NRDC report
october 2014
R:14-09-a
Drilling in California:
Who’s at risk?
© NRDC
Tanja Srebotnjak
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman
Natural Resources Defense Council
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Kyle Ferrar of FracTracker Alliance for his assistance in developing the database and
producing the maps in the report. We are grateful to the external peer reviewers and NRDC colleagues Briana Mordick
and Andrea Spacht for their valuable comments on this report.
About NRDC
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with more than 1.4 million
members and online activists. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have worked to protect the world's
natural resources, public health, and the environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, San Francisco,
Chicago, Bozeman, MT, and Beijing. Visit us at www.nrdc.org and follow us on Twitter @NRDC.
NRDC Director of Communications: Lisa Benenson
NRDC Deputy Director of Communications: Lisa Goffredi
NRDC Policy Publications Director: Alex Kennaugh
Design and Production: www.suerossi.com
Photo on front cover: oil wells in Los Angeles
© Natural Resources Defense Council 2014
table of contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Mapping Oil and Gas Activity and Communities Burdened by Environmental Pollution in California.................................. 5
Extraction Technologies Poised to Expand Oil Drilling in California.......................................................................................... 5
Pollution and Health Threats Associated with Oil and Gas Development................................................................................ 6
Air Pollution.................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Contamination of Drinking Water and Soils.................................................................................................................................. 6
Noise and Light Pollution............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Public Safety................................................................................................................................................................................ 8
Seismic Risks............................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Oil and Gas Wells are Concentrated in Communities Struggling With and Vulnerable to Pollution..................................... 9
Hotspots in Southern California—Greater Los Angeles and the Southern San Joaquin Valley........................................... 11
Greater Los Angeles.................................................................................................................................................................. 11
San Joaquin Valley and Kern County.......................................................................................................................................... 13
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Recommendations........................................................................................................................................................................ 15
Appendix I: Methods..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix II: Tables........................................................................................................................................................................ 21
|
PAGE 3 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Executive Summary
A
s new drilling and stimulation techniques, including hydraulic fracturing (‘fracking’),
are heralded as the key to unlocking a new oil boom in California, there is mounting
evidence that these technologies, and the expansion of oil and gas development
that they enable, threaten public health. As California contemplates the safety of these
technologies and necessary protections, it is important to identify the populations at risk.
New analysis of oil and gas development in California shows that, already, approximately
5.4 million people (14 percent of the state’s population) live within a mile of one, or more, of
more than 84,000 existing oil and gas wells. More than a third of these people (1.8 million)
also live in areas most burdened by environmental pollution as identified by California EPA’s
tool (CalEnviroscreen 2.0). These communities, highly vulnerable to additional pollution
from oil and gas development, consist primarily of Latinos/Hispanics (69 percent), African
Americans (10 percent), and Asian Americans (11 percent). In total, people of color make
up nearly 92 percent of the 1.8 million people living within a mile of oil and gas development
and in communities already heavily burdened by pollution.
Of the statewide population living within one mile
of oil and gas development and in communities
identified as most vulnerable by CalEPA’s new
alEnviroScreen 2.0, nearly 92 percent are people of
color (69 percent Hispanic/Latino, 10 percent African
American, 11 percent Asian, and 2 percent Other).
© NRDC
Currently, the drill sites that use stimulation technologies
like hydraulic fracturing are generally located near existing
oil and gas extraction, primarily in Kern (2,361 wells), Los
Angeles (124 wells), and Ventura (456) counties. However, a
smaller number of sites have also been recorded in nine other
counties, including Monterey, Fresno, and Santa Barbara. The
push to use hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation
technologies to access oil from formations underlying some
of the state’s most fertile agricultural lands and densely
populated urban areas raises public health concerns,
including harmful air pollution, contaminated ground and
surface waters, and large amounts of toxic waste. Increased
oil and gas production using these new technologies can
bring more contaminants—many of which have been linked
to respiratory and neurological problems, birth defects, and
cancer1,2—to backyards, communities, and cities. Future
unconventional oil and gas development using hydraulic
fracturing and other well stimulation techniques in these
areas, and its expansion into new areas, may exacerbate
environmental problems and health threats for communities
that have already been disproportionately impacted. A
comprehensive evaluation of the safety of expanding oil
drilling must include and ensure protections for the most
vulnerable, and already overburdened, communities.
Oil wells in Los Angeles
|
PAGE 4 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Mapping Oil and Gas Activity and Communities
Burdened by Environmental Pollution in California
The objective of our analysis is to examine where and
how communities, especially those that are vulnerable to
environmental pollution and degradation, are affected by
existing and potential oil and gas development in California.
In light of the impacts associated with the rapid scale-up
of tight oil3 and shale gas4 development in Pennsylvania,
Texas, Colorado, and North Dakota, the prospect of new
and expanded oil exploration and production in California
must be closely evaluated, including identifying who will be
impacted by it and where.
We used the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) “AllWells” and “Well Stimulation
Treatment Notices Index” databases, the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) “Oil and Gas Wells
Activity Notification” database, and the chemicals disclosure
registry database FracFocus.org (all as of July, 2014) to map
and describe oil and gas wells.5,6
The oil and gas wells that we selected from the “AllWells”
database for our analysis are classified by DOGGR as
either “New” or “Active”. “New” wells are those that have
been permitted to be drilled, while “Active” wells include
producing wells and wells not plugged according to DOGGR
standards. These wells may hence pose an ongoing threat
as potential production sites or conduits for pollution.7 We
used the “New” and “Active” codes because they provide a
measure of the number of wells that may—now or in the
future—contribute to the total environmental burden on the
communities. We then expanded this database to include the
SB4 notification, SCAQMD, and FracFocus.org information
while eliminating duplicate well entries. (For more details on
well selection see Appendix I).
In a second step, we mapped the vulnerability of
communities to environmental pollution and overlaid the
location of oil and gas wells. We used the CalEnviroScreen
2.0—a tool developed by CalEPA to evaluate multiple
pollution sources (including air, water, and soil pollution)
in a community while accounting for its vulnerability to
pollution’s adverse health effects. The tool is now being used
by several state agencies in their decision-making processes
and to identify areas and communities that are in particular
need of resources to address these pollution sources and
cope with the negative health effects.8 CalEnviroScreen 2.0
provides a means to identify communities that could be most
vulnerable to pollution from new and existing oil and gas
development. It aggregates a pollution burden index with
Census characteristics that have been linked to pollution
sensitivity and ranks census tracts from lowest to highest.
We focus in particular on the subset of communities—
the top 20% of census tracts—that CalEnviroScreen 2.0
identifies as the most highly burdened, and most vulnerable,
communities in the state with respect to cumulative
environmental pollution.9
Using spatial buffering techniques, we then calculated the
number and demographics of people who live near oil and
gas wells (within a quarter mile and within one mile).10 (More
detail on the calculation methods is included in Appendix I.)
Extraction Technologies Poised to Expand
Oil Drilling in California
Advanced well drilling and stimulation technologies such
as horizontal drilling, hydraulic fracturing, and acidizing
have brought a huge boom over the past decade in
unconventional oil and gas development in at least 17 states.11
The term ‘unconventional’ refers to reservoirs that have low
permeability and porosity and require technologies such as
hydraulic fracturing to produce oil or gas. Hydraulic fracturing
(‘fracking’) involves pumping large volumes of water mixed
with chemicals underground at high pressures to fracture
the rock.12 Acidizing is a process that increases the flow of
oil and gas by injecting acids into the well to dissolve rocks
and/or sediments and mud solids that are clogging the rock
pores.13 Hydraulic fracturing, as well as cyclic steam and water
flooding, is also used for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) to
improve formation permeability and oil flow.14
|
The Monterey Formation (see Map 1) contains various
oil-bearing components known as members,15 including the
Puente or Modelo formations and the Nodular Shale in the
Los Angeles Basin and the McClure, Reef Ridge, and Antelope
shales in the San Joaquin Basin.16 The Temblor Formation
(including the Santos Shale), which underlies the central
and southern San Joaquin Valley, has also been identified as
prospective for oil. The Monterey Formation underlies much
of the Central Valley’s rich agricultural soils and important
groundwater aquifers. In Los Angeles and Santa Barbara
counties, it overlaps with one of the most populated regions
in the country.
