Community Corner

Oil Drilling Standards Fail to Address Issues, Some Say

While the settlement brought in a laundry list of new regulations for the field next to Culver City, residents still wonder if the standards will address noise and structural impacts.

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Inglewood Oil Field in Culver City remains a controversial topic of conversation even following this summer’s settlement of lawsuits over environmental impacts from the ongoing drilling. In partnership with Spot.us, the community-funded journalism initiative, Patch examined the history of the oil field and its continuing effects on its neighbors. This is the second of two installments. The first story ran Wednesday on Culver City Patch.

The push for new drilling standards began in 2006.

In January of that year, noxious fumes from the Inglewood Oil Field led to the evacuation of dozens of people and affected more than 500 homes. The following month, a similar incident occurred, again prompting an evacuation.

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

Los Angeles County adopted a moratorium on new well drilling in PXP's Inglewood Oil Field operations in response to the emergencies. The county renewed the moratorium, extending it through mid-2008. However, state law prohibited the county from renewing the moratorium a second time.

Further complicating the issues, the county did not have an ordinance in place to regulate field operations, meaning PXP could essentially resume drilling upon the moratorium’s expiration without any restrictions.

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

With the moratorium set to expire, PXP submitted a proposal to the county to regulate oil drilling and production activities in the Inglewood Oil Field under a set of rules called the Baldwin Community Standards District (CSD). The county accepted the proposal and allowed PXP to resume drilling operations.

But in November 2008, Culver City, the Concerned Citizens of South Los Angeles, Citizen’s Coalition for a Safe Community and Community Health Councils—in conjunction with the Natural Resources Defense Council—filed four class-action lawsuits against PXP and Los Angeles County. The court eventually consolidated the suits into one case.

The combined suits aimed to force the county to develop more stringent drilling standards and halt the work on a planned 600 oil wells.

According to the formal complaint filed by the groups, the county violated the CEQA by failing to conduct an adequate environmental impact report before allowing the post-moratorium drilling.

“The CSD missed its mark in manifold ways,” the groups stated in court documents, adding the environmental report contained “major flaws” that essentially rendered it useless.

Furthermore, the county approved several last-minute amendments to the CSD authored by then-Supervisor Yvonne Burke, who represented the oil field district at the time, without sending them to the Planning Commission for proper review, according to the community groups.

Burke said she took the actions she did because the moratorium, which the county had renewed once already, could not be imposed again.

“Our leverage was the moratorium,” she said. PXP “had a right to resume drilling the day after the moratorium (ended)… . The only thing we could do was to get (PXP) to agree to a CSD.”

Burke said she wanted to make it clear that she did not have any special dealings with PXP or its executives, and was solely looking out for the county’s best interests.

Marine Research Specialists, the company contracted by PXP to produce the disputed environmental impact report, defended its work, although criticism has persisted.

Drilling critics asked many questions of Luis Perez, an environmental compliance coordinator with Marine Research, but they remained unswayed by what he said.

“You tell people the answer, but the answer is not what they want to hear,” Perez said.

He contends the CSD rules represent some of the most stringent regulatory standards for any oil field in the country, despite the belief to the contrary among some in the public and environmental interest groups.

Focus recently has turned to implementing the enhanced drilling standards specified by the June settlement, the terms of which include:

• Reducing the number of wells PXP can drill until 2028 from 600 to 500.

• Limiting the number of wells PXP can drill to 30 wells a year. That ceiling could be raised to 45 wells if the company abandons wells within 800 feet of densely populated residential neighborhoods.

• Requiring PXP to hire an independent consultant to conduct a study of the impact from fracking in the Inglewood Oil Field.

• Reducing noise from drilling to no more than three decibels above typical nighttime sounds from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.

• Providing better, more timely landscaping.

• Implementing clean technology in all oil field operations to reduce emissions.

• Reserving the county’s right to close the field through October 2028 should oil production fall below 630 barrels a day.

• Removing and replacing unused drilling equipment and imposing timely cleanup measures.

Both sides in the settlement have indicated they want to move ahead.

“We want to work together, to work with the county and PXP to ensure the protection of the community and the environment in and around the Baldwin Hills area continues going forward,” said Nagami of NRDC. 

PXP spokesman Scott Winters declined to comment on the case, except to say PXP resumed drilling in June and “successfully completed the 2010 drilling plan in full compliance with the CSD.”

County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas, who took office when Burke’s term ran out, stands by the settlement.

“Those who live near the oil field will see fewer wells, hear less noise from drilling and have in place stronger air quality protections than (existed previously). I’m confident this set of reforms is far more thorough than what could have been achieved through a contentious and protracted court battle,” he said.

Still, some residents and community advocates feel the settlement fails to address lingering issues.

At a , Mim Shapiro questioned why the agreement does not cover property damage to residents’ homes such as hers.

“My husband and I heard a high-pitched sound we had never heard before that lasted six to seven seconds. It was so loud I thought the roof was going to fall in. Then a few days later I noticed new 8-foot cracks on my walls that were not there even after earthquakes,” Shapiro said in a Culver City Patch story.

A representative for Ridley-Thomas responded that attributing damage to the right source “is a complicated issue.” She also acknowledged what seems abundantly clear: Despite the court settlement and efforts to bring the issues of the oil field to rest, the situation remains challenging.

Culver City: How satisfied are you with the settlement? Be sure to share your thoughts in the comments below, or on our Facebook or Twitter page.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

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