This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Rally to Ban Fracking in California

Drilling companies want to frack and acidize the CA Monterey Shale formation. Strong opposition has arisen due to its impact on pollution, quakes, the water supply, local physical and social infrastructures, and global warming.

The fossil fuel industry is eager to exploit California’s Monterey Shale formation, which covers 1,750 square miles of central and southern California and contains roughly 64% of the total recoverable shale oil in the USA.   Deposits like the Monterey Shale have such low permeability that they can’t be exploited using conventional methods.  Specialized drilling techniques like the fracking and acidizing of horizontal wells were designed to extract these so-called “unconventional resources.” In modern multi-fracking techniques, water, sand, and chemicals are injected at high pressure and in stages into horizontal wells, fracturing the rock and releasing any oil and gas that is present.[1]  California Senate Bill 4 (SB 4) is the first effort in California to regulate fracking; it was written by Sen. Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills) and signed into law by Gov. Brown on September 20, 2013.  The California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is the agency in charge of implementing SB 4.   The division held a hearing at Cal State, Long Beach at 3pm on Monday, January 6, 2014 to solicit public feedback.  

Approximately 30 concerned residents rallied before the DOGGR hearing to demand a ban on fracking and to make statements at the hearing.   Fracking is associated with innumerable incidents of groundwater pollution [2], the setting off of seismic activity through wastewater injection [3], and earth shifts and subsidence [4].  Each fracking operation requires up to 6 million gallons of water, straining water supplies.  Fracking also has consequences for global warming.  First, 11% more oil and 47% more gas reserves can be recovered than by the use of conventional techniques alone [5].  Burning this additional fossil fuel will add more CO2 to the atmosphere and increase global warming.   Second, methane escapes in larger amounts from fracked wells compared to conventional wells [6].  Methane has 34 times the global-warming potential (GWP) over 100 years and 86 times the GWP over a 20-year time frame [7] than CO2.

Rally sponsors included Food and Water Watch, the Sierra Club, the Beach Cities Democratic Club, and 350.org.    Speakers included residents of Long Beach, Culver City, and Carson who reported on problems their neighborhoods have experienced due to fracking.  Other speakers included Dency Nelson, Vice President of the Beach Cities Democratic Club, Alex Nagy of Food & Water Watch, Dr. C. Tom Williams from the Sierra Club, Joe Galliani from South Bay 350.org, and Siena, a wonderful young San Diego resident.

Find out what's happening in Redondo Beachwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

At the hearing that immediately followed the rally, there appeared to be no domain experts or decision makers from DOGGR present to hear or respond to oral comments.  There was also no information presented by DOGGR at the hearing, although written materials were available at the entrance.  The hearing therefore did not offer a chance for meaningful two-way communication between the regulating agency and the public.  A DOGGR Public Relations employee staffed the entrance table, a staff member managed the hearing, and a typist-recorder wrote down the public comments. Many audience members submitted requests to speak, while others submitted written comments.  All public input, whether oral or written, receives equal weight, according to DOGGR.   It appears that all the oral comments will be “heard” by DOGGR only in written form, in any case.

When the hearing started at 3pm there were approximately 40 people in the sparsely populated auditorium.  Reasons for the relatively low turnout include the timing of the hearing during work hours plus a lack of outreach by the division.  One rally speaker observed that DOGGR had not scheduled hearings at locations in LA where large crowds appeared at previous hearings, such as Culver City in 2012. 

Find out what's happening in Redondo Beachwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Many audience members commented on SB 4.  One example was the testimony of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which pointed out that there are several boundaries or limits in the proposed rules that are arbitrary and unsupported by scientific evidence.   For example, if the concentration of acid used during acid treatment is below 7%, the operation will not be classified as a well stimulation treatment and won’t be regulated, if fracking chemicals penetrate beyond the wellbore no more than 36” the operation is not considered to be a well stimulation treatment and will not be regulated, and “underground injection projects” will not be regulated by SB 4.[8]  Underground injection is how wastewater from fracking[9] is disposed of and it is this stage of fracking operations that is responsible for setting off earthquakes. 

