[Editor’s Note: In his first letter in more than year to key policy and decision-makers regarding drilling in the Baldwin Hills/Inglewood Oil Field, Mr. Kutcher, a resident and an attorney for Culver Crest area plaintiffs fighting new regulations adopted two years ago this month, updates complaints and objections.]
Re “An Argument for County to Delay Action on PXP Drilling Plan for This Year”
October 25, 2010
Leon Freeman
Zoning Enforcement, Section I
Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California, 90012
Re: PXP’s 2011 Drilling Plan
Our File No. 9065.2
Dear Mr. Freeman:
This letter is submitted on behalf of Community Health Councils, Inc. (“CHC”), Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”) and Mark Salkin. This letter constitutes our preliminary comments concerning the 2011 Drilling, Redrilling, Well Abandonment, and Well Pad Restoration Plan dated October 2010 (“2011 Drilling Plan”) for the Inglewood Oil Field submitted by Plains Exploration and Production Company (“PXP”).
Ongoing Community Complaints and Regulatory Violations.
On page 4, the 2011 Drilling Plan contains the following statement: “No violations were issued or complaints lodged during the course of these drilling operations.” This statement is inaccurate.
A series of complaints have been lodged, including since drilling was resumed in June 2010. These complaints include the following:
• On June 20, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference # 1010) was logged.
• On June 26, 2010, a noise complaint (PXP Reference #1110) was logged. (This noise was reportedly attributable to an apartment building.)
• On July 3, 2010, a noise complaint (PXP Reference #1210) was logged.
• On August 3, 2010, a property damage complaint (PXP Reference #1310) was logged.
• On September 21, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference #1410) was logged.
In addition, the following complaints were lodged earlier this year prior to the resumed drilling:
• On January 7, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference #0110) was logged.
• On January 12, 2010, two odor complaints (PXP Reference #0210 & 0310) were logged. (These may have been attributable to skunks.)
• On February 8, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference # 0410) was logged.
• On March 17, 2010, a vibration complaint (PXP Reference #0510) was logged. PXP attributed this complaint to the operation of the gas plant flare.
• On March 31, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference #0610) was logged.
• On April 6, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference # 0710) was logged.
• On April 21, 2010, a contamination complaint (PXP Reference #0810) was logged.
• On May 28, 2010, an odor complaint (PXP Reference #0910) was logged. An AQMD inspector attributed the complaint to a well undergoing maintenance.
Obviously, a pattern of ongoing community impacts from the oil drilling and operations remains despite the County’s adoption of the CSD.
In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD” or “AQMD”) has received increasing community complaints concerning the Oil Field, resulting in issuance of multiple violation notices. In years 2008 and 2009, the SCAQMD received more than 60 complaints each year from individuals living in proximity to the Oil Field. In addition to responding to these official complaints, since 2008, the SCAQMD has conducted over 50 field inspections related to the Oil Field and over 100 surveillances. Then, in January 2010, SCAQMD received 22 similar complaints in a one-month span.
In February 2010, the AQMD issued at least three Notices of Violation to PXP related to fugitive emissions occurring at the Inglewood Oil Field. (NOV #s P56554, P56555 & P56556.) The 2011 Drilling Plan simply ignores these community and enforcement problems.
Assessment of Overconcentration Must Include Public Parks and Public Recreation Areas.
On page 6, the 2011 Drilling Plan identifies Windsor Hills, Ladera Heights, Blair Hills, Raintree Apartments, Culver Crest and West LA College as developed areas reviewed for temporary over concentration of drilling activities. While the communities identified are among the areas of concern, this list fails to account for public parkland and recreation areas. The CSD defines the term “developed areas” to include:
“Any lot or parcel of land containing any public park, house of worship, cemetery, school, parking lot, or any recreation area which has been developed and opened for public use.” (LAMC § 22.44.142C.)
The 2011 Drilling Plan should be revised to assess potential over concentration impacts on surrounding parks and public recreation areas.
Unresolved Status of Replacement Plant Flare.
At page 16, the 2011 Drilling Plan indicates that a gas buster and portable flare will be available for emergency use to burn off gas encountered during drilling operations. But the 2011 Drilling Plan fails to reveal the status of PXP’s application for the new gas plant flare required by the CSD. Section L5b of the CSD requires PXP to file an application to file an application with the SCAQMD for installation of a new flare that will be capable of handling the full volume of gas from the gas plant to avoid the vibration and low frequency ambient noise levels that disturbs surrounding communities. This provision of the CSD further requires PXP to “take all reasonable steps necessary to have such permit issued as promptly as possible.”
Indeed, on March 17, 2010, a vibration complaint (PXP Reference #0510) was logged, and PXP attributed this complaint to its operation of the gas plant flare: “After the investigation [the victim] was notified at 0906 that the flare was operating as a necessary safety device and the vibration would be eased as much as possible.”
