BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- | | | SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER | | Senator Fran Pavley, Chair | | 2013-2014 Regular Session | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- BILL NO: SB 1132 HEARING DATE: April 8, 2014 AUTHOR: Mitchell URGENCY: No VERSION: March 27, 2014 CONSULTANT: Katharine Moore DUAL REFERRAL: Environmental QualityFISCAL: Yes SUBJECT: Oil and gas: well stimulation treatments. BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW 1.The Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (division) located in the Department of Conservation is the state oil and gas regulator. The Oil and Gas Supervisor has existing broad authority to regulate the oil and gas industry "to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources," among other factors (Public Resources Code (PRC) §3106). 2.California is a major oil and gas producing state. It is the third largest oil producing state and in the top 15 for natural gas. Oil and gas development and production occurs statewide, although it is concentrated in Kern County and surrounding areas in the Central Valley. There are also important producing fields in coastal areas including Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and other counties, and offshore, where allowed. There are approximately 50,000 active producing oil and gas wells. 3.Lately, the practice of hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells to facilitate the production of oil and gas has received considerable attention and scrutiny, and has become increasingly controversial. Proponents argue that it promotes energy independence, provides good jobs and is a long-standing industry practice that is entirely safe. Opponents argue that fracking contaminates the air, water and soil resulting in adverse impacts to public, environmental and occupational health and welfare, and climate change. 4.Hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") injects a fluid, typically composed of water and added chemicals, into an underground 1 geologic formation at pressures sufficiently high to create or enhance fractures. This process increases the permeability of the formation to the trapped hydrocarbons which then can flow through the formation to the wellbore and be produced. Fracking is one form of a well stimulation treatment and others include acid-based treatments. Well stimulation treatments are continuously evolving as technology changes and are specifically tailored to each particular location. 5.In California, recent projections suggest that the "unconventional" oil reserves in the Monterey Shale formation are the largest in the country. (The Monterey Shale is an existing source of conventional hydrocarbon reserves.) Well stimulation treatments, particularly acidization, may be a key factor in developing these unconventional reserves and, if successful, could result in an economic boom and substantial increases in oil production. 6.As recently as February 2011, the division could not provide any information about hydraulic fracturing in a response to an inquiry from Senator Pavley, despite its acknowledged authority to take regulatory action. 7.Over the last few years there have been numerous legislative attempts to require the division to specifically regulate or ban well stimulation. 8.Governor Brown signed SB 4 (Pavley, c. 313, Statues of 2013) into law in September. SB 4 provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for well stimulation treatments and has repeatedly been characterized as the most comprehensive and stringent in the country. Emergency interim well stimulation regulations governing well stimulation went into effect on January 1, 2014. 9.SB 4: applies to all wells, both onshore and offshore in state waters, in California, requires that an independent scientific study of all aspects of well stimulation be completed by January 1, 2015, requires that the division completes permanent well stimulation regulations by January 1, 2015, requires that the division consult with and reach agreements with other regulators with jurisdiction over aspects of well stimulation by January 1, 2015, requires that the division conduct a well 2 stimulation Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and certify it by July 1, 2015, and provides the division with the authority to impose site-specific mitigation for well stimulation treatments conducted during the interim period, requires groundwater monitoring, as specified, for wells subject to well stimulation treatments, requires pre- and post-stimulation public reporting of the chemicals and water used in the well stimulation treatment, the disposition of the chemicals and water used, advance neighbor notification prior to well stimulation, and baseline and follow-up water quality testing for the neighbors, among other provisions, requires that the production fee paid by industry per barrel of oil (or equivalent amount of natural gas) be used to pay for the expenses of the new regulatory program. PROPOSED LAW This bill would impose a moratorium of indefinite length on well stimulation treatments in the state until: a scientific study is conducted and completed with public participation, a committee of executive agency members certifies, as specified and with public participation, that the study is final and that well stimulation poses no risk to, or impairment of, the public health and welfare or the environmental and economic sustainability of the state, the Governor reviews the certified study and makes further specific findings that well stimulation poses no risk or impairment, 90 days have passed from the Governor's determination or a judicial decision affirming the Governor's decision that is final and nonappealable has occurred. Should the above criteria not be entirely met, the moratorium on well stimulation would stay in effect. Additionally this bill would: revise the definition of well stimulation