There was press coverage of the rally.  CBS LA’s report stated, “[Opposition] groups claim [SB 4] will simply encourage unregulated fracking through 2015 and violates ‘the will of the majority of Californians who want a ban on fracking.’ … 53 percent of likely voters are against the expansion of fracking in the state. …Fracking sites have been established in the cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Carson, Culver City, Baldwin Hills, Brea, Huntington Beach and Seal Beach.”  Press-Telegram reported that “DOGGR claims that ‘In California, hydraulic fracturing has been used as a production stimulation method for more than 30 years with no reported damage to the environment…[but] to date, the Division is aware of very little, if any, fracturing of horizontal shale gas wells in California of the type performed in other parts of the United States.  Most of California’s oil and gas production to date has been from vertical wells into traditional oil and natural gas reservoirs.’”   

KTLA’s broadcast unfortunately gave the last word to an industry spokesman’s claim that fracking is not harmful, since it has been going on for 60 years, and “if there were environmental harm caused by it we would know about it.”  First, this statement is deceptive because early forms of fracking were less extensive and performed on vertical conventional wells.[10]   Second, it is deceptive because operators do know about environmental harm but keep mum, and by claiming proprietary rights they hinder independent investigation.  For example, the LA Department of Water & Power has stated “because the well operators are not required to disclose the chemicals used in fracking, other operations and injections, it therefore does not know all the chemicals for which DWP should be testing the City's water supplies.”[11] 

Governor Jerry Brown’s position on oil and gas exploration and fracking in California

A primary rally theme was explained by Alex Nagy of Food & Water Watch, “We’re having a funeral for Gov. Brown’s green legacy, because he’s not the governor he says he is.”  Does Governor Moonbeam, our erstwhile “idealistic and nontraditional” leader,[12] support multinational fossil fuel corporations against the interests of Californians and the environment?  Absolutely.  As Exxon Mobil pointed out proudly on their website, “Not long after taking office, Governor Jerry Brown felt compelled to remove two state officials who had been rejecting the vast majority of applications for drilling permits in California. He replaced them with regulators not instinctively hostile to oil and gas production.”

As recounted by San Francisco Chronicle reporter David Baker, “Speaking at a panel discussion on fracking, the head of California’s Department of Conservation, Mark Nechodom, said … ‘I can probably save us [my allotted time to speak of] five minutes…Gov. Brown supports hydraulic fracturing.’ He then stopped talking, letting his statement sink in with the audience.”  Press-Telegram reported, “In October, Brown said he saw no contradiction in calling climate change ‘the world’s greatest existential challenge’ while refusing to impose a moratorium on fracking.  ‘I signed legislation that will create the most comprehensive environmental analysis of fracking to date,’ Brown said. ‘It will take a year, year and a half, maybe a little longer.’ ”

The oil and gas industry plans a Golden Future in California

The source of Governor Brown’s enthusiasm for unconventional oil and gas exploitation is that California contains “64% of the total recoverable shale oil in the USA (15.4 billion barrels)…[so] the state could soon become the center of the unconventional oil and gas industry in America.”[13]  The Monterey Shale formation extends from about Modesto to Bakersfield at an average depth of 11,000 feet, being most concentrated in Kern County.[14]  Exxon Mobil claims “opening up the Monterey Shale field to full-scale production could provide overall economic benefits to the state [of California] of $1 trillion. …One can only imagine the impact on California’s education system, social programs, infrastructure, and even energy-tech R&D…Sacramento tax collections could wipe out debt and deficits.”[15]   The fossil fuel industry touts US energy security, jobs, and tax revenue as reasons to support unconventional fossil fuel extraction, but their eyes are primarily on expected profits from energy export.  As Exxon-Mobil observed, “The United States is now on track to becoming… a major energy exporter.”[16] Natural gas prices in Europe and Asia are substantially higher than prices in the US.[17]

This expectation has raised a tidal wave of influence.    The oil industry lobby, now the biggest in California, has spent an estimated $45.4 million in the state since 2009.  The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) alone spent $2,308,790 on lobbying in Sacramento in the first half of 2013, not including the amounts spent by oil companies themselves.  The American Lung Association states the facts plainly: “Just as tobacco companies pour millions into lobbying and public relations to deflect attention away from the dangerous health impacts of smoking, oil companies are investing a fortune on lobbying to undermine clean air policies and protect the market for their polluting products.”[18]    

Because of this influence, Senate Bill 4 was the only undefeated bill of several that were written to regulate or ban fracking, and it passed only after being eviscerated by industry-approved amendments.  For this reason, more than 100 environmental groups signed a letter in 2013 demanding that Governor Jerry Brown refuse to sign SB 4 and immediately impose a moratorium on fracking in California.