PAGE 5 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Despite uncertainty about how much oil is recoverable
in the Monterey Formation tight oil play,17 the industry
continues to aggressively use and develop unconventional
stimulation and enhanced recovery methods such as
hydraulic fracturing to unlock oil deposits in California.18,19
This could result in hundreds if not thousands of new wells—
in addition to the more than 84,000 existing oil and gas wells
(see Map 1)— in heavily drilled areas such as Kern County
and new areas, even those near towns and cities.
Our database counts 84,434 active and new oil and gas
wells. Of that, 7,177 are ‘new’ wells that have recently received
a permit to be drilled, and, at least 3,003 wells that have
been stimulated using hydraulic fracturing, acidizing, and
other stimulation methods (including 596 SB4 notices).
Since DOGGR only began adding this information recently,
however, this estimate may be too low. Differences in
reporting requirements also led to discrepancies between
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
well notices20 and DOGGR’s databases. These discrepancies,
and the resulting underreporting in California, highlight
the need for more effective regulation of an industry
that hydraulically fractured approximately 82,000 wells
in 17 other states between 2005 and 201321 while taking
advantage of exemptions from portions of the nation’s major
environmental and public health protection laws.22
Pollution and Health Threats Associated
with Oil and Gas Development
Experts are concerned that expanded oil drilling in California
by developing the Monterey tight oil play could pose
significant threats to health and the environment from
hydraulic fracturing and other stimulation methods.23,24,25
Although the extent to which these methods will be deployed
in California is debated,26,27 the literature linking oil and gas
development, including hydraulic fracturing, to significant
releases of air, water, and soil pollutants as well as physical,
safety, and health hazards raises the potential for significant
impacts.28,29,30 Recent review studies of shale gas development
identified pollutant emissions at all stages beginning
with well pad construction and continuing through
drilling, well completion, production, and ultimately well
abandonment.31,32 The majority of these pollutants, detailed
below, are also present in unconventional oil development,
which also uses hydraulic fracturing and acidizing.
Air Pollution
Multiple studies have found that air pollution from oil
and gas development can reach levels associated with
adverse health impacts for residents and communities in
regions with intense oil and gas development. Air pollution
from unconventional oil and gas development can be
classified into emissions during preproduction, production,
transmission and storage, use, and after well abandonment.33
Preproduction emissions (i.e., well pad preparation, drilling,
well stimulation, and completion) include methane, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX),34 volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), fine particulate
matter (PM2.5), hydrogen sulfide, and silica dust.35,36,37,38 VOCs
and NOx contribute to the formation of regional ozone, which
causes smog and harms the respiratory system.39,40,41 During
|
production, methane and non-methane VOCs, including
numerous toxic air contaminants (TACs), may continue to
be released from the wellhead and other equipment such as
condensate tanks, compressor stations, and open wastewater
impoundment pits. Oil and gas transmission and storage
release VOCs and methane.42,43 Improper plugging of a well
at the end of its life cycle can cause continued leakage of
oil, methane, and other VOCs even after the well has ceased
production.44
A broad range of health effects are associated with
exposure to these air pollutants, including mild to severe
respiratory and neurological problems, cardiovascular
damage, endocrine disruption, birth defects, cancer, and
premature mortality.45,46
Contamination of Drinking
Water and Soils
The large-scale exploration and production of conventional
and tight oil deposits using hydraulic fracturing and related
stimulation techniques risks water and soil contamination
from spills and leaks; well blowouts; and faulty well casings,
cement, and equipment. A recent analysis estimated that
between 2012 and 2013, the number of reported spills in
15 major oil and gas producing states rose by 17 percent
to more than 7,000. 47 Although many of these spills were
small, their combined volume totaled more than 26 million
gallons of oil, hydraulic fracturing fluid, wastewater, and
other chemicals and compounds used or produced during
oil and gas production. Hydraulic fracturing fluid and
wastewater are often a toxic soup of chemicals. For example,
a study of 353 fracking fluid constituents found that more
than 75 percent of them have been shown to affect the
PAGE 6 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Map 1: Active and new oil and gas wells as of July 2014 and the Monterey shale play and sedimentary basins
|
PAGE 7 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
skin, eyes, other sensory organs, and the respiratory and
gastrointestinal systems. Approximately 40–50 percent can
affect the central nervous system and the brain, the immune
and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys. Thirty-seven
percent are known endocrine disruptors and 25 percent are
linked to cancer and mutations.48 Underground, the hydraulic
fracturing fluid mixes with formation brines. This so-called
“produced water” can be much saltier than seawater and can
contain heavy metals and Naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials (NORM).49,50,51 It is brought to the surface along
with oil and gas over a well’s lifespan. During “flowback”
(several days following the fracturing process), between 10
and 80 percent of the hydraulic fracturing fluid returns to
the surface.52 The handling and disposal of this wastewater
has been linked to air pollution when volatile contaminates
evaporate and to water contamination incidents involving
local groundwater and nearby waterways.
Methane, hydrocarbons, hydraulic fracturing fluid
components, heavy metals, and formation fluids have
been found in water wells near oil and gas sites.
and contaminate the air and soil when wastewater is sprayed
on roads.61,62 Illegally dumped radioactive solid waste from
oil and gas production has also caused contamination
problems.63
Noise and Light Pollution
Hydraulic fracturing and other well stimulation methods can
lead to prolonged periods of noise and light pollution for
nearby communities. Well pad preparation, drilling, and well
stimulation generate significant noise levels for neighboring
residences, schools, and work places. The noise—from
trucks, generators, drilling operations, and pumps—can
occur intermittently for days at a time over several years as
wells are hydraulically fractured and reworked many times.64
Produced gas that is not captured and sold may be flared, i.e.,
burned off, 24 hours a day, producing not only additional air
pollution but a constant roar and bright light.65 The health
effects associated with noise and light pollution include sleep
disturbance, fatigue, reduced school and work performance,
hypertension, and cardiovascular problems.66
Public Safety
Another potential source of water contamination is loss
of mechanical integrity from improper well construction,
maintenance, or plugging.53 Failure of well casings and
cement bonds could allow oil, gas, hydraulic fracturing fluids,
and naturally occurring toxic and radioactive materials to
migrate into shallower groundwater aquifers. While well
integrity failure may not necessarily lead to groundwater
contamination, monitoring and effective regulations are
needed to detect and remediate well integrity problems and
to properly plug wells. For example, a 2009 study examined
records of more than 315,000 oil and gas production and
injection wells drilled through 2004 in Alberta, Canada and
found that 4.6 percent had gas migration problems due to
improper construction. It remains unclear what percentage
of these wells may have impacted groundwater.54An
examination of more than 75,000 compliance reports for
41,381 conventional and unconventional oil and gas wells
drilled in Pennsylvania between 2000 and 2012 found that the
incidence of cement and/or casing issues was six-fold higher
for unconventional wells compared with conventional wells
and that incidence varied by geographical location.55
Several other studies have found methane, hydrocarbons
(including BTEX), hydraulic fracturing fluids, formation
brine, heavy metals, and NORM in water samples from
drinking water wells and surface water bodies near oil and
gas sites.56,57,58,59,60 It is, however, difficult to determine the
exact origin and pathways that led to the contamination.
