Previously, ‘Kutcher Lists Six Adverse Impacts of PXP’s Oil Drilling Plan for Baldwin Hills’
July 15, 2009
VIA E-MAIL lfreeman@planning.lacounty.gov
Leon Freeman
Zoning Enforcement, Section I
County of Los Angeles
Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, California, 90012
Re: PXP's Revised 2009 Drilling Plan/CEQA
Dear Mr. Freeman:
This comment letter is submitted on behalf of the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance (“GBHA”), the Culver Crest Neighborhood Association (“CCNA”), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (“NRDC”).
The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Draft 2009 Drilling, Redrilling, Well Abandonment, and Well Pad Restoration Plan Inglewood Oil Field revised June 2009 (“2009 Drilling Plan”), prepared by Arup and prepared for Plains Exploration & Production Company (“PXP”). The 2009 Drilling Plan has been submitted pursuant to the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District (“CSD”) adopted on October 28, 2008, as Ordinance No. 2008-0057.
This letter incorporates by reference the comments previously submitted on April 6 and 23, 2009, including the County's obligation to satisfy CEQA in accordance with the holding of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Arcata Nat'l Corp., 59 Cal. App. 3d 959, 131 Cal. Rptr. 172 (1976) (state forester's review of individual timber harvesting plan required EIR even though the Forest Practice Act was a “comprehensive, self-contained regulatory system for the protection of the environment” and was the “functional equivalent” of CEQA). The Director's review of the 2009 Drilling Plan is unarguably discretionary, and therefore triggers CEQA.
Although the County certified an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) (SCH #2007061133) when it adopted the CSD, the EIR studied the development standards for the CSD, not a particular development. (FEIR at p. ES-1.) As the EIR expressly noted, “PXP has not applied for any of this future development, and it is unknown at this time what portion of this development might occur.” (Id.) See also FEIR at p. 1-4.)
No specific development plans by PXP were studied in the EIR. More specifically, the 2009 Annual Drilling Plan was not studied in the EIR. The 2009 Drilling Plan's locations, scheduling, depths, and drilling technology were all unknown at the time of the EIR.
IMPORTANCE OF COUNTY'S IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
We continue to be concerned about the fact that the County's preparation of a critically important Implementation Plan to implement the CSD and the EIR is lagging behind. In this regard, Section 22.44.142.L of the CSD provides:
“The subsection identifies the various implementation plans and other requirements for initial compliance with the CSD and the time frames therefore. Except as identified below, the provision of this section shall be complied with on the effective date of the ordinance establishing this CSD. As used in this subsection, 'effective date' shall mean 30 days after the board of supervisors adopts the ordinance establishing this CSD. As soon as possible after the effective date, the department of regional planning shall develop an overall implementation plan specifying the required contents or measures for each of the plans set forth below, including the inclusion of those appropriate mitigation measures indicated as necessary by the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Baldwin Hills Community Standards District to reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels in cases where impacts can be so reduced.” (Emphasis added.)
This includes an emergency response plan, odor minimization plan, air monitoring plan, fugitive dust control plan, erosion control plan, ground movement monitoring plan, drilling quiet mode plan, special status species and habitat protection plan, emergency response plan, construction treatment plan, landscaping plan, recycling plan, water management plan, groundwater quality monitoring program, unused or abandoned equipment removal plan, hazardous material business plan, and program for detecting and dealing with tank bottom leaks.
The CSD Implementation Plan is not yet prepared. Without the Implementation Plan, the County is not in a position to complete its review of PXP's plans, including the annual drilling plan, nor grant any permits because the mitigation measures required by the EIR are not yet in place.
NO DUTY TO ACT ON A “DRAFT” DRILLING PLAN
Moreover, PXP has not yet submitted a drilling plan to the County for action. Thus far, PXP has only submitted a draft 2009 Drilling Plan. The plan being circulated for review contains the word “draft” prominently printed in large type across the face of every page. Until PXP submits a proposed 2009 Drilling Plan, the County has no duty to act on the 2009 Drilling Plan.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS
The 2009 Drilling Plan must satisfy ten review criteria as specified in Section 22.44.142.E.26.c. The Plan as submitted falls short of complying with these criteria.
i. Maximum Number Of Wells.
The annual plan may not exceed the maximum number of wells allowed. Section 22.44.142.H.1 provides that a maximum of 24 wells may be drilled in 2009:
“[D]uring the first year following the effective date of the ordinance establishing this section, new drilling and redrilling shall be limited to no more than 24 wells.”
PXP's 2009 Drilling Plan identifies 40 proposed wells: 24 wells and 16 “alternates.” The County is prohibited from approving 40 wells in year 2009. The County may approve no more than 24 wells.
Moreover, according to PXP's 2009 Drilling Plan, the earliest it can start drilling is August 15. The maximum of 24 wells was for 12 calendar months. This would allow the impacts of the drilling to be staggered to provide the neighbors of the oil field with respite. PXP is now down to just 4.5 months. The maximum of 24 wells must be prorated, yielding a maximum of nine wells for the remainder of the year.
Of the 40 potential well sites listed in PXP's drilling plan, the County should pick the best nine locations for new wells that may be drilled between August 15 and December 31, 2009.
The proposed drilling and redrilling schedule shown as Schedule 1 makes no sense. Page 3 of the Plan states, “A drilling (and redrilling) schedule was developed utilizing two drilling rigs on the field simultaneously for the 2009 Plan year.” (2009 Drilling Plan, p. 3.) But the schedule shows Rig #2 drilling the first and second wells (the same rig cannot drill both wells “simultaneously”) and then Rig #1 will drill the third well, and then the fifth well, and then the fourth well. None of this makes any sense. (2009 Drilling Plan, p. 5.)
ii. Approximate Location.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.ii of the CSD requires PXP to specify the approximate location of all wells proposed to be drilled or redrilled.
