[Editor’s Note: We bring this version of last night’s City Council meeting as a service to our readers. Ms. Mulkern is a reporter for Environment & Energy Publishing (E&E), self-described as “the leading source for comprehensive, daily coverage of environmental and energy policy and markets. E&E's five daily online publications are considered must-reads by people who track and influence energy, environmental and climate policy. (Click here for a description of each news service.) A high-tech business with an old-school approach to journalism, E&E's 65-person award-winning editorial team is among the best in the business, enjoying unrivaled access to key players in energy and environmental policy.” E & E seeks to daily develop insightful, balanced, timely stories readers won't find anywhere else.]
A suburban Los Angeles city last night took a significant step toward blocking unconventional oil drilling, making it the third in recent weeks to make such a move.
The City Council in Culver City, 10 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, in a 5-0 vote directed aides to come back with language for a moratorium on oil drilling that uses hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” gravel packing or acidization.
At the same time, the Council said that it wanted to monitor developments in Los Angeles, where a majority of the City Council last month indicated it wanted to ban fracking. That Council in a 10-0 vote (with five members abstaining) instructed staff to develop an ordinance that would “prohibit activity associated with well stimulation and hydraulic fracturing in the City of Los Angeles until safety and reliability of Los Angeles water supplies are assured” (E&ENews PM, Feb. 28). The Los Angeles city attorney's office is still drafting that measure.
Culver City said it would review and compare moratorium language that its aides developed with the one in Los Angeles, if a measure ultimately advances to that City Council. Wording changes in the Culver City ordinance could then be made if needed, the Council members said.
But Culver City indicated that it wanted to go forward even if Los Angeles ultimately does not pass a moratorium.
“We've already seen the effects of oil drilling,” Vice Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells said, with residents advising the Council about health issues and property damages. “It's hard to hear that,” she said. “But it makes the decision to do the right thing easier.”
About 100 acres, or 10 percent, of the Inglewood Oil Field, often described as the largest urban oil field in the country, sits partly within Culver City. The remainder is within Los Angeles County. Ms. Sahli-Wells said that one million people live within five miles of that oil field and that it also sits on three major earthquake fault lines and near a watershed that goes to the Santa Monica Bay and the Pacific Ocean.
“This is a big deal for this city,” she said. “There's no denying it.”
Culver City's move took place less than a week after Carson, 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, passed a 45-day moratorium on new oil and gas drilling. That measure can be extended for up to two years. Occidental Petroleum had sought to dig about 200 new wells in the Dominguez field there. Oxy, as the company is known, said in a statement that it planned to move forward with the environmental review on the project.
No oil and gas industry representatives spoke during public comments at the meeting, and none could be reached after the City Council's 11 p.m. vote. Rock Zierman, CEO of the California Independent Petroleum Asson., in an interview last week said that some cities are reacting to hysteria. Moratoriums are expanding in reach because “what used to be a fracking debate has morphed into all oil and gas operations,” he said.
Moratorium on new wells
There are currently 26 active wells in the Culver City portion of the Inglewood Oil Field, city aides said. The moratorium likely would affect new wells or applications to deepen or alter existing wells.
City Atty. Carol Schwab told the Council that expanding it beyond that “would be more difficult.” Councilman Jim Clarke asked Ms. Schwab about the Los Angeles moratorium, and she said that it would be on new wells.
“Whatever wells that currently exist have been drilled how ever they've been drilled, whether it's gravel packing or conventional drilling,” she said. “It's going forward what kind of techniques will be used.”
Culver City's Council wrestled for about an hour with how to frame the motion that ultimately passed. Ms. Sahli-Wells had first offered one that simply asked staff to come back with a moratorium ordinance. But Mayor Jeff Cooper said he felt more comfortable letting Los Angeles act first.
“What motivated me was the city of L.A., and seeing them finally take this step forward,” Mr. Cooper said.
He said he envisioned teaming with Los Angeles, “and to some extent the city of Carson,” but also getting nearby Inglewood “hopefully on board at some point, and really just sort of the wagons circling together.” He noted that those cities sit along the Inglewood Oil Field.
Other Council members agreed it would be good to see how Los Angeles progresses. Culver City Councilman Mehaul O'Leary noted that the larger city has more financial resources.
But Ms. Sahli-Wells said it wouldn't be a good decision to use Los Angeles's language if the city were then sued and lost in court.
“It's incredibly important, and we all know this, that the language is defensible,” she said. “We need to take the time that it takes to get the strongest language possible.”
More than a dozen people — including three who identified themselves as physicians — spoke at the meeting, urging the City Council to pass a moratorium.
“Most of us here are well aware of the serious risks of fracking to the health and safety of our communities,” the cleanliness of air and water, “and sustainability of our natural resources,” said David Haake, vice chairman of the Sierra Club's Los Angeles chapter. He said that in the 25 years he lived in Culver City, he had two spouses die of cancer.
“I don't know what caused their cancers,” Mr. Haake said. “However, if there is a chance that fracking increases our exposure to cancer-causing materials, we owe it to ourselves and our families to prevent pollution of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the soil and ground upon which we live.”
