking Minnesota and fracking Mississippi and fracking Missouri and fracking Montana and fracking Nebraska and fracking Nevada and fracking New Hampshire and fracking New Jersey and fracking New Mexico and fracking New York and fracking North Carolina and fracking North Dakota and fracking Ohio and fracking Oklahoma and fracking Oregon and fracking Pennsylvania and fracking Rhode Island and fracking South Carolina and fracking South Dakota and fracking Tennessee and fracking Texas and fracking Utah and fracking Vermont and fracking Virginia and fracking Washington State and fracking West Virginia and fracking Wisconsin and fracking Wyoming and fracking Delaware and fracking Maryland and fracking New Hampshire and fracking New Jersey and fracking Massachusetts and fracking Connecticut and fracking West Virginia and fracking Vermont and fracking Rhode Island and frackingMap of USA with state names.png
    About this image

    External links

    External Articles












  • "California's Controversial Oil Drilling" By Stephen Stock, Liza Meak, and Mark Villarreal NBC Bay Area, April 27, 2012.

  • John Cox, "Oil companies agree to post fracking data," Bakersfield.com, May 15, 2012.

  • Amy Harder, "California's Top Oil Regulator on Fracking, Climate Change, and Fossil Fuels," October 16, 2013.

  • Rory Carroll and Braden Reddall, "Insight: California environmentalists fear frack fight a distraction," Reuters, May 28, 2013.

  • "Study: California using fracking in up to half of new wells" Jeremy B. White, January 1, 2015, Sacramento Bee.

  • "Gov. Jerry Brown says he's studying 'fracking' in California" Michael J. Mishak, Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2012.

  • Renée Sharp and Bill Allayaud, "California regulators: See no fracking, speak no fracking," Environmental Working Group, February 2012.

  • "Fracking in California: Questions and Answers" Center for Biological Diversity

  • El Shaari, N., W.A. Miner, "Northern California Gas Sands - Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Opportunities and Challenges," SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, CA March 31-April 2, 2008.

  • "Californians uneasy about fracking's safety, lack of oversight" Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times, June 7, 2013.

  • "Most Californians want fracking regulated" Central Valley Business Times, September 25, 2013.

  • Bill McKibben (8 March 2012). "Why Not Frack?". The New York Review of Books 59 (4). Retrieved on 21 February 2012.

  • Tony Z., "The Oil Industry's California Takeover," Daily Kos, March 1, 2012.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "State officials ask energy firms to disclose 'fracking' sites," Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2012.

  • "Monterey Shale" California Oil & Natural Gas, accessed April 25, 2012.

  • Dave Roberts, "10 reasons why fracking for dirty oil in California is a stupid idea," Grist, March 18, 2013.

  • "Monterey Shale - California's Sleeping Giant?" Rhonda Duey, E&P, June 1, 2011.

  • Dave Roberts, "10 reasons why fracking for dirty oil in California is a stupid idea," Grist, March 18, 2013.

  • Jason Raznick,"Four ETFs For The Monterey Shale," Forbes, October 21, 2011.

  • "California’s Brown Says He’ll Consider Fracking Standards" James Nash, Business Week, March 23, 2012.

  • "Vast Oil Reserve May Now Be Within Reach, and Battle Heats Up" Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, February 3, 2013.

  • "U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%," LA Times, May 20, 2014.

  • J. David Hughes, "Drilling California: A Reality Check on the Monterey Shale," PCI Report, Dec 2, 2013.

  • "Spike in California Gas Drilling in California" State of California Department of Conservation, September 10, 2011.

  • Ngoc Nguyen, "Fracking in Los Angeles? Test Wells at Urban Oil Field Spark Water Worries," Inside ClimateNews, April 13, 2012.

  • "Could Fracking in Los Angeles Cause an Earthquake?" Tessa Stuart, LA Weekly, May17, 2012.

  • Steve Horn, "Frackademia: Controversial SUNY Buffalo Shale Institute's Reputation Unraveling," Desmogblog, Oct. 11, 2012.

  • "Calif. finds more instances of offshore fracking" Alcia Chang, Jason Dearen, Yahoo! Finance, October 19, 2013.

