So hydraulic fracking is occurring in the SCV?

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

The Signal avoids using that word in its Page 1 above the fold story, but if the description of expanding natural gas production & storage on land north of Newhall Ranch Road isn’t fracking, then I don’t know what is:

Over the next three years, the gas company wants to boost production and storage of natural gas from about 2,000 barrels daily on a good day to “4,500 barrels per day on a continuous basis for several years,” state documents said.

It also operates two existing brine-injection wells, which are wells of water saturated with sodium chloride, or salt.

Farming communities in Ohio have voiced concerns over salty water from brine-injection wells seeping into their farmland.

So what is hydraulic fracking? This YouTube video does a better job explaining it than Wikipedia:

An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.

So now that we know that it is happening in the SCV, I have some questions. For starters, am I crazy to question the injection of salty brine into our ground when we already have a problem with salty chloride in this valley? And, if the Signal report is accurate, how come it took over a year for us to learn about hydraulic fracking in North Valencia? The first time we heard of this was in a frackin’ letter to the editor last week! Is the City aware of this, and if so, when did it become aware of this? It’s happening just north of a brand-spanking new Cross Valley Connector segment. How about Cameron Smyth, Sharon Runner, or Buck McKeon? Do their offices know about this? Usually our local politicians boast proudly whenever new industry or activity occurs in the SCV, but they’ve been silent as the Gas Company expands its operations.

Stepping back from the SCV & Sempra for a moment, this whole fracking business makes a lot of people nervous. ProPublica, a non-profit journalism firm, has reported on it for years and has entire section of their site devoted to news about fracking. Where to start? How about what we don’t know about fracking:

Drilling companies assert that the destructive forces unleashed by the fracturing process, including the sometimes toxic chemicals that keep the liquid flowing, remain safely sealed as much as a mile or more beneath the earth, far below drinking water sources and the rest of the natural environment.

[But] it remains unclear how far the tiny fissures that radiate through the bedrock from hydraulic fracturing might reach, or whether they can connect underground passageways or open cracks into groundwater aquifers that could allow the chemical solution to escape into drinking water. It is not certain that the chemicals – some, such as benzene, that are known to cause cancer – are adequately contained by either the well structure beneath the earth or by the people, pipelines and trucks that handle it on the surface. And it is unclear how the voluminous waste the process creates can be disposed of safely.

“This is a field where there is almost no research,” said Geoffrey Thyne, a former professor at the Colorado School of Mines and an environmental engineering consultant for local government officials in Colorado. “It is very much an emerging problem.”

Emerging problem indeed. This year, a documentary titled “Gasland” got nominated for best documentary picture at the Oscars. Gasland showed how residents of Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania had been negatively impacted by fracking. In one memorable scene, a resident of an area near a fracking well turned on his water faucet and lit his water on fire with a cigarette lighter.

And earlier this year in Arkansas, officials acknowledged that hydraulic fracking could be responsible in part for a scary earthquake swarm -including the largest quake in Arkansas in years- that hit the state.

Fracking in California, however, hasn’t received as much attention until recently. Last week, a bill requiring energy companies to release information on the chemicals used in the fracking process passed and is set to move on to the state’s Environmental Quality committee. In its report on the bill, the LA Times sheds some light on why there is fracking happening in our neck of the woods. It turns out there’s a gigantic oil formation called the Monterey Shale Formation which stretches from Stanislaus County all the way to northern LA County.

I expect we’ll hear more about this in the days and weeks to come. The SCV may have a rich petroleum history but that doesn’t mean its residents are going to let this occur just miles from homes without making a fuss.

Gasland trailer:

Trailer

Comments (26)

ToddJune 28, 2011 at 7:29 am

I saw Gasland… its scary stuff. Particularly in those areas the film highlighted, where so many people rely on well water (as in the hole in their backyard that they pump water out of, not what we know as our well water) and not any sort of treated water. Per Gasland, federal legislation has pretty much exempted gas companies from having to notify us of this type of activity going on. Awesome huh? Amazing what a few million in sheckels will get you….

lstaedtlerJune 28, 2011 at 7:39 am

The Gas Co. property actually lies in both in the City and the unincorporated County. Not sure what jurisdiction the expansion is taking place, but I dont think it matters. The Gas Co. is a utilty that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. If memory serves me correct, a local jurisdiction cannot regulate matters that the Legislature grants regulatory power to the CPUC. So the City could be in disapproval of this project, but there is not much they can do. PRobably a similar project is when Edison built those new transmission lines that cut across the Santa Clarita Valley. They voiced their concerns to Edison but ultimately nothing was done.

spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 10:02 am

So, looking at the website below, this is regulated state by state? So what requirements does the CPUC levy for disclosure? Aren’t we entitled to know exactly what is being injected, and what the effects on our DEEP WATER AQUIFER will be?