NORM also poses risks to workers at the well site,
neighboring communities, and the environment. It can
accumulate in pipes and other well equipment, build up in
sediments downstream of wastewater treatment facilities,
|
In areas with inadequate road infrastructure, traffic accidents
are one of the largest sources of injuries and fatalities
related to tight oil and shale gas development, because of
the substantial amount of heavy truck traffic involved.67,68
Other impacts include increased crime and social disruption,
accidents at well sites and pipelines, fires, and explosions.69
Seismic Risks
Researchers have known for a long time that underground
injection can lubricate faults and change fault pressures
potentially resulting in seismic events. The injection of
oil and gas wastewater into deep underground wells (socalled UIC Class II wells) has repeatedly been linked to such
events, known as induced seismicity.70 Researchers at the
U.S. Geological Survey found that the rate of earthquakes
of magnitude 3.0 and higher in the central and eastern
United States has increased from an average of 21 per year
from 1967 through 2000 to more than 300 in the years 2010
through 2012. In 2011 alone, there were 188.71 An analysis of
the disposal of toxic wastewater in deep injection wells in
California showed that 54 percent of 1,553 active and new
injection wells are within 10 miles of a recently (within the
past 200 years) active seismic fault line. Another 23 percent
are within five miles and 6 percent are within one mile.72
Most earthquakes caused by oil and gas activities have
been relatively small. Some, like the 2011 magnitude 5.7
earthquake in Oklahoma that was triggered by wastewater
injection, have been large enough to cause property damage
and injuries.73 Even small induced earthquakes, however, may
compromise well integrity or other infrastructure, leading to
water and soil contamination.
PAGE 8 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Oil and Gas Wells are Concentrated in Communities
Struggling With and Vulnerable to Pollution
The number of oil and gas wells per census tract varies widely
in California. The largest number of wells, more than 28,000,
is found in a rural census tract west of Bakersfield in Kern
County. Kern and Los Angeles counties top the charts with
total well counts of 63,430 and 6,065, respectively. Map 2
shows the number and distribution of wells in relation to the
20 percent of census tracts identified by CalEnviroScreen 2.0
as most vulnerable. Since census tracts are roughly linked
to population sizes, rural census tracts tend to be larger in
area and therefore tend to have a greater number of wells. In
Los Angeles, high population density means that the census
tracts are much smaller and well counts of 1–100 are more
typical and often found near other urban pollution sources.74
Our maps show that residents in the southern part of the San
Joaquin Valley and the greater Los Angeles area suffer from
high pollution concentrations as well as a high concentration
of oil and gas wells.
In California, approximately 5.4 million people (14 percent
of the state’s population) live within a mile of one or more
oil and gas wells. This translates to roughly 1 in 5 African
Americans, 1 in 6 Hispanics/Latinos, 1 in 7 Asians, and 1
in 9 Whites. More than a third of these people, 1.8 million
(mainly in Los Angeles and Kern Counties), also live in areas
identified by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 as most burdened by
environmental pollution. A breakdown by race and ethnicity,
as shown in Figure 1, reveals disparities in potential exposure
for communities of color compared to the state’s total
population.75
Of the statewide population living within one mile of
oil and gas development and in communities identified
as most vulnerable by CalEPA’s new CalEnviroScreen 2.0,
nearly 92 percent are people of color (69 percent Hispanic/
Latino, 10 percent African American, 11 percent Asian, and
2 percent Other). Within the top 20 percent of census tracts
ranked as most vulnerable—with a combined population of
nearly 7.5 million—the number of oil and gas wells ranges
from 0 to 6,575 per census tract, with a total of 11,329 wells.
(See Appendix II for more detail.) Without the necessary
monitoring data, scientific understanding, and health
regulations, expanded oil development in these parts of the
state could further exacerbate the toll on the most vulnerable
communities.
Additionally, the geologic formations targeted for potential
new exploration using hydraulic fracturing and other
techniques include areas that are already heavily burdened
by pollution, particularly in the Central Valley. So far, most
of the new drilling and well stimulation techniques have
been concentrated in areas of existing oil and gas drilling in
Kern County. Los Angeles and Ventura counties each also
have more than 100 stimulated wells. Fresno and Monterey
counties, too, are seeing hundreds of new well permits and a
handful of wells flagged as stimulated (Table 1 in Appendix
II). Although it remains to be seen whether, and how, this
exploration will be conducted given the geology of these
basins in California, which is challenging for large-scale
hydraulic fracturing, even small increases in pollution in
already heavily burdened areas could result in increased
health threats.
Figure 1: Demographics of Population Living Near Wells and Statewide in California
50
45%
40%
38%
40
31%
30
compared
with
20
13% 13%
10
0
8%
6%
statewide
■ Racial/Ethnic Composition of Population Living
Within 1 Mile of Active or New Oil and Gas Well
3% 3%
■ Statewide Racial/Ethnic Composition
African
American
Asian
Hispanic/
Latino
Other
|
White
PAGE 9 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
80
70
45%
HISPANIC/LATINO
38%
of people living
within one mile of oil
and gas well(s) are
67%
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Map 2: Active and new oil and gas well counts as of July 2014 by census tract and the 20 percent most vulnerable
census tracts according to the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 released in August 2014
|
PAGE 10 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Although the 3,003 wells identified as having been
stimulated using hydraulic fracturing and other techniques
(including 596 well stimulation notices under SB4) are likely
an undercount, more than 80 percent of them are located
in just three census tracts. Two of those tracts are in Kern
County and one in Ventura County.76 The two Kern County
tracts (west and northwest of Bakersfield) also have the
most new well permits and account for 591 of the 596 SB4
well stimulation notifications included in our database (430
and 161 notices, respectively). Of the 7,177 newly permitted
wells—6,141, or 86 percent—are located in Kern County.
More than half (3,209) are in the census tract with the most
wells followed by 1,194 and 843 new wells in the next two
tracts. The three census tracts surround Bakersfield to the
west, northwest and northeast. This area also ranks in the top
third of census tracts for environmental pollution.
According to CalEnviroScreen 2.0, the communities
already experiencing new drilling, hydraulic fracturing,
and acidizing are also exposed to high levels of ozone,
particulate matter, diesel particulate pollution, water and soil
contamination, and hazardous waste sites. If current drilling
trends continue—and new well drilling, hydraulic fracturing
and other stimulation techniques are concentrated in areas
with existing oil and gas activity—more than 1.8 million
Californians, already heavily burdened by pollution, may be
saddled with even more health threats.
Hotspots in Southern California: Greater Los
50
Angeles
and the
45%Southern San Joaquin Valley
of people living
40%
Greater Los Angeles
Los Angeles is home to the Inglewood Oil Field, the
largest urban oil field in the United States.77 This field is
30
in the Baldwin Hills’ community, which includes 300,000
residents.78 Well pads often contain 30 or more wells within
a few feet of buildings, roads, and parks. Map 3 illustrates
20 in Los Angeles, oil and gas wells are frequently in
that
immediate proximity to, or even part of, neighborhoods and
communities that are burdened by multiple environmental
stressors
with limited ability to address and cope with the
10
associated health risks.