  • "What the Frack Is Happening Under Long Beach?" Joshua Frank, OC Weekly, April 22, 2015.

  • "Environmentalists want California to stop offshore fracking" Associated Press, June 30, 2015.

  • John Cox, "Fracking data flows from Kern oil fields," Bakersfield.com, April 16 2012.

  • John Cox, "Oil companies agree to post fracking data," Bakersfield.com, May 15, 2012.

  • Erich Schwartzel and Andrew McGill, "With gas firms entering central California, vineyard owners unsure of fracking effects on land," Pipeline, October 7, 2012.

  • Zach Swim and Dina Rasor, "Lack of State and Federal Oversight of Offshore Fracking Could Imperil the Santa Barbara Coastline," Truthout, October 3, 2012.

  • Mike Ludwig, "Special Investigation: Fracking in the Ocean Off the California Coast," Truthout, July 25, 2013.

  • Mark Denin and Shiva Polefka, "Fracking Goes To Sea: California Regulators Startled To Learn Of Offshore Hydraulic Fracturing," Climate Progress, Oct 24, 2013.

  • "Dirty Water: Fracking Offshore California," Environmental Defense Center, 2013.

  • [ http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2013/10/22/stories/1059989146 "For Calif. officials, offshore fracking flew under the radar,"] E&E, October 22, 2013.

  • "Pipeline Owner in Santa Barbara Oil Spill Has Had 175 Spill Incidents Since 2006" Center for Biological Diversity, May 21, 2015.

  • Seema Mehta and Louis Sahagun, "L.A. County leaders oppose plan to drill for oil in Whittier hills," LA Times, Oct 29, 2013.

  • "California Finally to Reap Fracking’s Riches" Alison Sider & Cassandra Sweet, Wall Street Journal, October 7, 2014.

  • "Nearly half of fracking happens in places short on water," SF Gate, May 2, 2013.

  • "2010 Annual Report Information," DOGGR 2010 Annual report.

  • "Limited water presents challenge for natural gas fracking" Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times, September 2, 2014.

  • "Exclusive: California used 70 million gallons of water in fracking in 2014" Rory Carrol, Reuters, April 3, 2015.

  • "Oil, Gas and Fracking in California" Clean Water Action, accessed August 1, 2014.

  • "Analysis of California’s Fracking Wastewater Reveals a Slew of Toxic Chemicals Linked to Cancer and Other Illnesses" EcoWatch, March 10, 2015.

  • Jeremy Miller, "The Colonization of Kern County: A story of oil and water," Orion magazine, January/February 2011 issue.

  • Abrahm Lustgarten, "Injection Wells: The Poison Beneath Us," ProPublica, June 21, 2012.

  • "Confirmed: California Aquifers Contaminated With Billions Of Gallons of Fracking Wastewater" Mike G, DeSmogBlog, October 7, 2014.

  • "High levels of benzene found in fracking waste water" Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times, February 11, 2015.

  • "Hundreds of illicit oil wastewater pits found in Kern County" Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times, February 26, 2015.

  • "Fracking-affected Food Should be Labeled, Lawmaker Says" Dennis Romero, LA Weekly, August 17, 2015.

  • "Oil, Gas & Geothermal - Injection Wells," CA DOC Website, accessed May 2012.

  • "California Halts Injection of Fracking Waste, Warning it May Be Contaminating Aquifers" Mother Jones, July 22, 2014.

  • "CALIF. DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES SEEKS END TO INJECTION IN 12 KERN COUNTY WELLS" Dept. of Conservation, March 3, 2015.

  • Scott Thrill, "California’s unregulated fracking problem," AlterNet, April 9, 2012.

  • "ODNR Releases Preliminary Report on Youngstown Area Seismic Activity," ODNR, March 9, 2012.

  • USGS, "Are Seismicity Rate Changes in the Midcontinent Natural or Manmade?" USGS 2012 Report.

  • Abrahm Lustgarten, "Poisoning the Well: How the Feds Let Industry Pollute the Nation’s Underground Water Supply," ProPublica, Dec. 11, 2012.

  • Robert Collier, "A New California Oil Boom? Drilling the Monterey Shale - Part 1: Distracted by Fracking?" The Next Generation, August 2013.