Coastal SageJune 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm

The California Public Utilities Commission is one of the most morally corrupt, industry dominated “commissions” in the state. Despite the fact that one of their employees and her daughter were french fried in the San Bruno gas line explosion (which occurred due to regulators’ negligence) the CPUC commissioners, administrative law judges and staff still haven’t “gotten religion” in terms of protecting the public interest. Instead, they’re only interested in putting on a show of reform, to mollify people in San Bruno, and their local politicians, over that gas line explosion. As far as I can tell from looking at the CPUC website, Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t “cleaned house” to get rid of morally corrupt commissioners, administrative law judges and staff members who will not protect the public interest first and foremost. My guess is that Gov. Brown is simply overwhelmed by the pro-industry, anti-public interest bureaucrats who have wormed their way into state government since he left office the first time. And please don’t respond by mentioning Gov. Gray Davis, a nominal Democrat. He always had his hand out to industry for campaign contributions and responded by appointing industry friendly regulators in every agency. Gray and Blago. Same style of doing business. California was relatively politically clean in the first Gov. Brown administration, but it’s been down hill into influence peddling hell ever since. So it it’s fracking going on in Northern Santa Clarita, I doubt anything can be done about it, and if it screws up Santa Clarita’s drinking water supply, no one should be surprised.

ToddJune 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm

As usual, I read only the first couple lines (but props to getting it shorter.. I can see you’re trying!). If the PUC were really that “corrupt” and “industry-dominated” how can you possibly explain their insistance on smart-meter opt-out?

Coastal SageJune 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm

A massive lobbying campaign by Utility Consumers Action Network, including actual pre-writing and leaking of litigation complaint against the CPUC to be filed in the California Supreme Court to overturn any decision to require use of smart meters by everyone.

FredJune 28, 2011 at 9:45 am

For a more balanced perspective: http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/

spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 10:00 am

Yes, I’m sure a fair and balanced view… published by the oil and gas industry behind that website. The same industry that policed itself so well in the Gulf recently. Uh-huh.

TaTonkaJune 28, 2011 at 10:11 am

Spine do you have any rebuttal for the comments on the sight? Was anything on there not accurate? Classic spiney response….

spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 10:11 am

Best part: They say that “99.5% of what they inject is water and sand.” How much is the remaining 0.5% The math says, that is 5 million parts per billion (ppb). That is 5,000,000 ppb. For comparison, the toxic perchlorate standard is 6 ppb. Nearly a million times smaller. Now I’m not saying that awhat they are pumping into the ground is as toxic perchlorate. But it shows that mere numbers mean nothing unless we know what it is they are injecting. Or, for the math challenged: A really little bit of really bad stuff is really really bad thing. If they have nothing to hide, why don’t they come out and tell us?

JeffJune 28, 2011 at 10:15 am

Yes, regulation is state by state. Federal regulation was 86d by the Bush administration, particularly the Cheney-led energy task force. Some states require disclosure of chemicals. But no state requires disclosure of the proprietary chemical blend used by the fracking technology. The companies say disclosing that would harm their competitiveness. The bill before the California senate would require the disclosure of all chemicals, no matter whether they are trade secrets or not.

Coastal SageJune 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm

And Spineflower, we don’t know what chemicals make up that 5,000,000 parts per billion, because they are a gas industry “trade secret”. From what I’ve read in the Houston Chronicle (best oil and gas stories in the country) each fracking contractor uses a different chemical mix.

spineflower2June 29, 2011 at 7:26 am

Interesting legal issue… although the landowner owns the land, often the oil/gas/mineral rights are owned by the industry. This gives the right of extraction. However, it does not grant them the right to introduce toxins into someone else’s land, or into public land. Disclosure to the landowner seems like the least of their obligation, and it isn’t clear they have the right to inject in the first place. I invite legal opinions on this.