13% 13%
8%
45%
HISPANIC/LATINO
38%
within one mile of oil
well(s)
are
In Los Angeles County, 580,000 people and
live gas
within
a quarter
38%
40
6%
3% 3%
31%
mile of 5,715 active and 350 newly permitted oil and gas
wells. At a one mile distance the number grows to 3.5 million
(i.e., one third of the County’s population), nearly half are
compared
Hispanic/Latino. Ninety-seven of Los Angeles County’s
855 census tracts withwith
the highest environmental pollution
burden have at least one well for a total number of 1,723
wells (28 percent of the total number of wells in Los Angeles
County). Furthermore, people of color are more likely to live
near oil and gas wells in Los Angeles County: 44 percent of
African Americans, 37■
percent
of Hispanics/Latinos
and
38
Racial/Ethnic
Composition of Population
Living
percent of Asians compared
with
31
percent
of
Whites.
Within 1 Mile of Active or New Oil and Gas Well
statewide
■ Statewide Racial/Ethnic Composition
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
African
Asian
Hispanic/
Other
White
American
Latino
Figure 2: Racial/Ethnic Composition According to the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and 1/4 Mile Distance to Oil and Gas Wells
0
in Los Angeles County
67%
80
67%
70
60
50
40%
34%
40
30
20
10
0
11%
7%
African
American
13% 16%
2% 3%
Asian
Hispanic/
Latino
Other
|
8%
White
PAGE 11 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
80
of people living within a quarter mile of
oil and gas well(s) and in areas facing the
worst environmental health threats are
HISPANIC/LATINO.
■ Most Vulnerable Communities With
Oil and Gas Wells Within 1/4 Mile
■ Less Vulnerable Communities
Without Oil and Gas Wells Within 1/4 Mile
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Map 3: Greater Los Angeles area showing the density of active and new oil and gas wells as of July 2014
and the 20 percent most vulnerable census tracts according to the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 released in August 2014
|
PAGE 12 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
HISPANIC/LATINO
31%
30
compared
Of the more than 262,000 Los Angeles County residents
that live within a quarter mile of oil and gas wells and in areas
20
facing
the worst health threats from pollution in the state; 67
percent are Hispanics/Latinos, 11 percent African Americans,
13 percent Asians, and 2 percent Other. In contrast, the
communities
less impacted by environmental pollution
10
and not living in close proximity to oil and gas wells have a
significantly higher White population (Figure 2).
Although many of Los Angeles’ oil fields have been tapped
0
for several
stimulation and
recovery techniques
Africandecades, newAsian
Hispanic/
Other
could American
bring currently idle wells back intoLatino
production.79
Much of the greater Los Angeles region is underlain by the
Monterey Formation, which could soon be explored using
80
unconventional
drilling and stimulation techniques.
13% 13%
8%
6%
3% 3%
67%
70
San Joaquin Valley and Kern County
60
The
San Joaquin Valley stretches from San Joaquin County
in the north to Kern County in the south. Although mostly
50
rural,
this region contains several larger metropolitan areas,
including Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, and Modesto.80 The
40
region
is a major producer of agricultural crops, livestock,
and other products, but also suffers from a high rate of food
30
insecurity
and poverty.81 The San Joaquin Valley’s air quality
consistently ranks as among the worst in the nation with
high
levels of ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). More
20
than 36 percent of the census tracts in the San Joaquin Valley
rank
in the top 20 percent for combined pollution threats,
10
including air pollution and toxic releases.
34%
11%
0
7%
African
American
13% 16%
2% 3%
Asian
Hispanic/
Latino
Other
38%
While CalEnviroScreen
with 2.0 flags many census tracts
throughout the San Joaquin Valley as highly impacted and
vulnerable, we focus on Kern County because of its high
concentration of oil and gas development and because new
development using hydraulic fracturing and acidizing of the
Monterey Formation is already underway there. Kern County
■ Racial/Ethnic
of Population
Living
produces approximately
75 percentComposition
of California’s
oil and
Within
1
Mile
of
Active
or
New
Oil
and
Gas
Well
82
about 58 percent of its natural gas. Map 4 shows the dense
distribution of the 63,430
active and
new oil
and gas wells
■ Statewide
Racial/Ethnic
Composition
in the County—6,141
of
which
are
newly
permitted
and at
Note:
Percentages
may
not
add
up
to
100
percent
due to rounding.
White
least 2,361 have been stimulated—with up to 28,188 wells per
census tract.
statewide
67%
Kern County has 63,430 active and new oil and gas
wells and at least 2,361 of them have been stimulated
using hydraulic fracturing or other methods.
of people living within a quarter mile of
oil and gas well(s) and in areas facing the
CalEnviroScreen
2.0 ranks 55 Kern County census tracts,
40%
worst environmental health threats are
with a population of 330,000, as among the most vulnerable
HISPANIC/LATINO.
to pollution and this includes many tracts with a high well
density. Slightly more than 290,000 people (35 percent of
the population) live within one mile of one of the 63,430
oil and gas wells. In Kern County, Hispanic/Latino and
■ Most Vulnerable
With
African American communities
carryCommunities
a disproportionate
and Gas Wells
Within
1/4 be
Mileexacerbated
environmental pollution Oil
burden,
which
may
by the effects of oil and
Of the approximately
■ gas
Lessproduction.
Vulnerable Communities
122,000 people living close
to
oil
and
gas
wells
and
Without Oil and Gas Wells
Within
1/4suffering
Mile
8%
White
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Figure 3: Demographics of Kern County According to the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and 1 Mile Distance to Oil and Gas Wells
in Kern County
80
64%
70
60
49%
50
37%
40
24%
30
20
10
0
7% 5%
African
American
2% 5%
Asian
Other
|
of people living within one mile of oil
and gas well(s) and in areas facing the
worst environmental health threats are
HISPANIC/LATINO.
■ Most Vulnerable Communities With
Oil and Gas Wells Within 1 Mile
2% 3%
Hispanic/
Latino
64%
White
PAGE 13 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
■ Less Vulnerable Communities
Without Oil and Gas Wells Within 1 Mile
Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Map 4: Southern San Joaquin Valley showing the density of active and new oil and gas wells as of July 2014
and the 20 percent census tracts most vulnerable census tracts according to the CalEnviroScreen 2.0 released
in August 2014
|
PAGE 14 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
the most health threats from pollution as measured by
CalEnviroScreen 2.0, nearly 92,000 (76 percent) are people
of color.83 In contrast, the communities less impacted by
environmental pollution and not near oil and gas wells are
majority white (49 percent) (see Figure 3).
Kern County is also the epicenter of well stimulation
notices filed under the SB4 interim regulations. As of July
2014, 596 notices for well stimulation using hydraulic
fracturing, acidizing, and other techniques have been filed,
591 of them for wells in Kern County. The majority of these
wells were hydraulically fractured, while a smaller proportion
used acid matrix stimulation. The western part of the
county overlies the Monterey tight oil play and is considered
prospective for development. There is also current
production from the Monterey Formation.84 Kern County’s
rural communities, which are already heavily impacted by
pollution and predominantly Latino/Hispanic and lowincome, are at the frontlines of new drilling and technologies
with the accompanying health risks from heavy truck traffic,
air pollutant emissions, accidents, and wastewater disposal.
Conclusions
Expanding oil production in California, in areas already heavily drilled or in new areas, can
threaten the health of communities. For many already living with oil and gas wells and at
ground zero for new drilling activity, these threats are piled on top of a heavy burden of
environmental contamination. Evaluations of the safety of new drilling techniques must
account for the threats to these communities and California policymakers must ensure that
new oil exploration and development does not come at their expense.