  • RL Miller, "Why Oil Companies Want to Drop Acid in California," Take Part, Sep 2, 2013.

  • John Cox, "Fracking data flows from Kern oil fields," The Bakersfield Californian, April 16, 2012.

  • John Cox, "Oil industry frets over sinkhole controversy," The Bakersfield Californian, Oct 3, 2011.

  • "Environmental groups sue California regulator over fracking," Reuters, Oct 16, 2012.

  • "Brown Administration Sued for Ignoring Risk Report on Fracking" Center for Biological Diversity, July 30, 2015.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight," LA Times, March 14, 2012.

  • "Environmental groups sue to prevent fracking in Calif." Tia Ghose, California Watch, December 19, 2011.

  • "First California Fracking Challenge Is Defeat for U.S." Karen Gullo, Bloomberg, April 8, 2013.

  • Cooley, M., news/local/govt-and-politics/county-levelfracking-rules-get-board-ok/article_c4a7c704-20a6-11e1-9902-0019bb2963f4.html "County-level ‘fracking’ rules get board OK," Santa Maria Times, December 7, 2010.

  • "Not Just a Fracking Ban" Jillian Kay Melchior, National Review Online, October 23, 2014.

  • "Fracking bans pass in 2 counties, fail in Santa Barbara" Molly Peterson, KPCC, November 5, 2014.

  • "Feds Sued Over Santa Barbara Fracking Permits" ABC News, Decemember 3, 2014.

  • "To fight fracking bans, oil firms heavily outspend environmentalists" David R. Baker, SF Gate, November 2, 2014.

  • "Oil, gas industries fight local anti-fracking measures" Timonthy Cama, November 13, 2014.

  • "CAMPAIGN 2014: Measure J moves forward in San Benito County" Kion, November 5, 2014.

  • "Fracking: Oil company sues to overturn San Benito County fracking ban; could affect other counties" San Jose Mercury News, Paul Rogers, March 3, 2015.

  • "Mendocino County is first California community to enact ban" Bob Downing, Akron Beacon Journal, November 5, 2014.

  • "Citizens, Groups Calling for a Ban on Fracking in California," Food & Water Watch, May 15, 2012.

  • "Culver City Moms (and Dads) Unite Against Fracking" Crystal C. Alexander, Culver City Patch, June 11, 2012.

  • "Calif. walloped with criticisms on proposed fracking rules" Energy Wire, Feburary 20, 2013.

  • "Cal Assembly bill seeks to force disclosure of chemicals used in drilling wells" Kristopher Hanson, Press-Telegram, June 28, 2011.

  • "La Habra Heights anti-oil initiative qualifies for 2015 ballot" Mike Sprague, Whittier Daily News, November 3, 2014.

  • "Election 2015: La Habra Heights anti-oil initiative loses" Whittier Daily News, Mike Spraugue, March 3, 2015.

  • "Fractivists Bust Up Aquifer Exemption Workshop" Lauren Steiner, CounterPunch, March 30, 2015.

  • "Just Weeks After Oil Spill, California Officials OK Nine New Offshore Fracks" Center for Biological Diversity, June 30, 2015.

  • "Environmental Activists Protest Scheduled Fracking in Long Beach" Stephanie Rivera, Long Beach Post, July 15, 2015.

  • "Culver City Council calls on state to ban fracking temporarily," LA Times, July 3, 2012.

  • "When it comes to fracking, fracktivist residents see red, not black gold" Aaron Orlowski, Orange County Register, October 13, 2014.

  • "California Resources Corp pulls plug on oil drilling project" Rory Carroll, Reuters, January 26, 2015

  • "Greens petition California to ban fracking" Timothy Cama, The Hill, February 26, 2015.

  • "Congressional Watch-Dog Warns Fracking Waste Could Threaten Drinking Water" StateImpact, Pennsylvania, July 18, 2014.

  • "Capitol Alert: Fracking bill passes California Assembly" Jeremy B. White, The Tribune, September 11, 2013.

  • "State Releases New Fracking Regulations Amid SB 4 Criticism, Controversy" Jayni Hein, Legal Plane, November 18, 2013.

  • Jennifer Krill, "California Comes out of the Fracking Closet," Earthworks, Sep 12, 2013.