Coastal SageJune 29, 2011 at 12:33 pm

As to the right of the natural gas extractor, the traditional Texas style oil, gas and mineral leases didn’t have any explicit language in them about the right to inject toxic chemicals into the owners’ land, but the newer leases do. Santa Clarita Valley is not an adjudicated water basin, meaning the owner of the real estate where these wells are being drilled doesn’t own the water under its land. However the law in California and under CERCLA is very clear that once toxic chemicals leave one’s property in the ground water, and show up on someone else’s property there is a right to sue for ground water contamination, especially if the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid are contaminating public drinking water wells. The problem, of course, is that there are no monitoring wells downgradient from this gas field so no one will know if and when fracking chemicals hit the ground water supply.

spineflower2June 29, 2011 at 1:21 pm

No monitoring wells, and no idea what to monitor for if we did. “Plausible deniability” to the rescue of the corrupt!

Jeff 2June 28, 2011 at 10:11 am

I don’t know, the documentary Gasland didn’t appear to have any agenda other than finding out the consequences of fracking, just looking to drop a little truth on us with no real financial motivation… unlike the gas and oil companies. Fracking is bad Mmmm-kay. Being able to light your tap water on fire is also bad Mmmm-kay.

Damage Inc.June 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm

For a more balanced perspective: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth

FredJune 28, 2011 at 10:20 am

I guess there are conspiracy truthers for everything. That Karl Rove was a freaking genius.

Jeff 2June 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm

Ummm, no conspiracy theory needed to see flames come out of a person’s faucet or to test their water for contaminates… no longer a theory at that point, but keep drinking the kool-aid, just make sure it is not made using fracked water

PetzJune 28, 2011 at 11:21 am

The liberal is always concerned with equality and environmental degradation more than they are with stopping human evil in the world. The latest example is the city of San Francisco planning to ban Petz in their city. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13950784

spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 11:52 am

What the frack does that have to do with this topic?

David KJune 28, 2011 at 12:41 pm

So to stop human evil in the world we need to allow hydraulic fracking? That’s gotta be the point you are making, right? Besides, when environmental degradation destroys the water supply for residents of the affected areas, it is a form of human evil. Water is vital to life, natural gas isn’t. San Francisco (and Berkeley) liberals should not be the standard against which all American liberals are judged. Something must be in the water up there which causes them to take up issues like banning the sale of pets and banning circumcision.

spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Aahh, but have they banned pet circumcision? Actually, I think Petz meant to post in today’s free-for-all thread, not this one.

Coastal SageJune 28, 2011 at 6:39 pm

If the truth be known, there’s a daughter of a famous millionaire mafioso from the Midwest spending her late daddy’s money in California on nutball issues like you refer to, David K. I guess she’s trying to buy atonement for all of the crap she saw/heard about her father pulling off when she was a teenager, but at the same time she’s as much of a thug as her daddy. I’d write more, but she has her daddy’s Consigliere and muscle helping her achieve her wacko objectives in the Bay Area.

David GaunyJune 28, 2011 at 5:12 pm

I thought Gasland was one of the best (read non-hysterical) environmental documentaries that I’ve seen in a long time. The points were rational, presented well, and devoid of the tired left-right spin. There was also an excellent article yesterday at CNBC.com revealing that many industry insiders are now saying that the projections of gas obtained from these efforts may be far less than originally promised. Some experts even liken the rush of investment money to fund these untested inventories to a Ponzi scheme where little profit (or an actual loss) is incurred before they recoup costs on the well. Interesting stuff from a pro-business site and well worth a read: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43539536

David GaunyJune 28, 2011 at 7:10 pm

Yikes. Meant to say that little profit or an actual loss is all that’s recouped after costs of fracking are deducted. But rather than make these findings public, the companies keep going after more investment.