Recommendations
To prevent further environmental damage and public health
threats, major improvements are required before hydraulic
fracturing, acidizing, and other stimulation techniques are
allowed in California:
A
comprehensive evaluation of pollution and health threats
from oil and gas development, including well stimulation
using hydraulic fracturing and other methods, must include
the following:
n a
full inventory and assessment of the types, sources,
and quantities of contaminants associated with oil and
gas development and production, including hydraulic
fracturing and acidizing;
n a
n
The current tracking, reporting, and notification system
for oil and gas well development, activity, and stimulation
methods is inaccurate and fragmented and is not
transparent. DOGGR must work to overhaul its databases
and improve data integration and reporting. Comprehensive
measures are needed to ensure that oil and gas development
does not contribute to environmental degradation,
pollution, or threatens the health of residents in neighboring
communities. Until this is complete, communities already
overburdened with environmental pollution will remain in
harm’s way.
assessment of their health threats; and
n a
n
evaluation and quantification of additional
pollution, health threats, and environmental
degradation from increased oil and gas extraction
in existing oil fields and expansion into new areas
within the Monterey tight oil play.
|
PAGE 15 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Endnotes
1 John L. Adgate, Bernard D. Goldstein, Lisa M. McKenzie,
“Potential Public Health Hazards, Exposures and Health Effects from
Unconventional Natural Gas Development,” Environmental Science &
Technology, February 2014, doi:10.1021/es404621d.
2 Lisa M. McKenzie et al., “Birth Outcomes and Maternal
Residential Proximity to Natural Gas Development in Rural Colorado,”
Environmental Health Perspectives, 2014, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.1306722.
3 Tight oil, also called shale oil, is light crude oil trapped in
formations of low permeability, often shale or tight sandstone.
4 Shale gas is natural gas that is trapped in shale formations of low
permeability.
5 CA Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),
GIS Mapping, “AllWells” database, www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/
maps/Pages/GISMapping2.aspx (downloaded July 14, 2014) and
“Well Stimulation Treatment Notices Index,” www.conservation.
ca.gov/dog/Pages/IWST_disclaimer.aspx (downloaded July, 2014).
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1148.2 database,
xappprod.aqmd.gov/r1148pubaccessportal/Home/Index (downloaded
July, 2014). FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry, fracfocus.org/
(downloaded July, 2014).
6 The “Well Stimulation Treatment Notices Index” database is a
result of interim regulations developed by DOGGR under California’s
2013 oil and gas well stimulation law (SB4) , which requires well
operators to file well stimulation notices at least 30 days prior to
commencing well stimulation using technologies such as hydraulic
fracturing and acidizing. The SCAQMD database provides information
on event notifications and chemical reports under its Rule 1148.2.
FracFocus.org is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council
and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and provides
information on the use of hydraulic fracturing for well stimulation.
15 A member is a named part of a formation that has distinct
physical characteristics (lithology).
16 Ibid. [11].
17 Tight oil is petroleum that consists of light crude oil contained
in petroleum-bearing formations of low permeability, often shale or
tight sandstone. A petroleum play, or play, is a group of oil fields or
prospects in the same region that are characterized by the same set
of geological circumstances.
18 EIA, “Annual Energy Outlook,” 2014, www.eia.gov/forecasts/
aeo/ (accessed September 8, 2014).
19 Wall Street Journal, “Oil Firms Seek to Unlock Big California Oil
Field,” September 22, 2013. online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014
24127887323932604579052933974060844 (accessed September 8,
2014).
20 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
“South Coast AQMD 1148.2—Oil and Gas Wells Activity Notification
database,” xappprod.aqmd.gov/r1148pubaccessportal/Home/Index
(downloaded July 20, 2014).
21 Environment America, “Fracking by the Numbers Key Impacts
of Dirty Drilling at the State and National Level,” 2013, www.
environmentamerica.org/reports/ame/fracking-numbers (accessed
September 8, 2014).
22 US Government Accountability Office (GAO), “Unconventional
Oil and Gas Development. Key Environmental and Public Health
Requirements,” Report GAO-12-874, 2012.
23 Seth Shonkoff, Jake Hays, Madelon L. Finkel, “Environmental
Public Health Dimensions of Shale and Tight Gas Development,”
Environmental Health Perspectives prepublication release April 2014,
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307866.
24 Ken Caldeira, et al., “Letter to CA Governor Jerry Brown,”
November 13, 2013.
7 CA Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas &
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), GIS Mapping, “Readme2013.txt
file,” www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/maps/Pages/GISMapping2.aspx
(accessed September 8, 2014).
25 Deborah Gordon, Katherine Garner, “Mapping California’s OilWater Risks,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January
15, 2014.
8 California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA),
“CalEnviroScreen 2.0,” 2014, oehha.ca.gov/ej/ces2.html (downloaded
August 14, 2014).
27 J.D. Hughes, “Drilling California: A Reality Check on the
Monterey Shale,” 2013, Post Carbon Institute and Physicians
Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy.
9
Ibid. [8].
10 We used a quarter mile distance in urban areas while for the
statewide calculation we used a one mile distance to take into
account the lower population density in rural areas. These distances
were chosen to reflect common, and understandable, measures
of proximity because there is a limited, and inconclusive, literature
evaluating distances and health risks. Additionally, some pollution is
regional and can impact populations not immediately proximal.
11 EIA, “Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale
Oil Plays,” In: Independent Statistics and Analysis. Washington, D.C.,
July 2011.
12 EPA, “Hydraulic Fracturing. The Process of Hydraulic Fracturing,”
www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/process-hydraulic-fracturing
(accessed September 8, 2014).
13 H.O. McLeod, “Matrix Acidizing to Improve Well Performance,”
Short Course Manual, 1986, Richardson, Texas: SPE.
14 U.S. Department of Energy, “Enhanced Oil Recovery,” 2014,
energy.gov/fe/science-innovation/oil-gas/enhanced-oil-recovery
(accessed September 8, 2014).
|
26 Ibid. [18].
28 Christopher W. Moore, et al., “Air Impacts of Increased
Natural Gas Acquisition, Processing, and Use: A Critical Review,”
Environmental Science & Technology, 11 (2014), doi:dx.doi.
org/10.1021/es4053472.
29 Wolf Eagle Environmental, “Town of DISH, Texas, Ambient Air
Monitoring Analysis, Final Report,” 2009.
30 P.F. Ziemkiewicz, et al., “Exposure Pathways Related to Shale
Gas Development and Procedures for Reducing Environmental and
Public Risk,” Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 16
(January 2014): 77–84, doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2013.11.003.
31 Ibid. [1].
32 Ibid. [23].
33 Ibid. [28].
34 BTEX is the term used for the toxic benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene-volatile aromatic compounds typically found
in petroleum product, such as gasoline and diesel fuel.
35 Lisa M. McKenzie, et al., “Human Health Risk Assessment of
Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas
Resources,” Science of the Total Environment 424 (2012): 79–87,
doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.02.018.
PAGE 16 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
36 Eastern Research Group (ERG) and Sage Environmental
Consulting LP, “City of Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study,”
2012, Fort Worth, TX.
37 Eric J. Esswein, et al., “Occupational Exposures to Respirable
Crystalline Silica during Hydraulic Fracturing,” Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Hygiene 10 (7) (2013): 347–56, doi:10.1080/15459
624.2013.788352.
38 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Division
of Air Quality, “Air, Noise, and Light Monitoring Results For Assessing
Environmental Impacts of Horizontal Gas Well Drilling Operations
(ETD‐10 Project),” 2013, Charleston, WV.
39 State of Wyoming Department of Health, “Associations of ShortTerm Exposure to Ozone and Respiratory Outpatient Clinic Visits —
Sublette County, Wyoming, 2008–2011,” 2013, Cheyenne, WY.