treatments, modify the independent scientific study required by SB 4 including deleting the due date, largely retain the SB 4 statutory direction to the division guiding the development of well stimulation regulations including consultation with other regulators, neighbor notification in advance of well stimulation, reporting requirements, groundwater monitoring and so on, 3 not require the Governor to make a finding that would lift the moratorium, allow the committee to direct additional studies to be conducted and completed, if needed, if well stimulation poses a risk or impairment, delete the requirement that the division perform an EIR on well stimulation and accompanying provisions guiding well stimulation notice submissions and well stimulation activities under the emergency interim regulations prior to the certification of the EIR and the permanent regulations taking effect, provide a public process for the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to determine if any vested rights to perform a well stimulation treatment on a well exist on a well-by-well basis during the moratorium require that the standard used to assess the Governor's findings or the Secretary's findings with respect to vested rights be one of "clear and convincing evidence" specifically provide for the following legal challenges: o of the Governor's findings by any public participant in the study o of a vested rights denial by the well owner or operator o of a vested rights affirmation by any interested party ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT According to the author, "Today's fracking techniques are new and may pose new dangers. Technological changes have facilitated an explosion of drilling in areas where, even a decade ago, companies couldn't recover oil and gas profitably. It's important that the implications for health and environmental safety are fully understood before fracking is allowed to continue in [California]. SB 1132 imposes a moratorium on all well stimulation including fracking and acidizing, on-shore and off-shore, until a comprehensive report is completed and submitted to the Governor and the Legislature and a recommendation is made as to if, how and where fracking activity can resume. Further, it lays out how the report is to be conducted in a way that ensures fairness and reliability in the data collected." The City of Culver City adds "this area is home to hundreds of thousands of residents and businesses who have experienced the impacts of decades of oil extraction in the [Inglewood oil field]. As evidenced by the number of residents who have expressed their ongoing concerns during recent Culver City City 4 Council meetings, there is significant public apprehension regarding the uncertain, additional impacts that may have occured, or may occur in the future, as a result of well stimulation, including hydraulic fracturing." ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION A joint oil and gas industry letter states, "SB 1132 appears to establish a study, comment and findings process designed to ensure that well stimulation treatments are prohibited in California in perpetuity." The letter continues, "the Governor's finding shall be considered final only when all pending legal challenges are resolved and [the] Governor's findings are affirmed based on "clear and convincing evidence." Should this standard be set for all future state scientific studies, economic studies and regulations? [?] Oil and gas production in California is a $34 billion annual industry, employing more than 25,000 workers with an annual payroll in excess of $1.5 billion" and point out that the economic investments in hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation techniques that may make development of California's deep shale reserves economically viable require certainty. According to a joint letter signed by the California Chamber of Commerce, among others, SB 1132 is a "job killer." They continue, "?the regulatory process for SB 4 implementation, including the scientific study, is now underway and should be given adequate time to proceed without abrupt and substantial modifications such as those imposed by SB 1132." COMMENTS This bill is double-referred to the Environmental Quality Committee . Issues under that Committee's jurisdiction will not be discussed here. Technical correction. The correct reference to onshore gas storage projects in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations is §1724.9, not §1742.9 [Amendment 1]. Ending funding for monitoring? SB 4 requires the Water Boards to develop groundwater monitoring-related model criteria supported and informed by limited groundwater monitoring in the near term. Once the model criteria are finalized, the Water Boards are directed to conduct regional groundwater monitoring. The funding for this regional monitoring stems from the statutory requirement for the per barrel production fee to cover specified costs associated with 5 well stimulation treatments. A prohibition on well stimulation treatment is likely to effectively eliminate dedicated funding for this monitoring. The same is true for air quality monitoring and related efforts by the Air Resources Board. Are there vested rights to continue well stimulation when the moratorium is in effect? The bill provides a detailed process for the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency to make a finding that a vested right exists for a well owner or operator to stimulate a well after the prohibition on well stimulation goes into effect. Regardless of the Secretary's determination, the ultimate decision is likely to be made by the court through litigation. A more efficient process may be to have the court address the question of vested rights directly. Regarding the detailed requirements provided in the bill that must be met to justify a vested rights claim, discussions with technical experts indicate that construction, substantial or otherwise, specific to