Senate Bill 4


In addition to fracking, SB 4 is intended to regulate acidizing, an unconventional well-stimulation technique that is far more common than fracking in California.  Because tectonic activity has folded and fractured California shale deposits and filled the fractures with dense sediment, acidizing is often more effective than fracking.  To illustrate, South Coast Air Quality Management District[19] event reports during a recent 3-month period are 62% acidizing, 34% gravel packing, and only 4% fracking operations.  Occidental Petroleum Corp, a leading Monterey shale developer, has said that only a sixth of its California wells are fracked and the rest undergo acidizing.   "All this anti-fracking language misses the target and I am very concerned it is a diversion," said Steve Shimek, of environmental group Monterey Coastkeeper. [20]  

Acid treatment uses powerful acids to open pores in the deposit, either at pressures below fracture pressure, termed "matrix acidizing," or above fracture pressure, called "fracture acidizing."[21]  Acidizing uses less water than fracking.   But one of the acids employed, hydrofluoric (HF), corrodes glass, steel and rock,[22] is extremely toxic, and is one of the most dangerous chemicals in industrial use.[23],[24]  To supply drilling needs, HF acid is shipped around the state and stored and mixed at well sites.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warns that exposure to high levels of HF acid can occur if storage facilities or containers are damaged and the chemical is released due to natural disasters, accidents, or if HF acid “is used as a chemical terrorism agent.”[25]  California activists must begin to place as much attention on acidizing as on fracking. 

France, Bulgaria, Romania, South Africa, Germany, Ireland, Hawaii, Vermont, New York, Mora County, and cities in Texas, Pennsylvania, and New Mexico have imposed bans or moratoriums on fracking.   But under SB 4, well stimulation activities will proceed with little oversight or regulation until an “independent scientific study” on well stimulation treatments is completed, based on which final regulations will be put in place on January 1, 2015. Environmentalists have reasons to be concerned.  It is reckless to allow fracking until the study is complete. Experts are already aware of many features that cause environmental harm; a moratorium or strict regulations should be imposed now.  Also it is unclear how independent, scientific, or thorough the study will be in light of industry influence.  After all, it was California that appointed an oil industry lobbyist to oversee a project designed to protect the oceans, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative.[26]  Furthermore, in 2013 even the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was forced by industry and political pressure to “systematically [disengage] from any research that could be perceived as questioning the safety of fracking or oil drilling.”[27]

The only environment that the fossil fuel industry cares about is the regulatory environment.  As the Conference for Tight Reservoirs California, 2013, points out, “California's unique regulatory environment…needs to be addressed and resolved to ensure unconventional operations can go ahead as planned… The presence of regulators [at the conference] will allow for improved relations and communication between oil companies and regulatory bodies in order to enable them to work together in pursuit of smoother operations.”[28]  Exxon Mobil is optimistic because an “initial draft [of SB 4 rules] suggests a desire by California officials to allow safe, responsible energy development from unconventional oil and gas sources like shale, rather than using regulatory processes to stifle such development.” [29]  It helps that DOGGR is “an agency that has had a cozy relationship with the oil industry for nearly 100 years,” according to Bill Allayaud of the Environmental Working Group.[30]  And in fact, California politicians and officials are largely on-board with the pro-drilling mandate. 

There has long been a nationwide mandate to prevent environmental rules from interfering with oil and gas drilling.  For example, in 1988 the EPA declared any substance that resulted from oil or gas well operations as “non-hazardous,” regardless of chemical makeup.  Regulations for hazardous waste injection wells are much stricter than for oil and gas wells.  Drilling waste is typically referred to as “saltwater” by inspectors and operators, even though up to 70% would be classified as toxic if it didn’t come from an oil or gas field.[31]  

The federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts gas drilling from the Safe Drinking Water Act’s injection control program.  Other exemptions for drilling are present in the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.  In states next to the Great Lakes, fracking has also been exempted from state water use regulations.[32]  Similarly, the California Environmental Quality Act requires that if an environmental impact report identifies adverse environmental impacts, it must present mitigating measures or alternatives that fulfill most of the developer’s basic project objectives.   In these ways environmental regulations are sapped of any ability to “stifle” development.  Herein lies the rub, because the Monterey Shale can be developed only with unconventional extraction technologies, such as fracking and acidizing.  There is no environmentally safe alternative that will meet basic project objectives.