40 West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, Office
of Oil and Gas, “Noise, Light, Dust, and Volatile Organic Compounds
Generated by the Drilling of Horizontal Wells Related to the Well
Location Restriction Regarding Occupied Dwelling Structures,” 2013.
41 Jessica Gilman, et al., “Source Signature of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) from Oil and Natural Gas Operations in
Northeastern Colorado,” Environmental Science & Technology 47 (3)
(2013): 1297–1305, doi:10.1021/es304119a.
42 Anirban A. Roy, Peter J. Adams, Allen L. Robinson, “Air Pollutant
Emissions from the Development, Production, and Processing
of Marcellus Shale Natural Gas,” Journal of the Air & Waste
Management Association 64 (1) (2014): 19–37, doi:10.1080/10962247
.2013.826151.
43 David T. Allen, “Atmospheric Emissions and Air Quality Impacts
from Natural Gas Production and Use,” Annual Review of Chemical
and Biomolecular Engineering, February 2014, doi:10.1146/annurevchembioeng-060713-035938.
44 Anthony Ingraffea, “Fluid Migration Mechanisms due to
Faulty Well Design And/or Construction: An Overview and Recent
Experiences in the Pennsylvania Marcellus Play,” 2013, Physicians,
Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy.
45 Ibid. [35].
46 Madelon Finkel, Jake Hays, Adam Law, “Modern Natural
Gas Development and Harm to Health: The Need for Proactive
Public Health Policies,” ISRN Public Health, 2013, doi:http://dx.doi.
org/10.1155/2013/408658.
47 Mike Soraghan, “Spills up 18 Percent in U.S. in
2013,” EnergyWire, May 12, 2014, www.eenews.net/
energywire/2014/05/12/stories/1059999364 (accessed September 8,
2014).
53 Anthony Ingraffea, et al., “Assessment and Risk Analysis of
Casing and Cement Impairment in Oil and Gas Wells in Pennsylvania,
2000–2012,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, June
2014, doi:10.1073/pnas.1323422111.
54 T. Watson, S. Bachu, “Evaluation of the Potential for Gas and
CO2 Leakage along Wellbores,” SPE Drilling & Completion, 24(1)
(2009): 115-126.
55 Ibid. [53].
56 Stephen G. Osborn, et al., “Methane Contamination of Drinking
Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (20) (2011):
8172–76, doi:www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1100682108.
57 Ronald S. Balaba, Ronald B Smart, “Total Arsenic and Selenium
Analysis in Marcellus Shale, High-Salinity Water, and Hydrofracture
Flowback Wastewater,” Chemosphere 89 (11) (2012): 1437–42,
doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.06.014.
58 Brian E. Fontenot, et al., “An Evaluation of Water Quality in
Private Drinking Water Wells Near Natural Gas Extraction Sites in the
Barnett Shale Formation,” Environmental Science & Technology 47
(2013): 10032–40, doi:dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4011724.
59 Elise Barbot, et al., “Spatial and Temporal Correlation of Water
Quality Parameters of Produced Waters from Devonian-Age Shale
Following Hydraulic Fracturing,” Environmental Science & Technology
47 (6) (2013): 2562–69, doi:10.1021/es304638h.
60 Sherilyn A. Gross, et al., “Analysis of BTEX Groundwater
Concentrations from Surface Spills Associated with Hydraulic
Fracturing Operations,” Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association 63 (4) (2013): 424–32, doi:10.1080/10962247.2012.75916
6.
61 Andrew J. Kondash, et al., “Radium and Barium Removal through
Blending Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids with Acid Mine Drainage,”
Environmental Science & Technology 48 (2) (2014): 1334–42,
doi:10.1021/es403852h.
62 Katherine J. Skalak, et al., “Surface Disposal of Produced
Waters in Western and Southwestern Pennsylvania: Potential for
Accumulation of Alkali-Earth Elements in Sediments,” International
Journal of Coal Geology, 2013, doi:10.1016/j.coal.2013.12.001.
63 EnergyWire, “BAKKEN SHALE: New Find of Illegal Oil Field
Waste May Be N.D.’s Largest.” EnergyWire, March 13, 2014, www.
eenews.net/energywire/2014/03/13/stories/1059996026 (accessed
September 8, 2014).
64 Ibid. [40].
65 Ibid. [30].
48 Theo Colborn, et al., “Natural Gas Operations from a Public
Health Perspective,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 17
(2011): 1039–56, doi:10.1080/10807039.2011.605662.
66 Katrina Smith Korfmacher, et al., “Public Health and High Volume
Hydraulic Fracturing,” New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental
and Occupational Health Policy 23 (1) (2013): 13–31, doi:10.2190/
NS.23.1.c.
49 Nathaniel R. Warner, et al., “Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater
Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania,” Environmental
Science & Technology 47 (20) (2013): 11849–57, doi:10.1021/
es402165b.
67 Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities,”
Fact Sheet, April 2014, www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/osar0018.htm
(accessed September 8, 2014).
50 Alisa Rich, Ernest C. Crosby, “Analysis of Reserve Pit Sludge
from Unconventional Natural Gas Hydraulic Fracturing and Drilling
Operations for the Presence of Technologically Enhanced Naturally
Occurring Radioactive Material (TENORM),” New Solutions 23 (1)
(2013): 117–35, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/NS.23.1.h.
51 Ibid. [49].
52 FracFocus, Fracturing Fluid Management, fracfocus.org/hydraulicfracturing-how-it-works/drilling-risks-safeguards (accessed September
8, 2014).
|
68 Lucija Muehlenbachs, Alan J Krupnick, “Shale Gas Development
Linked to Traffic Accidents in Pennsylvania,” Resources for the
Future, 2013, common-resources.org/2013/shale-gas-developmentlinked-to-traffic-accidents-in-pennsylvania/ (accessed September 8,
2014).
69 Ibid. [1].
70 D. Clarke, et al., “Induced seismicity potential in energy
technologies,” National Academies Press, 2012.
PAGE 17 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
78 Ibid. [77].
71 William L. Ellsworth, “Injection-induced
earthquakes,” Science, 341(6142) (2013).
72 John Arbelaez, Shaye Wolf, Andrew Grinberg, “On Shaky
Ground: Fracking, Acidizing, and Increased Earthquake Risk in
California,” Earthworks, Center for Biological Diversity, and Clean
Water Action, 2014.
73 Katie M. Keranen, et al., “Potentially Induced Earthquakes in
Oklahoma, USA: Links between Wastewater Injection and the 2011
Mw 5.7 Earthquake Sequence,” Geology, March 2013, doi:10.1130/
G34045.1.
74 EPA, “Counties designated as “Nonattainment” for Clean
Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality Standards,” www.epa.gov/
airquality/greenbook/mapnpoll.html (accessed September 8, 2014).
75 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “American Community Survey 2012,
1-year estimates,” factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.
xhtml (accessed September 8, 2014).
76 A full analysis of the location of hydraulically fractured wells is not
possible until DOGGR completes this field in its database and fracking
activity is being fully recorded.
77 Inglewood Oil Field, www.inglewoodoilfield.com/history-futureof-inglewood/ (accessed September 8, 2014).
|
79 R.C. Russell, “Final Technical Report: The Use of Acid Stimulation
for Restoring to Production Shut-in Oil Fields,” US Department
of Energy, 2005, www.netl.doe.gov/kmd/cds/disk37/C%20-%20
Independent%20Producers%20Program/NT15432%20Final.pdf
(accessed September 8, 2014).
80 U.S. Census Bureau, “Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical
Areas,” www.census.gov/population/metro/ (accessed September 8,
2014).
81 UCLA Center for Health Policy Research , “Nearly Four Million
Californians Are Food Insecure,” Health Policy Brief, June 2012.