well stimulation alone is unlikely. The equipment used for well stimulation (e.g. large tanks and pumps) is only temporarily installed at the well-head for the treatment. It may be that no proposed well stimulation treatment could satisfy this condition and, thus, none could qualify for the opportunity to have a vested rights claims considered. Well stimulation treatments and oil and gas development and production Well stimulation is one of many techniques and processes used to facilitate the production of oil and gas. (Well stimulation treatments are not equivalent to oil and gas production.) Reported data, while admittedly partial, do not indicate that oil and gas development and production from all oil and gas fields throughout the state requires well stimulation. Therefore, while a moratorium on well stimulation treatments may make oil and gas development and production from some geologic formations less likely and/or less economically feasible, it will not stop oil and gas development and production. How long is the imposed prohibition on well stimulation? It is not possible to determine in advance the duration of the prohibition on well stimulation required by SB 1132. There is no requirement that the prohibition be lifted in the future. The scientific study: Considerable duplication in content with 6 the SB 4-required studies As noted above, SB 4 requires that an independent scientific study and an EIR be conducted. Both are underway. This bill revises the SB 4 study section considerably and removes the EIR requirement. However, the revisions - where focused on well stimulation - are largely of nuance and detail, rather than of content, as SB 4 was broadly worded. Additionally, EIRs must include certain elements and SB 4's required EIR will include content that is not part of SB 1132's proposed study. However, there are aspects of this bill's study that are not specifically required by SB 4's study and may not be definitively addressed by the SB 4 EIR. These include, for example, the impacts of pipelines, and the impacts on home values and specific communities. This bill contains no process to incorporate the SB 4 study or EIR results into its proposed study. The scientific study: Study review standards Both SB 4 and this bill require that the scientific conclusions of the independent scientific study be subject to the peer review process. Within the scientific community, anonymous review by technical experts of research findings prior to publication is widely-acknowledged as the highest standard. SB 4, and now state law, clearly anticipates, and, in some instances, requires that the results of the independent scientific study will inform future regulatory development related to well stimulation treatments. Under SB 1132, the independent scientific study would not be completed until the proposed interagency committee deemed it to represent "clear and convincing evidence" that well stimulation treatments pose no risk or impairment, as specified. Even the best available scientific data may not be sufficient to meet this standard. The scientific study: The "no risk" standard. Meeting the no risk standard will be difficult to achieve as all activities have risk, however small, associated with them. The scientific study: Participants in the executive agency committee Membership of the interagency committee reviewing the scientific study includes representatives from the Natural Resources Agency, the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Air Resources Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Department of Public Health. The scientific study: Study review process The committee shall assess whether (a) the scientific study uses the "best available" evidence and is complete, and (b) the 7 existing well stimulation regulations and other measures meet specified standards. After considering public comment, the committee may solicit further scientific study, if needed. The committee does not appear to be able to transmit the completed study to the Governor if it finds there is any risk associated with well stimulation treatments. It is also not clear if "the potential human health risk associated with each chemical" can be met using data derived from animal or other laboratory tests. The Governor shall repeat the determination of whether existing well stimulation regulations and other measures meet the specified standards. The Governor appears to be able to formally disagree with the committee's review, but only after the committee has deemed the study to be final. The Governor is not provided the specific authority to seek further studies (if deemed necessary by the Governor) or to return the study to the committee for it to do so. The scientific study: Public participation in the study The public will have at least two formal opportunities to participate in the independent study process in this bill. There have already been opportunities for the public to participate in development of the SB 4 EIR and there will be more in the future. The scientific study: Best available statistical information? The interagency committee is charged with determining if the best available statistical information, among other best available data, is used in the study. The statistical interpretation of data depends fundamentally on the data itself. Put another way, applicable statistics are not independent of the underlying data. It is not clear if separately identifying best available with respect to statistical interpretation of the data in the current language is meant to impose or could allow for the imposition of a distinct or different standard for the statistics which could then be used to require that additional experiments be conducted and data obtained. The definition of well stimulation. There may be well-related practices not generally considered to be well stimulation treatments, such as deepening or reworking a well, that could be interpreted to be included under the revised