Beyond Senate Bill 4

Why unconventional well stimulation methods like fracking and acidizing should be banned

There are many reasons that technologies like fracking and acidizing can and will result in environmental damage, even if policed by the best possible SB 4 regulations.  This reality provides motivation for the effort to ban fracking and to an expanded effort to ban acidizing and other unconventional extraction methods. 

There are several environmentally harmful aspects of fracking and acidizing that are fundamental to the process and cannot be eliminated or regulated away.  

(a) It was estimated in 2010 that burning all proven fossil fuel reserves (i.e., extractable by then-current technologies) would release five times more CO2 than we could add to the atmosphere and still keep global warming less than 2° C. [33]   But since that estimate was made, unconventional technologies now enable significantly more oil and gas deposits to be extracted, increasing “proven” reserves.[34],[35]  Climate scientist James Hansen recently estimated that burning all fossil fuel reserves would warm land areas an average of 36°F, making “most of the planet uninhabitable by humans.”[36]   

(b) Between 4 and 6 million gallons of water are used every time a gas or oil well is fracked, and California is a drought-prone state.  

(c) Fracking creates vast amounts of wastewater, which is disposed of in deep injection wells.  This injection is known to cause earthquakes, even in locations that have had no known past quakes.  More than 300 earthquakes above magnitude 3.0 occurred in the US from 2010-2012, compared with an average rate of 21 events per year from 1967-2000.[37]  There can be long delays between the time of injection and the onset of seismicity, so we cannot know the effects injections will have until long after.  Furthermore, injection-enabled earthquakes can be triggered by naturally occurring earthquakes, even from areas far from the injection well.[38]  We know that California is susceptible both to natural and injection-induced earthquakes, a potentially deadly combination.[39] 

(d) Acidizing must use powerful and dangerous chemicals such as hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid, requiring high-risk acid transport and storage around the state, and injection disposal deep in the ground.  

Current best practices and state-of-the-art technologies are inadequate to prevent drilling leaks, spills, and toxic chemical migration, even if followed to the letter and policed by stiff regulations.  Technological breakthroughs would be needed to do better:  

(a) Wellbore cement failures and casing leaks are inevitable; (b) cement modeling and leak & failure detection are inadequate; (c) repair is difficult and expensive; these first three problems are active areas of research. [40],[41]   

(d) Fracking produces greater methane leakage than conventional drilling, because the wells are larger, take more time to drill, require more venting, and produce more flowback waste.[42]  A 2011 study led by Prof R. W. Howarth of Cornell found that “3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well,” 30-100% more than for conventional gas.[43]   

The EPA’s 2009 estimate of methane leakage was 2.4% of gross U.S. natural gas production [44]; but in April 2013 they reduced this estimate.  Then a study published in October 2013 by 15 scientists led by Harvard Prof. S. M. Miller found that “greenhouse gas emissions from … fossil fuel extraction and processing … are likely a factor of two or greater than cited in existing studies… These results cast doubt on the US EPA’s recent decision to downscale its estimate of national natural gas emissions by 25–30%.”[45] 

CIRES and NOAA scientists recently measured methane emission over the Uintah Basin and showed that the natural gas field can leak 6-12% of its gas production.[46]  In fact, a 2012 study by Prof S. W. Pacala of Princeton calculated that because of methane leaks, the conversion from gasoline to natural gas vehicles leads to greater radiative forcing of the climate.[47]  

Regulation that enforces the use of superior techniques, such as reduced emission completions, can reduce but not eliminate methane leakage.[48]  And given that methane has 86 times the global-warming potential of CO2 over a 20-year time frame, better well-site practices are inadequate remedies.   In addition to global warming hazards, methane poses a danger of explosion even at low levels.  The California Public Resources Code states that "methane gas hazards ... are a clear and present threat to public health and safety" and that "due to the cost and complexity of methane hazard mitigations, property owners and local governments are often unable to mitigate these hazards."[49]