82 Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, “Oil and Gas
Industry,” www.bakersfieldchamber.org/section.asp/csasp/
DepartmentID.537/cs/SectionID.1171/csasp.html (accessed
September 8, 2014).
83 This includes 64 percent Hispanic/Latino, 7 percent African
American, 2 percent Asian, and 2 percent Other.
84 The Bakersfield Californian, “Monterey Shale brightens Kern’s oil
prospects,” www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/business/oil/x65918320/
Monterey-Shale-brightens-Kerns-oil-prospects (accessed September
8, 2014).
PAGE 18 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Appendix I: Methods
Our analysis uses well location data from California’s Division
of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and
FracFocus.org to locate existing and potentially new oil and
gas development.1 We overlay this information with the total
environmental burden and vulnerability score from the
California EPA’s (CalEPA) cumulative environment impact
tool (CalEnviroScreen 2.0).2
Oil and Gas Well Data
We located active (AOG) wells and new (NOG) wells through
the DOGGR’s AllWells database (version released July 14,
2014) using the GISSymbol field. Active wells, according
to DOGGR’s classification, include producing wells and
unplugged wells that may not be producing (e.g., idle
and buried wells) but that can still be brought back into
production or become a conduit for pollution.3 New wells
have recently been permitted to be drilled.4 We used the
AOG and NOG codes because they provide a more complete
measure of the total number of wells that may be sites of
active development or serve as a conduit for pollution and
contribute to the total environmental burden. We note that
the “AllWells” database also includes the WellStatus field.
There are discrepancies between the GISSymbol field and
the WellStatus field and neither is fully accurate at this point.
The discrepancies should be investigated and corrected
by DOGGR. Communication with DOGGR staff, and other
experts, suggested that although the GISSymbol field is not
perfect, DOGGR staff regularly use it for spatial analysis of
well data. We, therefore, concluded that the use of this field is
justified to account for wells that are currently producing or
may be brought back into production in the future.
We then added information from DOGGR’s new Well
Stimulation Notices database, which was developed in
response to Senate Bill 4 (SB4), California’s law for oil and
gas well stimulation enacted in 2013 (SB4 notices as of
July 2014).5 The SB4 interim regulations6—developed by
DOGGR and effective since January 1, 2014—require well
operators to file notices at least 30 days prior to commencing
well stimulation using controversial technologies such
as hydraulic fracturing and acidizing. We also added
information from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District’s Oil and Gas Wells Activity Notification database,
which was developed under Rule 1148.2, as well as the
Chemicals Disclosure Registry website FracFocus.org. We
then removed duplicates, multiple entries for well reworks,
offshore wells, and wells without correct latitude and
longitude coordinates. Our final total came to 84,434 wells
(77,257 active and 7,177 newly permitted wells).
To determine the number of wells that have been
stimulated, we used the DOGGR AllWells database, the
SB4 Well Stimulation Treatment Notification Index, the
|
SCAQMD Oil and Gas Well Activity Notification database, and
FracFocus.org. We counted 3,003 wells that have used or plan
to use hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing, acidizing, and/or
gravel packing. These 3,003 wells include 596 wells, for which
SB4 stimulation notices are available.
In 2012 DOGGR added the field HydraulicallyFractured to
its “AllWells” database as a basic yes/no indicator and is still
adding this information to the database. Therefore, our count
of stimulated wells—while it is the best currently available—
is still likely an undercount. According to the DOGGR, the
new field will be used to identify future wells using hydraulic
fracturing techniques and former wells that have used
hydraulic fracturing techniques.7
Environmental Pollution
and Vulnerability Data
The CalEnviroScreen 2.0 data layer (released in August 2014)
was downloaded from the California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen
website.8 We use the census tracts falling into the top 20
percent of most vulnerable communities according to the
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 aggregate score. The CalEnviroScreen
tool was developed to evaluate multiple pollution sources
(including air, water, and soil) in a community while
accounting for a community’s vulnerability to pollution’s
adverse health effects.9
Calculating the Population
Vulnerable to Environmental
Pollution and affected by Oil
and Gas Development
The number and percentage of people living within 0.25 and
1 mile of active and new oil and gas wells was estimated using
2012 population data from the U.S. Census Bureau10 and
well location information from our well database. The 0.25
and 1 mile distances were chosen to represent oil- and gasrelated health threats at scales relevant to urban and rural
settings, respectively, and to reflect both local and regional
pollution.11 To do so, circles of 0.25 and 1 mile, as appropriate
to the area, were drawn around each well to create a buffered
well layer. The boundaries of these circles were merged and
the resulting shape was intersected with the census tract
population layer. We then calculated the portions of each
census tract that overlapped with the buffered well layer.
Assuming that the census tract population (total population
and population by race and ethnicity) is uniformly
distributed across the census tract, we then determined the
fraction (total population and by race and ethnicity) that
lived within the buffered well layer. All maps were produced
in ArcGIS version 10.1.
PAGE 19 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Appendix I Endnotes
1
CA Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR)
(2014). GIS Mapping. “AllWells” database. Available at www.
conservation.ca.gov/dog/maps/Pages/GISMapping2.aspx (accessed
July 14, 2014) and “Well Stimulation Treatment Notices Index,”
www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Pages/IWST_disclaimer.aspx
(accessed July 2014). South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rule 1148.2, “Oil and Gas Wells Activity Notification,” xappprod.
aqmd.gov/r1148pubaccessportal/Home/Index (accessed July, 2014).
FracFocus Chemical Disclosure Registry. fracfocus.org/ (accessed
July, 2014).
2
CalEPA, OEHHA, “CalEnviroScreen Version 2.0,” oehha.ca.gov/
ej/ces2.html (accessed August 18, 2014).
3
DOGGR, “GIS Mapping,” www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/maps/
Pages/GISMapping2.aspx (accessed July 29, 2014).
4
Ibid. [3].
5
DOGGR, “Well Stimulation Notices Index,” www.conservation.
ca.gov/dog/Pages/IWST_disclaimer.aspx (accessed July 2014). The
database contains well stimulation notices filed since December
2013.
|
California Legislature, “Legislative Council Information,” leginfo.
6
legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB4
(accessed May 14, 2014).
7
DOGGR, GIS Mapping, “Readme file,” www.conservation.
ca.gov/dog/maps/Pages/GISMapping2.aspx (accessed May 16, 2014).
8
Ibid. [2].
9
Ibid. [2].
10 U.S. Bureau of the Census, “American Community Survey.
Census Tract Population Estimates,” factfinder2.census.gov/faces/
nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml (accessed May 12, 2014).
11 There is as of yet no commonly accepted distance over which air
or water pollution effects from oil and gas development are assessed
for local populations. McKenzie et al. (2012) used a ½ mile for their
health risk assessment in a mostly rural area in Colorado and a 10
mile radius to calculate the inverse-distance-weighted metric in their
2014 paper. Hill applied a 2.5 km (1.55 miles) radius in Pennsylvania
and Osborn et al. (2011) used a 1 km (0.62 miles) distance in their
study of methane contamination of drinking water.
PAGE 20 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Appendix II: Tables
The tables in this Appendix provide details on the number
and location of oil and gas wells in California. The data was
extracted from public databases maintained by California’s
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR),
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
and FracFocus.org. Data from the AllWells database is
current as of July 14, 2014 and the information on SB4 Well
Stimulation Notices Index, the SCAQMD Oil and Gas Activity
Notification database, and FracFocus.org are current as of
July 2014.