  • Robert Gammon, "Lawmakers Should Reject Fracking Bill SB4," East Bay Express, Sep 11, 2013.

  • "California OKs Fracking Regulations Before Scientists Finish Studying Risks" Center for Biological Diversity, July 1, 2015.

  • "SB4" CCST Well Stimulation Project, July 9, 2015.

  • "California Has No Idea What’s In Its Fracking Chemicals, Study Finds" Samantha Page, Climate Progress, July 11, 2015.

  • "California Lawmakers Say Fracking Study Shows Lax Oversight" Amy Quinton, Central Public Radio, August 25, 2015.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "Oil extraction method widely used in California with little oversight," LA Times, March 14, 2012.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "California fracking bill would protect industry ‘trade secrets,’" Los Angeles Times, April 18, 2012.

  • Ellen M. Gilmer, "Fracking bills derailed in committee," E&E reporter, August 17, 2012.

  • "Fracking Industry Eyes An Already Water-Starved California" Trisha Marczak, Mint Press News, September 11, 2013.

  • Ellen M. Gilmer, "Fracking bills derailed in committee," E&E reporter, August 17, 2012.

  • "California Fracking Ban: Golden State Moratorium On Controversial Practice Moves Forward" Aaron Sankin, Huffington Post, May 17, 2013.

  • John Upton, "California, Illinois lawmakers welcome frackers," Grist, June 3, 2013.

  • "Fracking moratorium fails in California despite strong public support" RT.com, May 30, 2014.

  • "L.A. City Councilmembers Call for Fracking Moratorium " EcoWatch, September 5, 2013.

  • "Beverly Hills becomes first in California to ban fracking" Reuters, May 7, 2014.

  • "Industry Group Sues Compton for Moratorium on Hydraulic Fracturing" California Environmental Blog, July 25, 2014.

  • Loretta Red, "Fracking," SB View, April 10, 2012.

  • Jim Magill, "California Senate votes down fracking notification bill," Platts, May 31, 2012.

  • "California bill would target fracking industry's water use" Jason Hoppin, Mercury News, April 16, 2013.

  • "California Urban Water Use Restricted While Regulators Give Oil Industry Two More Years To Operate Injection Wells In Protected Groundwater Aquifers" Mike Gaworecki, DeSmogBlog, April 8, 2015.

  • "California water restrictions should cover oil companies, activists say" Russia Today, April 3, 2015.

  • John Cox, "Oil companies agree to post fracking data," Bakersfield.com, May 15, 2012.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "State officials ask energy firms to disclose 'fracking' sites," Los Angeles Times, April 2, 2012.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "California lawmakers push for fracking rules," LA Times, May 9, 2012.

  • Paul Rogers, "California releases first-ever fracking regulations," Mercury News, Dec. 18, 2012.

  • Michael J. Mishak, "Lawmakers want tougher rules for fracking," The Los Angeles Times, February 13, 2013.

  • Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, Department of Conservation, "UIC Application Guidance," accessed April 2012.

  • Albright, D., Groundwater Protection Office, US Environmental Protection Agency, "Letter to Elena Miller, State Oil and Gas Supervisor," Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources, July 18, 2011.

  • "Fact sheet: Hydraulic Fracturing," CA DOC, accessed May 2012.

  • "Hydraulic Fracturing," CA DOC, accessed May 2012.

  • "Response to EWG on Hydraulic Fracturing," California Independent Petroleum Association 2012 report.

  • John Cox, "Oil companies agree to post fracking data," Bakersfield.com, May 15, 2012.

  • "Oil industry says it will report California 'fracking' information" David Siders, The Sacramento Bee, May 16, 2012.

  • Paul Rogers, "California releases first-ever fracking regulations," Mercury News, Dec. 18, 2012.

  • David Baker, "U.S. to start first California study of fracking," SF Chronicle, Aug 3, 2013.

  • Michael Hiltzik, "Let's close the information gap about fracking," LA Times, June 10, 2012.

  • Dan Bacher, "The Ocean Frackers," Counterpunch, August 7, 2013.

