Ban Fracking - In the Name of True Progress

Rebecca Rona-Tuttle

I’d venture to say that 99.9% of Culver City Progress readers are already fully aware of the “fracking” issues that became a focal point for our residents last Tuesday evening (June 12), when the CA Department of Conservation came to town with its “listening tour,” or what others called a workshop or forum.

But just in case I’m wrong, let’s start with the term “fracking.”  Also known as hydraulic fracturing, it’s a highly controversial process in which a mixture of water, sand and chemicals is injected under enormous pressure into the earth for the ultimate purpose of extracting natural gas and oil. The pressure causes shale rock formations to fracture, releasing the substances. For the ABCs of fracking, check out www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

Progress: It sounds good. It sounds forward-looking. But plenty that’s been done in the past, from introducing gas-powered automobiles to creating nuclear power plants, has been thought of as progress. Did folks back then consider the terrible consequences that could result from that progress? Here we have another form of “progress”—even newer, more potentially lethal forms of fracking for doing the dirty work of extracting gas and oil from land that ought to stay there. Let’s not allow further harm and regret it later. “Do no harm!”

(Scroll to the end to learn how you can get involved.)

The alleged reason for last week’s “listening tour”—forgive me for a degree of cynicism—was that the State of California wanted to give us residents an opportunity to suggest regulations to representatives of its Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) division (pronounced “dogger.” ) But considering that they could have tapped  scientists inside or outside California for suggested regulations, I’d say the purpose of their presentation was to assuage the concerns of local residents. When the tour is complete, presentations will have been made in six or seven parts of the state.

I’ve got to assume that if listeners felt more secure after hearing the presentation, they didn’t feel that way for long. Dozens of speakers lined up behind the mike, then voiced their opinions and informed us, often emotionally and articulately: mothers, fathers, a neurologist from Culver City, an environmental engineer, academics, a member of the Sierra Club with decades of experience in the oil industry, attorneys, an organizer with Food and Water Watch—and many more.

There’s nothing hypothetical or theoretical about fracking and its dangers. We’re not talking about fracking in France or Egypt, although it might be taking place there also. We’re talking about fracking in Culver City, Los Angeles and elsewhere in the state.

We’re talking about the giant oil company PXP, with numerous wells in Culver City and in nearby Los Angeles. Although residents of Blair Hills and Culver Crest are closest to the wells, the results of fracking are expected to extend to Venice Blvd. and beyond.

We’re talking about PXP and other oil companies

·         planning to build hundreds of wells in the area

·         using tremendous amounts of water that could otherwise be used for drinking and irrigation in this thirsty state

·         lacing this water with chemicals—some known to be toxins, others not even identified but listed as “trade secrets”

·         shooting great volumes of this water horizontally under or near our city, causing vibrations serious enough to damage houses and other buildings

·         shooting this water at such enormous pressure that were it to hit a person, it would slice him/her in half

·         shooting this water near, and possibly through local earthquake faults

·         increasing the possibility of earthquakes in the area—where we’re already in danger of a 7.4 temblor

·         using dangerous chemicals that could easily pollute our precious ground water

·         allowing methane to be released into our air, adding to global warming

But I’m not done.

·         What happens to the remainder of that filthy, toxic water once the fracking’s happened? There’s no safe place for it.

·         Who will pay replacement costs when residents’ homes crack or their land sinks?

·         Who will pay to rebuild in Culver City when we’re hit by an earthquake?

And these points just scratch the surface of a highly complex set of problems.

Suggestion: Find and read Neil Rubenstein’s article on fracking posted a few days ago on this blog. It’s excellent: informative and intelligent.

Look, gentle reader, I’m no expert—no geologist or chemist or even long-time activist. In point of fact, I’m a “newbie” to the world of fracking.  But I’ve heard and read enough in the past few weeks to be convinced that the dangers are real and enormous.

Culver City needs to ban fracking, plain and simple. And since there’s some question as to whether we have the authority to ban it (this power possibly belonging solely to the state), we need our city attorney to look into the matter.

And no, not a moratorium. Those who favor only a moratorium say, “Let’s have a moratorium until regulations have been put in place.” Or “Let’s have a moratorium until the state proves that fracking is safe.”

But regulations will never be enough, especially when DOGGR is so understaffed that it couldn’t possibly assess whether PXP and the other oil companies were complying. More than that, regulations are problematic for another reason: they would give us a false sense of security. Yet how could fracking possibly be safe? 

Whether Culver City can or can not legally authorize a ban against fracking, we residents need to think beyond our city—at the very least to the county and the state. We are not an island! If fracking in Long Beach causes an earthquake, we’ll be affected too. If fracking is allowed in Los Angeles, our drinking water will become polluted too. Furthermore, fracking in Culver City would endanger people (and animals) well beyond our city limits, and we must avoid that too.

Clearly convincing the state to ban fracking will be difficult, and that’s putting it mildly. Our elected officials at all levels of government are desperate for dollars—understandably—and taxes collected from Big Oil would provide a mighty incentive to frack. To hope for the best and frack. Our elected officials, like many of the rest of us, are also thrilled at the prospect of a local source of oil for gasoline and the possibility of lower gas prices.

If you need an example of how difficult it will be to convince elected officials of the need for a ban, here’s just one: the CA State Senate voted down a simple piece of legislation, introduced by Senator Fran Pavley, requiring energy companies to notify homeowners before fracking takes place!

Even the county and state elected officials we think of as friends—no matter how intelligent and caring and committed they may be--might have reasons to favor fracking. And that’s why we have our work cut out for us.

In recent news coverage, local and nearby residents have been called “an ad hoc group of citizens” or some such thing. But we’re now official: we’re “Frack-Free Culver City.”

Members have begun meeting to plan best approaches to gaining the ban locally and statewide. We have a lot of work to do, and we need many of our neighbors to participate. To volunteer your time, reach Frack-Free Culver City at makeccsafe@gmail.com.

Rebecca Rona-Tuttle is a member of Frack-Free Culver City and the Former Co-Chair of the Culver City Martin Luther King Planning Committee.