Even now, two years after the CSD is approved, the application for the new flare has still not been approved. It is telling that PXP’s Vice President has previously expressed extreme cynicism about the AQMD’s permit processing system and delays. Enclosed is a printout of the following email exchange between Mr. Rusch and a former DOGGR employee dated February 7, 2006, that documents this attitude towards SCAQMD flare applications (the emails below concern a portable flare, not the replacement of the gas plant flare):
Rusch: “FYI, we had a few more complaints yesterday from same residential area concerning odors . . .”
DOGGR: “Hokey Dokey! . . . do they ever put odorizers on rigs?…”
Rusch: “It’s called a flare and we have an application in to AQMD to permit a portable one. We should have the permit in 3 years or so!”
DOGGR: “Yeah AQMD… supposedly they have sped up their permits… it should only take 2 ½ years!”
At this point, two years after adoption of the CSD, there is no evidence that anyone is making any tangible effort to advance this permit application for the gas plant replacement flare. It is our understanding from AQMD that, at this point, further “CEQA-related information” is still required of PXP in order to continue processing their application. PXP should be required to explain in detail the status of their application and any supplemental requests for information that have been received from SCAQMD and the status of PXP’s responses thereto. The unsatisfied requirement to replace the antiquated gas plant flare is important to the approval of the 2011 Drilling Plan because additional wells should not be added unless and until the gas plant is supported by a sufficient flare to handle the increased volume of gas processing that will be encountered as a result of expanded production. The 2011 Drilling Plan should not be approved until the new flare is installed and operational.
Inadequate Well Abandonment Rate.
The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (“CSD”) assumed a schedule of abandonment that is not being met. Furthermore, even the reduced level of abandonment that was projected in the 2010 plan has not been met.
Specifically, in 2010, only four wells were abandoned, while the EIR assumed 15 wells would be abandoned in year 2010 (FEIR Table 3.2 at p. 3-10) and the 2010 Drilling Plan stated that ten wells would be abandoned.
The 2011 Drilling Plan states once again that ten wells will be abandoned in year 2011. This is five fewer wells to be abandoned in year 2011 than had been projected in the EIR. (FEIR Table 3.2 at p. 3-10.) The EIR assumed that in the year 2011, fifteen wells would be abandoned. (Id.)
Unresolved Nonconforming Well Amortization Report.
Section L2f of the CSD requires PXP to develop a well amortization report that inventories the existing wells located within the mandatory setback areas. This report is required to include an amortization and abandonment schedule for such wells. The draft report is dated March 2009. (http://www.inglewoodoilfield.com/res/docs/pxp_well_amortization_report_032509.pdf) It identifies 131 wells that are nonconforming as to location. (PXP’s 2009 Well Amortization Report (Mar. 2009), pp. 4-6.) Of those, at least 26 were inactive. (Id. at 4.) Moreover, at least 31 of the nonconforming wells have exceeded the amortization dates reported to the SEC based on a third party accounting audit known as the 2008 Reserves Report prepared by Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. (Id. at pp. 3 & 4.)
PXP’s 2009 Well Amortization Report has never been approved by the County, and the 2011 Drilling Plan fails to provide an update concerning the status of these nonconforming wells existing in problematic locations. The County should mandate that PXP schedule the abandonment of, at a minimum, at least the 31 fully amortized wells including the 26 idle and fully amortized wells — as soon as feasible. The County should inform the Community Advisory Panel (“CAP”) of its intentions in this regard as well.
Uncertain Abandoned Well Testing.
Section E32 of the CSD requires PXP to conduct annual hydrocarbon vapor testing of areas within the oil field that contain abandoned wells. The CSD requires that the results of this testing be submitted to the County Planning Director. (LAMC § 22.44.142.E32.) There is no indication in the 2011 Drilling Plan whether this requirement has been satisfied. If those tests have been performed, then the results of those reports should be summarized in the 2011 Drilling Plan.
Inadequate Performance Security.
Section G5a of the CSD requires PXP to post a performance bond in the sum to be determined by the County CEO for the purposes of ensuring faithful performance of PXP’s duties related to “well abandoned, site restoration and environmental clean-up.” The County CEO has established an initial performance bond amount of $5 million. (In addition, the State through DOGGR has a well abandonment bond of only $1 million.)
This amount is inadequate. The 2011 Drilling Plan contemplates adding 45 new wells to an oil field that already has in excess of 450 wells. Contamination clean up of modest scope have regularly cost in excess of $500,000.
For example, there is a very small area near the top of Kenneth Hahn State Park where the Baldwin Hills Conservancy intends to install a play area. The Conservancy found that the soil in this area appeared to have oil field contamination, and they therefore had to investigate the site. Current estimates are that it will cost half a million dollars to remediate the area.
And approximately seven years ago, more than one million dollars from a variety of clean-up funds had to be spent to abandon three wells and remediate the surrounding area so that Culver City could build its skateboard park along Jefferson Boulevard.