definition of well stimulation treatment ("increasing [?] the flow of fluid through the well") proposed by this bill. Gas storage wells may be particularly affected (see note below). Further, it is not clear whether the assessment of an increase in fluid flow is in absolute or relative terms or which 8 materials are included in that assessment. Gas storage wells Discussions with the division and industry indicate that there are on the order of 500 gas storage wells in California. These are generally located in depleted hydrocarbon reservoirs in sandstone formations. Natural gas typically purchased out-of-state is transported to these wells by pipeline. Changes in pressure and temperature due largely to changes in velocity in the vicinity of the wellbore when stored gas is being pumped from the wells in combination with heavy hydrocarbon residues in the depleted reservoirs leads to the precipitation and scaling in the vicinity of the wellbore. This build-up will increase over time and result in lower gas flow rates. Routine maintenance is necessary typically every few years to address this. The technical processes undertaken to conduct this maintenance described by industry engineers do not meet the existing definition of well stimulation treatment in state law (PRC §3157, notwithstanding the exclusion in PRC §3160(o)). It is unclear if the revised definition may result in maintenance at gas storage wells being effectively prohibited under the moratorium. Impact of deleting the existing interim language. It is not clear what the impact of deleting the existing interim language will have. The division retains the authority to regulate well stimulation, as well as to conduct EIRs. Clarifying the legislative findings The legislative findings make several assertions that Committee staff have not yet been able to obtain or evaluate rigorously the technical support for. The Committee may wish to direct staff to continue investigating relevant aspects of the findings in question and communicate the results to the author upon completion. Studies of the impacts of well stimulation. There are peer-reviewed scientific publications investigating the environmental, occupational and public health and safety impacts associated with well stimulation. There is credible evidence linking environmental contamination and risks or potential health risks in some locations studied with either well stimulation directly or with oil and gas development and production made feasible by well stimulation. It is not immediately clear to what degree studies conducted outside of California in different conditions are applicable here. 9 There was a scientific study conducted by industry on two high-volume hydraulic fracturing operations at the Inglewood oil field near Culver City that found no adverse environmental impacts. Critics note that this study focused on short-term impacts alone. Further, illegal dumping of fracking wastes has been well-documented in multiple jurisdictions. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board fined Vintage a few months ago over illegal dumping of waste, including fracking fluid waste, in an unlined pit. Impact of a state moratorium on wells subject to federal jurisdiction? The division signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2012 with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) - which manages almost 50% of the state's mineral rights - for wells where they share jurisdiction. This MOU includes a statement that the two will cooperate on the regulation of hydraulic fracturing. It is not clear how a statewide prohibition on well stimulation treatments will impact wells where the BLM has jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction (the BLM has had pending hydraulic fracturing treatment regulations for the last few years). While SB 1132 would impose a well stimulation treatment moratorium in state waters, a recent analysis by the California Coastal Commission suggests that the state may only have very limited authority with respect to well stimulation over at least some wells in federal waters. (The division does not have MOUs with either the Bureau of Land Management or the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Engineering.) Monterey Shale estimates: boom or bust? Large estimates of the recoverable unconventional hydrocarbon reserves from the Monterey Shale by the US Energy Information Administration in 2011 - 15.4 billion barrels of oil - focused public attention on well stimulation in California. While the US EIA revised the forecast down to 13.7 billion barrels, this remains the largest estimated shale reserve in the country. Recently a new study<1> by a veteran petroleum geologist examined the assumptions made to calculate this projection using reported production data from wells drilled in the Monterey Shale. The new study found that the US EIA's projection was likely to be "wildly optimistic." The study further investigated the corresponding claims of economic growth for --------------------------- <1> Drilling California: A Reality Check on the Monterey Shale by J. David Hughes (2013) 10 development of the unconventional Monterey Shale reserves. Here again, a careful review of available data and analysis of forecasts suggest that projections of up to 2.8 million new jobs are also wildly optimistic. Earthquakes Public concerns over the earthquake risk associated with well stimulation is high. It can be difficult, particularly where numerous earthquakes of small magnitude regularly occur, to attribute earthquakes to hydraulic fracturing. However, small earthquakes in two locations where seismic activity is unusual have been attributed to the process of hydraulic fracturing -England and British Columbia. The larger of two earthquakes was of magnitude 2.3: strong enough to be felt slightly by people but not cause damage to buildings. The U.S. Geological Survey has found an increase in earthquakes over magnitude 3 in the proximity