Section 22.44.142.E.2.n specifies that wells must be set back at least 400 feet from developed areas and 20 feet from public roadways:
“The following setbacks shall apply within the oil field for drilling or redrilling:
“i. At least 400 feet from developed areas.
“ii. At least 20 feet from any public road way.”
Furthermore, Section 22.44.142.C defines the term “developed area” as follows:
“a. Any lot or parcel of land containing any residential, commercial, industrial, or office structure, or used for residential, commercial, industrial, or office purposes (provided that no lot or parcel of land on the oil field shall be considered to be developed area solely because of the presence thereon of the Cone Trust House or of a structure used by any operator for administrative functions associated with the oil field);
“b. 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.”
Compliance with these restrictions cannot be made from the low resolution map depicting the entire oil field. Individual maps showing the radius around each proposed drilling site must be supplied by PXP to demonstrate full compliance with these restrictions.
PXP still has not demonstrated compliance with this restriction in its 2009 Drilling Plan.
Furthermore, because PXP's draft landscaping plan proposes no landscaping in the vicinity of Culver Crest and the “Viewshed Area,” no new drilling should be allowed in this sensitive area.
iii. Information Concerning New Well Pads.
The 2009 Drilling Plan incorrectly states, “A pad required for drilling a new well is typically 110' X 235' . . . One proposed new drilling pad for the 2009 Plan will be larger than the typical pad.” (2009 Drilling Plan, p. 8 (emphasis added).) However, Table 2 identifies three new pads that exceed the typical drilling pad dimensions. This needs to be corrected.
The 2009 Drilling Plan also states without explanation: “A paleontological monitor will be present for well pad grading if the proposed grading occurs in paleontologically sensitive areas.” (2009 Drilling Plan, p. 8.) When and who will determine this if it is not determined at this stage? This is one of the areas where CEQA is triggered by the 2009 Drilling Plan.
iv. Estimated Depths Of Proposed Wells.
No comment.
v. Efforts To Minimize Impacts
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.v is the most discretionary aspect of the annual drill plan review. It requires the plan to include a discussion of the steps that have been taken to:
• maximize use of existing well pads,
• maximize use of redrilled wells, and
• maximize the consolidation of wells.
A trained professional needs to evaluate this matter on behalf of the County.
Furthermore, it is not possible to evaluate this criteria without a map that overlays the existing, abandoned and idle wells with the proposed wells.
This analysis should also include an identification and quantification of the “good producers” and the “poor producers.”
Furthermore, PXP's analysis appears to assume that consolidation is achieved solely through reuse of redrills or use of existing pads.
However, another component of consolidation is the removal of wells from more problematic locations, location of new well and well pads within less problematic areas of the field, the versatility of some drilling sites over others, and the location of adjacent uses in relation to the proposed wells. This analysis should also show the potential ability or impediments to accessing the targeted reserves from the least problematic areas of the field.
vi. Well Abandonments.
PXP has identified only five locations for well abandonments. The EIR projected that 15 wells would have been abandoned in year 2008 and another 15 in year 2009.
PXP should be required to explain the reasons for this significant and critical discrepancy. Existing wells did not suddenly become better producers simply because new wells were not drilled.
vii. Pad Abandonments.
This is linked to the lack of sufficient well abandonments.
viii. Schedule.
See comments above regarding scheduling and proration of the 24 wells over 12 calendar months (i.e., two new drilling sites per month, not 5 1/3 new drilling sites per month — which is almost triple the number).
ix. Technological Advances.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.ix of the CSD requires PXP to provide:
“A discussion of the latest equipment and techniques that are proposed for use as part of the drilling program to reduce environmental impacts.”
We are pleased that PXP is committed to using a gas buster and portable flare with approval of the SCAQMD. What is the status of those required AQMD applications? We urge a discussion of the feasibility of using electrical or hybrid drilling engines and the technological prospects for using such engines at some point in the not-too-distant future.
This discussion must include recognition of the important noise and vibration restrictions contained in Section 22.44.142.E.5. They are very important to the neighbors and are required by the EIR. The operator should be required to describe what specific measures will be implemented during drilling operations to ensure compliance with these noise and vibration restrictions.
The same concerns must be addressed as to lighting.
x. Topographical Vertical Profile Drawings.
Section 22.44.142.E.26.c.ix of the CSD requires PXP to provide:
“A topographic vertical profile showing proposed location of new wells that reflects local terrain conditions and that addresses the potential visibility of existing and proposed wells and other production facilities from residential and recreation areas.
PXP has not provided vertical profile drawings of the targeted wells. PXP has instead provided a horizontal topographical view. (2009 Drilling Plan, Attachments 2 through 30.)
PXP is required to provide vertical profiles of each proposed well site.
Furthermore, because PXP's draft landscaping plan proposes no landscaping in the vicinity of Culver Crest and the “Viewshed Area,” no new drilling should be allowed in this sensitive area.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the County should reject the 2009 Drilling Plan as submitted and pursuant to 22.44.142.E.26.c, the County should “provide the operator with a list of deficiencies” as described above.
Finally, the County should prepare a focused EIR on the 2009 Drilling Plan when it is resubmitted.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss any of the concerns set forth above.
Very truly yours,
Kenneth L. Kutcher
cc: Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas
Elaine Lemke
Jon Sanabria
Pat Hachiya
Russell Fricano
Susana Franco-Rogan
Karly Katona
Cynthia Dunne Traxler
Regional Planning Commission
Mr.Kutcher may be contacted at kutcher@hlmlaw.com