The California shale deposits present extreme technical challenges and uncertainties: environmental damage is sure to occur as a consequence of on-site experimentation and cost optimization.  The oil and gas industry is in uncharted waters.  One oil producer claims that “the oil has migrated out of the formation and is now found in pockets outside of the Monterey shale,” making it uneconomical to develop.[50]  Nevertheless, other operators are rushing in, lured by the possibility of large profits.   At the very least, “The Monterey shale is a challenging proposition. Bestowed with geological properties both unique and perplexing… the key to exploiting the formation to its full potential is yet to be found. … How will the rocks respond to fraccing [sic]? Should they be acidized? Is a combination of both most effective? …Californian shales are not uniform. Some areas will react differently to others and choosing the right, or wrong, strategy can have a huge impact.”[51] 

Well operators will experiment with variations and optimizations in a quest to extract the most oil and gas at the lowest cost as quickly as possible.  Extreme measures might be taken if initial efforts fail.  It will be difficult to write SB 4 regulations that adequately anticipate techniques that will emerge over time as a result of this experimentation.

Beyond bans on drilling technologies 

Bans and moratoriums on unconventional drilling technologies like fracking are useful but not sufficient to keep 80% of fossil fuel reserves in the ground, which is required to limit global warming.  There are, of course, enormous reserves of conventional oil and gas that can be extracted without fracking.   Other tactics must be pursued without delay, and one of the most promising is EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.[52]  The EPA has the obligation to regulate or limit the emissions of CO2 and other potent greenhouse gases, and no congressional action is required.  But the EPA has been slow to act, just this year releasing its first rule limiting carbon emissions from new power plants.  It should be a top priority to pressure the government to enforce additional rules capping CO2 emissions.

 Alongside this, we need tactics that promote rapid large-scale implementation of clean energy.  One of the most actionable and effective is the Big Green Buy.[53]   This campaign would seek to reorient new government procurement at all levels, city to federal, away from fossil fuel toward renewable energy and green technologies that promote energy efficiency, water conservation, recyclability, etc.  Large non-government institutions would be included in the demand to buy green in all new procurements.  Every success of this campaign, small or large, would have immediate positive effect, reducing carbon emissions and increasing the production of green technologies.  

Other promising tactics to promote clean energy are renewable energy co-ops [54],   the imposition of aggressive requirements on electric utilities to provide renewable energy, municipalizing those that resist (as Boulder, CO is doing [55]), and enhanced support for rooftop solar subsidies, net energy metering, and possibly feed-in-tariffs.  

This small but daunting set of near-term objectives is just a beginning.  How can these be accomplished?  At the anti-fracking rally one observer asked in desperation, if Gov. Brown supports drilling, “which politicians can I rely on?  Who can I put my trust in?”  Rally speakers weakly suggested a couple of Democratic politicians.   But environmentalists are beginning to realize that the real answer to this question is “No one.”  Activists must put more energy into mass organizing and stop relying on  small coalition electoral politics and market solutions.  As hard as that effort will be, there are no short cuts. 

This new strategy will require that environmentalists address issues that are not “environmental” in the narrow sense.  For example, how will high unemployment affect our ability to enlist Californians in a battle to stop fracking, when the shale oil boom promises jobs and prosperity?   Our economic system demands unlimited growth forever; is that sustainable, even with “green” products?  Environmental problems share common roots with most economic and political struggles we face today.  If we connect the dots and build solidarity, we will gain strength in numbers and develop a better understanding of what is to be done.  Only a broad and mass movement using a wide range of tactics, including direct action and civil disobedience, can force politicians and industry, sympathetic or not, to implement the near-term changes we need to slow down global warming and buy time to develop long-term solutions.  

___________________________________________________


[1] The oil extracted is termed tight oil or light, tight oil, although it is often called shale oil.  Tight oil is light crude that resembles conventional oil and is processed similarly.  It should not be confused with kerogen or oil-shale oil that is produced from oil sands or tar sands sources, and is often called shale oil.

[2] http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?