of injection wells - where well stimulation waste fluid may be disposed of - in Colorado, Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Ohio. The National Research Council in a recent report noted that wastewater disposal in injection wells "does pose some risk for induced seismicity." How much well stimulation is occurring in California? How much water is being used? Prior to January 1, 2014 when SB 4 went into effect, all information on well stimulation in California was voluntarily reported by industry. Evidence exists that the reported data were incomplete. That said, there were on the order of 600 - 850 frack jobs per year, and over 95% of these occurred in Kern County. The Legislative Analyst's Office projects that 1,000 - 2,000 well stimulation treatments will be conducted each year in California in the future. For the data available - which suffers from the same caveat noted above - water use per frack job in the state appears to be considerably lower than the millions of gallons per well routinely reported in other states. Cursory review of available data indicates that most reported well stimulation jobs use up to a few hundred thousand gallons per stimulation. This does not mean that local water scarcity in locations where well stimulation treatments may occur is not an issue. Information will also become available on the use or re-use of recycled water in well stimulation treatments as SB 4 is implemented. Industry experts report that salty water can be used in hydraulic fracturing treatments. SB 4 Implementation 11 In early February, the Senate Natural Resources and Water and Environmental Quality Committees convened a joint informational hearing on SB 4 implementation. While there had been some glitches, the division and other invited regulators reported considerable progress and coordination and cooperation amongst themselves. The division, the Water Boards and the Air Resources Board have all made Budget Change Proposal requests for FY 2014/15 to implement SB 4 totaling approximately $20 million and about 80 new staff. As of April 2, 2014, the division has approved as complete 273 well stimulation notices under the emergency interim regulations. With the exception of three notices for wells located in Ventura County, the notices were all for wells in Kern County. The notices are available on-line at the division's web-site. Under the interim regulations, the Water Boards have to concur with a well owner or operator's claim that no protected groundwater is present in the vicinity of a well proposed to be stimulated. This concurrence requirement has lately slowed down the submittal of well stimulation notices to the division due to industry's repeated submission of insufficient data to support their claims. The Water Boards and the division have continued industry outreach efforts and the Water Boards recently provided a concurrence finding for two sections of the South Belridge field. The first update on the progress of the SB 4 independent scientific study, dated April 1, 2014, reports that a science advisor to the Administration has been appointed, a contractor for the study has been selected and an appropriate process is underway to maintain the study's independence and scientific integrity, and complete the study on-time. Other fracking moratoria or bans Through executive order, New York state has had a moratorium on high-volume hydraulic fracturing for over 6 years while a public health study is completed. Vermont has banned fracking, although there is no oil or gas production there. Other states or regional entities (e.g. North Carolina, the Delaware River Basin Commission, among others) have instituted moratoria pending the development of regulations governing fracking. Local level bans or moratoria on fracking have led to litigation between the states and the locals in at least Pennsylvania, Colorado and New York. At the local level in California, Los 12 Angeles, Culver City and Santa Cruz County have passed resolutions to place or develop moratoria on well stimulation treatments within their jurisdictions. (The City of Carson recently instituted a temporary moratorium on drilling in part over concerns over well stimulation.) There are reports of grass roots efforts at the local level across the state to ban or place moratoria on well stimulation treatments. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS AMENDMENT 1 In PRC §3157(c), correct the reference to Section 1724.9 from 1742.9. SUPPORT 350.org 350 Bay Area American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Asian Pacific Environmental Network Breast Cancer Action California Nurses Association Carpinteria Valley Association Center for Biological Diversity Center for Environmental Health Center on Race, Poverty, & the Environment Clean Water Action Citizen's Coalition For a Safe Community City of Culver City Clean Water Action CREDO Action Earthworks Environment California Environmental Defense Center Environmental Working Group Food & Water Watch Frack-Free Butte County Friends Committee on Legislation of California International Longshore & Warehouse Union - Southern California District Council Mainstreet Moms Organize or Bust Natural Resources Defense Council Oil Change International Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter Planning and Conservation League Santa Barbara County Action Network 13 Sierra Club California Sierra Club - Los Padres Chapter Surfrider Foundation over 21,000 individuals (via organized letters) OPPOSITION American Chemistry Council Associated Builders and Contractors of California California Chamber of Commerce California Construction and Industrial Materials Association California Independent Petroleum Association California Manufacturers and Technology Association California Metals Coalition Chemical Industry Council of California Independent Oil Producers' Association National Federation of Independent Business Western States Petroleum Association 14