    • ---






    Oil, Gas and Fracking in California

    Californians At Risk


    Air pollution from oil and gas development threatens the health of Californians. We conducted air sampling a health survey in two communities to begin to investigate the impacts of living near oil production. 
    CaliforniansAtRiskFINAL_Page_01.jpg
    As the fourth largest oil producing state in the country, California must responsibly manage the massive waste stream generated by the oil and gas sector. This report examines the risks to California water and air quality associated with just one part of this waste stream: oil and gas wastewater disposal into open-air and unlined pits. In the Pits - Oil and Gas Wastewater Disposal into Open Unlined Pits and the Threat to California’s Water and Air
    On Shaky Ground: Fracking, Acidizing, and Increased Earthquake Risk in California finds that millions of Californians live in areas threatened by oil industry-induced earthquakes. Academic research and government experts conclude that wastewater injection can reduce faults’ natural friction and trigger earthquakes.
    Clean Water Action is working to protect California from the dangers of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), acidizing and other risky oil production activities. Across the country, communities are suffering from health and environmental impacts related to oil and gas production, including: contaminated drinking water and polluted air, degradation of local waterways, and decreased property values. In most states, fracking operations are designed to extract natural gas reserves. In California, it’s all about oil. 
    California has one of the largest shale oil plays in the nation- the Monterey Shale. It spans much of the Central Valley and Southern California. It lies below many of the sources of drinking water for Central Valley residents and contains oil that has historically been too difficult to extract. Despite the recent downgrade of recoverable oil from 15.4 billion barrels to 0.6 billion barrels, oil companies are still working to exploit this resource, and continue to drill and frack across the state.   
    inside
    Using new technologies, such as fracking, acidizing and other well stimulation techniques, oil companies such as Venoco, Occidental, and PXP aim to make California the biggest on-shore oil producing state in the nation. We need to ensure that these oil and gas recovery techniques do not pollute our water, degrade our air, or damage our communities. Clean Water Action is working to enact a moratorium on fracking in California until the state determines whether fracking and acidizing can be done without harming our communities and the environment.
    learn more
    What is Fracking? What is Acidizing?
    Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is a method of extracting oil or natural gas trapped inside shale or other rock formations.  Oil and gas companies drill deep into the earth often through our underground sources of drinking and irrigation water. Then they inject high volumes of water mixed with chemicals and often sand at high pressure to fracture the rock around the well to release the oil or gas. Acidizing, another well stimulation process, involves the injection of hydrofluoric and/or hydrochloric acids to corrode the rock formation and allow for increase oil-flow.
    Across the country there have been numerous environmental and community costs associated with fracking and other drilling, including contaminated waterways and groundwater, air pollution, and earthquakes potentially caused by the underground disposal of wastewater. Yet, despite these serious threats fracking is exempt from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
    facking_clipartFracking Threatens California's Water Supply
    Fracking poses a serious threat to California’s water supply and quality. It is an extremely water intensive practice, using hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water to frack a single well. 
    Fracking, Chemicals and Water
    Fracking utilizes a mixture of chemicals, many of which are toxic or are known to cause human health problems. A 2011 study by the US Congress identified over 750 different chemicals used in the fracking process, including 29 different chemicals that are either:
    • known or possible human carcinogens,
    • regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risk to human health,
    • listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
    Millions of gallons of these dangerous chemicals, such as naphthalene, BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene), methanol, and lead are injected into the earth every year. In addition, fracking wastewater contains harmful components such as high salt content, naturally occurring radioactive material, and heavy metals such as arsenic.


    Fracking has an especially high impact on water resources because most contaminated wastewater from fracking is removed from the water cycle.  
    The Central Valley, where the majority of fracking is taking place, is already under major pressure from contaminated drinking water sources.
    Nitrate contamination, for example, from agriculture is a major threat to many communities’ drinking water sources. According to a recent UC Davis report, over 2 million Californians may not have access to a reliable source of safe drinking water, as groundwater contamination is a major problem throughout the state.  Any increase in groundwater contamination is unacceptable and will only put more pressure on California’s shrinking water resources.

    Fracking: Increasing seismic risks?