ToddJune 28, 2011 at 7:29 am
I saw Gasland… its scary stuff. Particularly in those areas the film highlighted, where so many people rely on well water (as in the hole in their backyard that they pump water out of, not what we know as our well water) and not any sort of treated water. Per Gasland, federal legislation has pretty much exempted gas companies from having to notify us of this type of activity going on. Awesome huh? Amazing what a few million in sheckels will get you….
lstaedtlerJune 28, 2011 at 7:39 am
The Gas Co. property actually lies in both in the City and the unincorporated County. Not sure what jurisdiction the expansion is taking place, but I dont think it matters. The Gas Co. is a utilty that is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission. If memory serves me correct, a local jurisdiction cannot regulate matters that the Legislature grants regulatory power to the CPUC. So the City could be in disapproval of this project, but there is not much they can do. PRobably a similar project is when Edison built those new transmission lines that cut across the Santa Clarita Valley. They voiced their concerns to Edison but ultimately nothing was done.
spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 10:02 am
So, looking at the website below, this is regulated state by state? So what requirements does the CPUC levy for disclosure? Aren’t we entitled to know exactly what is being injected, and what the effects on our DEEP WATER AQUIFER will be?
Coastal SageJune 28, 2011 at 6:30 pm
The California Public Utilities Commission is one of the most morally corrupt, industry dominated “commissions” in the state. Despite the fact that one of their employees and her daughter were french fried in the San Bruno gas line explosion (which occurred due to regulators’ negligence) the CPUC commissioners, administrative law judges and staff still haven’t “gotten religion” in terms of protecting the public interest. Instead, they’re only interested in putting on a show of reform, to mollify people in San Bruno, and their local politicians, over that gas line explosion. As far as I can tell from looking at the CPUC website, Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t “cleaned house” to get rid of morally corrupt commissioners, administrative law judges and staff members who will not protect the public interest first and foremost. My guess is that Gov. Brown is simply overwhelmed by the pro-industry, anti-public interest bureaucrats who have wormed their way into state government since he left office the first time. And please don’t respond by mentioning Gov. Gray Davis, a nominal Democrat. He always had his hand out to industry for campaign contributions and responded by appointing industry friendly regulators in every agency. Gray and Blago. Same style of doing business. California was relatively politically clean in the first Gov. Brown administration, but it’s been down hill into influence peddling hell ever since. So it it’s fracking going on in Northern Santa Clarita, I doubt anything can be done about it, and if it screws up Santa Clarita’s drinking water supply, no one should be surprised.
ToddJune 28, 2011 at 6:47 pm
As usual, I read only the first couple lines (but props to getting it shorter.. I can see you’re trying!). If the PUC were really that “corrupt” and “industry-dominated” how can you possibly explain their insistance on smart-meter opt-out?
Coastal SageJune 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm
A massive lobbying campaign by Utility Consumers Action Network, including actual pre-writing and leaking of litigation complaint against the CPUC to be filed in the California Supreme Court to overturn any decision to require use of smart meters by everyone.
FredJune 28, 2011 at 9:45 am
For a more balanced perspective: http://www.energyindepth.org/2010/06/debunking-gasland/
spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 10:00 am
Yes, I’m sure a fair and balanced view… published by the oil and gas industry behind that website. The same industry that policed itself so well in the Gulf recently. Uh-huh.
TaTonkaJune 28, 2011 at 10:11 am
Spine do you have any rebuttal for the comments on the sight? Was anything on there not accurate? Classic spiney response….
spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 10:11 am
Best part: They say that “99.5% of what they inject is water and sand.” How much is the remaining 0.5% The math says, that is 5 million parts per billion (ppb). That is 5,000,000 ppb. For comparison, the toxic perchlorate standard is 6 ppb. Nearly a million times smaller. Now I’m not saying that awhat they are pumping into the ground is as toxic perchlorate. But it shows that mere numbers mean nothing unless we know what it is they are injecting. Or, for the math challenged: A really little bit of really bad stuff is really really bad thing. If they have nothing to hide, why don’t they come out and tell us?
JeffJune 28, 2011 at 10:15 am
Yes, regulation is state by state. Federal regulation was 86d by the Bush administration, particularly the Cheney-led energy task force. Some states require disclosure of chemicals. But no state requires disclosure of the proprietary chemical blend used by the fracking technology. The companies say disclosing that would harm their competitiveness. The bill before the California senate would require the disclosure of all chemicals, no matter whether they are trade secrets or not.
Coastal SageJune 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm
And Spineflower, we don’t know what chemicals make up that 5,000,000 parts per billion, because they are a gas industry “trade secret”. From what I’ve read in the Houston Chronicle (best oil and gas stories in the country) each fracking contractor uses a different chemical mix.
spineflower2June 29, 2011 at 7:26 am
Interesting legal issue… although the landowner owns the land, often the oil/gas/mineral rights are owned by the industry. This gives the right of extraction. However, it does not grant them the right to introduce toxins into someone else’s land, or into public land. Disclosure to the landowner seems like the least of their obligation, and it isn’t clear they have the right to inject in the first place. I invite legal opinions on this.
Coastal SageJune 29, 2011 at 12:33 pm
As to the right of the natural gas extractor, the traditional Texas style oil, gas and mineral leases didn’t have any explicit language in them about the right to inject toxic chemicals into the owners’ land, but the newer leases do. Santa Clarita Valley is not an adjudicated water basin, meaning the owner of the real estate where these wells are being drilled doesn’t own the water under its land. However the law in California and under CERCLA is very clear that once toxic chemicals leave one’s property in the ground water, and show up on someone else’s property there is a right to sue for ground water contamination, especially if the toxic chemicals used in fracking fluid are contaminating public drinking water wells. The problem, of course, is that there are no monitoring wells downgradient from this gas field so no one will know if and when fracking chemicals hit the ground water supply.
spineflower2June 29, 2011 at 1:21 pm
No monitoring wells, and no idea what to monitor for if we did. “Plausible deniability” to the rescue of the corrupt!
Jeff 2June 28, 2011 at 10:11 am
I don’t know, the documentary Gasland didn’t appear to have any agenda other than finding out the consequences of fracking, just looking to drop a little truth on us with no real financial motivation… unlike the gas and oil companies. Fracking is bad Mmmm-kay. Being able to light your tap water on fire is also bad Mmmm-kay.
Damage Inc.June 28, 2011 at 1:42 pm
For a more balanced perspective: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth
FredJune 28, 2011 at 10:20 am
I guess there are conspiracy truthers for everything. That Karl Rove was a freaking genius.
Jeff 2June 28, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Ummm, no conspiracy theory needed to see flames come out of a person’s faucet or to test their water for contaminates… no longer a theory at that point, but keep drinking the kool-aid, just make sure it is not made using fracked water
PetzJune 28, 2011 at 11:21 am
The liberal is always concerned with equality and environmental degradation more than they are with stopping human evil in the world. The latest example is the city of San Francisco planning to ban Petz in their city. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13950784
spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 11:52 am
What the frack does that have to do with this topic?
David KJune 28, 2011 at 12:41 pm
So to stop human evil in the world we need to allow hydraulic fracking? That’s gotta be the point you are making, right? Besides, when environmental degradation destroys the water supply for residents of the affected areas, it is a form of human evil. Water is vital to life, natural gas isn’t. San Francisco (and Berkeley) liberals should not be the standard against which all American liberals are judged. Something must be in the water up there which causes them to take up issues like banning the sale of pets and banning circumcision.
spineflower2June 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm
Aahh, but have they banned pet circumcision? Actually, I think Petz meant to post in today’s free-for-all thread, not this one.
Coastal SageJune 28, 2011 at 6:39 pm
If the truth be known, there’s a daughter of a famous millionaire mafioso from the Midwest spending her late daddy’s money in California on nutball issues like you refer to, David K. I guess she’s trying to buy atonement for all of the crap she saw/heard about her father pulling off when she was a teenager, but at the same time she’s as much of a thug as her daddy. I’d write more, but she has her daddy’s Consigliere and muscle helping her achieve her wacko objectives in the Bay Area.
David GaunyJune 28, 2011 at 5:12 pm
I thought Gasland was one of the best (read non-hysterical) environmental documentaries that I’ve seen in a long time. The points were rational, presented well, and devoid of the tired left-right spin. There was also an excellent article yesterday at CNBC.com revealing that many industry insiders are now saying that the projections of gas obtained from these efforts may be far less than originally promised. Some experts even liken the rush of investment money to fund these untested inventories to a Ponzi scheme where little profit (or an actual loss) is incurred before they recoup costs on the well. Interesting stuff from a pro-business site and well worth a read: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43539536
David GaunyJune 28, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Yikes. Meant to say that little profit or an actual loss is all that’s recouped after costs of fracking are deducted. But rather than make these findings public, the companies keep going after more investment.