Enclosed is a sample of recent articles demonstrating that government regularly underestimates the ramifications of oil contamination. For example, in an article entitled, “Analysis: BP’s spill clean-up now shifts to the lawyers,” published August 10, 2010, in Reuters, Tom Hais reported that the costs of the BP spill liability could exceed $20 billion, far exceeding anything the government had imagined when the drilling was authorized. Also enclosed is a printout of a newspaper article by Kimberly Kindy entitled, “Recovery effort falls vastly short of BP’s promises,” from The Washington Post, published July 6, 2010, reporting how futile the initial recovery efforts were in comparison with the cleanup capabilities promised in a prior report accepted by government officials when the drilling was authorized:
“In the 77 days since oil from the ruptured Deepwater Horizon began to gush into the Gulf of Mexico, BP has skimmed or burned about 60 percent of the amount it promised regulators it could remove in a single day . . .
* * *
“In a March [2010] report that was not questioned by federal officials, BP said it had the capacity to skim and remove 491,721 barrels of oil each day in the event of a major spill. “As of Monday [July 5, 2010], with about 2 million barrels released in the gulf, the skimming operations that were touted as key to preventing environmental disaster have averaged less than 900 barrels a day.”
Also enclosed is prepared testimony that was delivered on June 9, 2010, to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, by Kate Gordon, Vice President for the Center for American Progress Action Fund, entitled, “Liability and Financial Responsibility for Oil Spills under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Related Statutes.” She speaks of how underfunded the government legislation on liability for oil cleanup efforts is: “In its August 2009 report, the Coast Guard found that 51 spills or near-spills that had occurred since the OPA’s enactment [i.e., the Oil Pollution Act of 1990] had resulted in damages that exceeded statutory liability limits.” (Id. at p. 2.) She further lamented that “the [excess] costs are ultimately the responsibility of the taxpayers and communities affected, sometimes for decades . . . .” (Id. at p. 1.)
Failure to Show Good Faith Towards Implementation of Mia Lehrer Landscaping Plan.
Section L8 of the CSD requires PXP to install all landscaping called for by the approved landscaping plan within a two to five year period. It has now been two years since the CSD was approved, but very little progress has been made towards the implementation of the mandatory landscaping plan. The lack of landscaping exacerbates the adverse visual impact of the new drilling sites. No further drilling should be allowed until PXP shows substantially greater progress in implementing the long-promised landscaping.
Incomplete Oil Field Clean-up.
Section L14 of the CSD mandated removal of all unused or abandoned equipment within one year after approval of the oil field clean up and maintenance plan. PXp[‘s draft report is dated May 2009. (http://www.inglewoodoilfield.com/res/docs/PXP_equipment_removal.pdf) We are not aware of this having been satisfied. The 2011 Drilling Plan should not be approved until this removal is completed.
Lack of Accountability: No Apparent Noise and Vibration Monitoring.
Sections F5 and 6 of the CSD provides that the County Public Health Department shall retain an independent qualified acoustical engineer to monitor noise and vibration impacts of the Oil Field on the surrounding communities. Such monitoring is to be conducted without prior warning to PXP. The results of such monitoring must be promptly posted on the oil field website.
We are not aware of any such monitoring results although drilling was initiated in June 2010, as indicated on page 4 of the 2011 Drilling Plan. Further drilling should not be allowed until those results are released for public review.
Supervisor Ridley-Thomas’ Long-Standing Motion to Amend the CSD Remains Pending.
On August 4, 2009, Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas of the Second District initiated a successful motion unanimously passed by the County Board of Supervisors related to the CSD. The Supervisor’s Motion directed the Department of Regional Planning to initiate a study to consider amendments to the CSD “which include enhancements or modifications of regulations for the benefit of the community related to aesthetics, the intensity of drilling at the site and health impacts.”
The Supervisor’s Motion was based on remaining concerns “regarding potential health impacts, the aesthetics of the oil field, and the number of new, allowable wells.” According to the Supervisor’s Motion:
“While the regulations in the CSD may be a start in dealing with the impacts from oil field operations, in light of the continuing concerns raised by the community, a zoning ordinance that regulates the long-term use of oil extraction on this land should ensure that the County prioritizes protecting the health, safety and well-being of the community.”
In his August 4, 2009 motion, the Supervisor correctly suggested that the following CSD amendments be considered:
• Revising the number of new wells allowed per year and overall;
• Imposing controls regarding the abandonment of wells per year and over all;
• Consider establishing an end date for drilling;
• The possibility of undergrounding electrical service;
• The possibility of undergrounding all piping;
• Providing for additional visual screening or drilling and pumping activities;
• Providing for immediate restoration of vegetation and topography; and
• Ensuring the adequacy of the required health studies.
Since the motion was passed, the Supervisor convened a town hall on October 15, 2009, where further community input was received. It is not clear what next steps will be taken. The 2011 Drilling Plan should not be approved to the extent it may conflict with the goals and objectives of the Supervisor’s Motion.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
Enclosures
cc: Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas (w/ encls.)
Karly Katona (w/ encls.)
Elaine Lemke (w/ encls.)
David McNeill (w/ encls.)
John Kuechle (w/ encls.)
Damon Nagami (w/ encls.)
Lark Galloway Gilliam (w/ encls.)
Mark Salkin (w/ encls.)
9065/Cor/Freeman.2005.KLK