    Wastewater from fracking operations in California is often disposed of into underground injection wells deep beneath the surface of the earth. These wells, know as Class II injection wells, are regulated under the US EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. They are often in close proximity to or pass through underground sources of water used for drinking and agriculture. While industry claims that underground injection of fracking wastewater is safe, the EPA has criticized California’s implementation of the UIC program and monitoring of Class II wells. In particular, the report criticizes the Division of Oil and Gas Resources (DOGGR) one size fits all risk assessment for protection of waterways.
    In a seismically active region such as California, there is increased risk of well-casing failure and the possibility of wastewater transport through faults into aquifers.  In addition, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that fluids injected deep into the earth can migrate over time, potentially entering underground sources of drinking water.
    Since DOGGR does not require disclosure of wastewater disposal, the public does not know the fate of most fracking wastewater in California. Besides underground injection, drilling companies sometimes dispose of wastewater into open-air pits, where the dangerous chemicals can off-gas, creating air quality problems, or discharge into waterways, threatening drinking water sources and habitats. Under the Clean Water Act, any discharged water into waterways must be treated, however most water treatment plants are not equipped to handle the types and volume of wastewater from fracking. Without disclosure from frackers of wastewater disposal, the state does not know the extent to which these different methods are employed, and if it has lead to any problems, as detected in other states.

    Fracking Threatens California’s Air Quality and Exacerbates Climate Change.

    California’s  Central Valley, home to 4 million Californians, has the highest level of particulate matter and ozone pollution in the United States, and the asthma rate is three times the national average, according to the American Lung Association.  Deep shale drilling is known to release significant levels of methane gases and volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) that cause smog and lead to respiratory problems and cancer causing air toxics such as benzene and arsenic. 
    The oil and gas industry is the single largest producer of methane gas in the U.S., accountable for approximately 40% of all methane emissions. Methane is a greenhouse gas, 20 times more potent than CO2. In addition to the emissions from drilling, large numbers of trucks are used to transport chemicals to each drill site and wastewater away from each drill site, causing significant increases in particulate and smog-forming pollutants. The air pollution and health problems that result from fracking is a cost that Central Valley residents cannot afford to pay.
    California prides itself on being a leader in combatting climate change and promoting clean energy. Yet, allowing more drilling enabled by fracking and acidizing will only hurt our climate as more fossil fuels are extracted and burned. 
    Governor Brown Supporting Big Oil
    Because California is the third largest oil and gas producing state in the country, its state politics are heavily influenced by the oil and gas industry. Governor Jerry Brown has taken it upon his office to ensure that oil and gas drilling permits are issued without delay, despite numerous environmental concerns.  In 2011, Governor Brown fired the heads of DOGRR and the Department of Conservation (DOC) who were taking a close look at the health and environmental impacts associated with various types of enhanced oil recovery operations. These firings were a signal that the administration was prioritizing the growth of the oil and gas industry.
    This type of action is in direct conflict with the Governor’s stated goals of continuing the previous administration’s priority of moving California away from dirty energy sources and fulfilling the obligation of AB 32, which requires California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Governor Brown has also publicly stated that he backs policies to move California to a clean energy economy based on renewable energy sources.
    The proposed regulations fall short in so many areas that we lack the confidence that the state will develop adequate rules to protect public health and the environment. Therefore Clean Water Action calls on the Governor to take the following action:
    • Impose a moratorium on fracking until there has been an independent investigation. 
    • Ensure protections for water, including groundwater monitoring (program being developed as a result of SB 4) and wastewater disposal oversight, by giving the regulatory mandate to the state’s water quality agency – the State Water Resources Control Board.
    • Provide better protections for air and climate by including the Air Resources Board as a regulator of fracking and require air permits for each operation.
    • Require reporting and disclosure of well-casing failures to the public and to the state’s water quality agency.
    • Address other dangerous extraction techniques that may also harm our environment.
    Until these and numerous other concerns are addressed, fracking should not happen in California. Until an independent review has determined that fracking can cause no harm, there should be a moratorium.

     http://www.cleanwateraction.org/fracking-california

    -----------------------



    Energy Maps of California


    Power Plants and Energy Facilities


    Energy Infrastructure (Power Lines and Pipelines)


    Local Reliability Areas with Transmission Lines and Substations for 2016


    Energy & Utilities Service Areas


    Renewable Energy & Other Maps


    Printed Maps

    Please contact our cartography office to order printed versions of maps.
    Call (916) 654-4182 or (916) 654-3902.
    GAS-  CAL-

    Pipeline Safety

    Introduction

    Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) is the nation's largest natural gas distribution utility, serving a population of 20.9 million consumers through 5.8 million gas meters in more than 500 communities. The company's service territory encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles of diverse terrain throughout Central and Southern California, from Visalia to the Mexican border.
    SoCalGas transports and delivers natural gas to its customers for cooking, heating and business use. We monitor the natural gas for quality and add a distinctive odor to aid in the detection of leaks.

    How natural gas gets to your home or business

    SoCalGas receives natural gas from producers and suppliers located both within our service area and outside California. We monitor the gas for quality, odorize it and then deliver it through our 94,000 miles of pipeline.

    Putting safety first

    It is our practice to respond promptly when we receive calls from customers regarding a natural gas leak. We have about 5,000 employees who are trained and ready to respond to incidents that occur throughout our service territory.
    Our transmission and distribution pipelines are operated and maintained in accordance with or exceeding state and federal pipeline safety regulations. Additionally, regulators routinely audit our program to ensure that we are in compliance with all safety regulations. We believe that our system is safe.
    SoCalGas regularly performs pipeline safety tasks, including patrolling, testing, repairing and replacing pipelines. We meet or exceed all federal and state requirements for safe pipeline operations and maintenance, including ongoing technical training and testing for employees. Our goal is to identify and resolve potential problems before a major problem occurs.
    SoCalGas has also implemented a rigorous integrity management program in highly-populated areas. As the nation’s largest natural gas distributor, we strive to apply state-of-the-art knowledge in the operation and maintenance of our natural gas pipeline facilities. We use advanced safety inspection tools to monitor pipe condition and to verify the effectiveness of our ongoing maintenance activities. In order to perform these important inspections, the area around our pipelines must be clear of shrubs, trees, fences and other structures.

    Markers indicate most major pipelines near you

    Markers indicate major pipelines near you. Markers purposely indicate only the general, not exact, location of buried pipelines. Markers also do not indicate the depth or number of pipelines in the area.
    Examples of markers used by SoCalGas.
    To identify operators of other oil and gas pipelines in your area and view maps with the general locations of these pipelines, visit the National Pipeline Mapping System website. *
    Note that these maps only indicate the general location of pipelines and should never be used as a substitute for calling 811 at least two business days before digging.

    Pipeline safety videos

    Know What’s Below – Call Before You DigWhether you're planning to build a major development or just landscaping your yard, protect your safety and the safety of those around you by calling Underground Service Alert at 811 at least two business days before digging.
    » Watch video  

    Use Your Senses to Alert Yourself to a Gas Leak    Natural gas is flammable and a simple spark can serve as an ignition source. Use your senses of sight, hearing or smell to be alerted to the presence of a gas leak. If you smell a natural gas odor, hear the hissing sound of gas escaping or see other signs of a leak:
    • Remain calm.
    • Don't light a match, candle or cigarette.
    • Don't turn electrical appliances or lights on or off or use any device that could cause a spark.
    • Immediately evacuate the area, and from a safe location, call SoCalGas at 1-800-427-2200 or call 911.
    • Learn more about detecting a gas leak.
      
    Gas Pipeline Safety TipsHelp prevent pipeline damage and keep your neighborhood and workplace safe. Be informed about how you can keep yourself, your family and your neighborhood safe. You can also view online maps to learn where gas lines are located in your neighborhood.
    » Watch video  
    *By clicking this link, you will leave www.socalgas.com and transfer directly to a third party website, which is not part of www.socalgas.com. To the extent third-party materials contain assertions of fact, recommendations or any other interpretations or advice, the third party is solely responsible for the content of the third-party website and Southern California Gas Company makes no representation as to the accuracy, completeness or fitness for any purpose or use thereof. For more information, view our Privacy Policy.

    Report Any Pipe Damage

    Evacuate the area and from a safe location, call SoCalGas at

    1-800-427-2200

    to report any pipeline damage. No damage is too small to report.



    Posted by at No comments:
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)