The following well types are included in our analysis:
n A
ctive
Oil and Gas Wells (AOG): According to DOGGR’s
classification, these wells include producing wells
and wells that have not been plugged and may not be
producing, such as idle and buried wells, but can still
represent a potential for reactivation or conduit for
pollution.
n N
ew
Oil and Gas Wells (NOG): These wells have recently
been permitted to be drilled.
n S
timulated
wells: These wells have been stimulated using
hydraulic fracturing, acid fracturing, acidizing, and/or
gravel packing as compiled from the DOGGR AllWells
database, and SB4 Well Stimulation Treatment Notices
Index, the SCAQMD Oil and Gas Activity Notification
database, and FracFocus.org.
n S
B4 Wells: These
wells are listed as approved in DOGGR’s
SB4 interim well stimulation notices database. These wells
are a subset of the stimulated wells.
Table 1: Counties with at least one active or new oil and gas well
County
Kern
Total Number of
Active and New Oil
and Gas Wells
Active Wells
New Wells
Stimulated Wells
Stimulated
Wells with SB4
Notifications
63,430
57,289
6,141
2,361
591
Los Angeles
6,065
5,715
350
124
-
Fresno
3,671
3,470
201
3
2
Ventura
3,078
2,988
90
456
3
Santa Barbara
2,141
2,058
83
3
-
Orange
1,585
1,530
55
30
-
Monterey
1,263
1,153
110
1
-
Sutter
423
417
6
14
-
San Luis Obispo
402
323
79
-
-
Colusa
372
350
22
3
-
Kings
366
358
8
6
-
Glenn
325
323
2
1
-
Solano
248
247
1
-
-
Sacramento
214
206
8
-
-
Tehama
151
149
2
-
-
San Joaquin
147
143
4
-
-
Tulare
102
99
3
-
-
Yolo
75
73
2
-
-
San Bernardino
67
67
-
-
-
Humboldt
57
57
-
-
-
San Benito
46
44
2
-
-
Contra Costa
43
42
1
-
-
San Diego
31
31
-
1
-
|
PAGE 21 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Table 1: Counties with at least one active or new oil and gas well (cont’d.)
County
Total Number of
Active and New Oil
and Gas Wells
Active Wells
New Wells
Madera
29
25
4
-
-
San Mateo
25
25
-
-
-
Riverside
18
18
-
-
-
Santa Clara
16
13
3
-
-
Imperial
13
13
-
-
-
Butte
10
10
-
-
-
Alameda
7
7
-
-
-
Lassen
7
7
-
-
-
Stanislaus
3
3
-
-
-
Merced
2
2
-
-
-
Santa Cruz
1
1
-
-
-
Yuba
1
1
-
-
-
84,434
77,257
7,177
3,003
596
TOTAL
Stimulated Wells
Stimulated
Wells with SB4
Notifications
Data sources: DOGGR “AllWells” database (as of 7/14/2014). DOGGR SB4 Well Stimulation Notices database (as of July 2014). The total number of active and new oil and
gas wells is the sum of active wells and new wells. Stimulated wells include wells with SB4 notifications.
New oil and gas wells
Stimulated Wells
117
117
0
0
0
19%
513
19%
109
109
0
0
0
54%
2218
40%
79
77
2
0
0
582
8%
541
8%
35
34
1
0
0
76%
431
9%
329
7%
9
8
1
0
0
1152
69%
24
2%
16
1%
1
1
0
0
0
6562
97%
41
1%
40
1%
1
1
0
0
0
81-85%
1266
27%
3
0%
1
0%
3
3
0
0
0
Imperial
81-85%
5007
85%
225
4%
192
4%
3
3
0
0
0
6029004500
Kern
86-90%
3937
95%
1086
28%
1027
26%
6575
5381
1194
587
161
6029006202
Kern
91-95%
6401
94%
1686
26%
1583
25%
804
751
53
0
0
6029001000
Kern
86-90%
9186
72%
8448
92%
6091
66%
369
356
13
0
0
6029000507
Kern
81-85%
3598
31%
3598
100%
1112
31%
224
222
2
0
0
6029006201
Kern
96-100%
2877
73%
937
33%
685
24%
147
146
1
0
0
6029003700
Kern
86-90%
3953
67%
1340
34%
891
23%
146
121
25
2
0
96-100%
5804
72%
6019007801
Fresno
81-85%
2722
6019007700
Fresno
91-95%
5599
6019008200
Fresno
81-85%
6019007600
Fresno
6019008402
6019008302
County
(alphabetically)
Fresno
Census tract
6019003900
541
9%
98%
524
74%
3001
6978
93%
86-90%
4806
Fresno
81-85%
Fresno
91-95%
6025012400
Imperial
6025010102
|
PAGE 22 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Wells with SB4
notifications
Active oil and gas wells
7%
Percent Non-White
389
Total Population
Total Wells
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries
4119
7704
87%
86-90%
4004
Kern
81-85%
Kern
86-90%
6029002600
Kern
6029006303
97
48
0
0
20%
187
14%
96
94
2
1
0
55%
3361
45%
60
59
1
0
0
4215
55%
3646
47%
44
35
9
18
0
92%
3750
94%
3454
86%
40
39
1
0
0
5579
56%
5579
100%
3130
56%
17
17
0
0
0
5116
68%
5007
98%
3379
66%
6
6
0
0
0
96-100%
3539
85%
3539
100%
3015
85%
6
6
0
0
0
Kern
86-90%
6784
96%
6784
100%
6513
96%
3
3
0
0
0
6029000200
Kern
86-90%
7644
27%
4367
57%
1175
15%
3
3
0
0
0
6029006304
Kern
81-85%
3895
94%
3834
98%
3589
92%
2
2
0
0
0
6029004301
Kern
86-90%
7416
89%
1208
16%
1070
14%
2
2
0
2
0
6029000400
Kern
96-100%
4319
28%
2300
53%
635
15%
2
2
0
0
0
6029003114
Kern
81-85%
7654
63%
6387
83%
3992
52%
1
1
0
0
0
6029003113
Kern
96-100%
4784
78%
4759
99%
3693
77%
1
1
0
0
0
6031001601
Kings
91-95%
4516
86%
204
5%
175
4%
18
18
0
1
0
6037208000
Los
Angeles
96-100%
6893
93%
6893
100%
6376
93%
167
167
0
0
0
6037980014
Los
Angeles
96-100%
239
23%
217
91%
51
21%
145
138
7
1
0
6037197700
Los
Angeles
86-90%
5103
90%
5103
100%
4613
90%
110
110
0
0
0
6037502700
Los
Angeles
96-100%
6956
92%
6876
99%
6339
91%
108
83
25
0
0
6037530003
Los
Angeles
91-95%
2983
78%
2983
100%
2318
78%
106
102
4
0
0
6037211122
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3075
90%
3075
100%
2764
90%
87
87
0
0
0
6037294701
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3019
96%
3019
100%
2892
96%
86
65
21
1
0
6037208302
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4360
96%
4360
100%
4177
96%
82
82
0
0
0
6037502902
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4043
92%
4043
100%
3711
92%
79
72
7
0
0
6037573401
Los
Angeles
81-85%
1439
73%
1439
100%
1045
73%
65
63
2
1
0
6037208401
Los
Angeles
96-100%
3770
97%
3770
100%
3638
96%
61
61
0
0
0
6037540902
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4506
99%
4506
100%
4461
99%
46
46
0
0
0
Kern
91-95%
15845
6029004200
6029002400
Kern
86-90%
1320
Kern
96-100%
7478
6029004000
Kern
81-85%
6029006301
Kern
6029001801
6029003112
|
PAGE 23 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Wells with SB4
notifications
145
6029004604
Total Population
8%
County
(alphabetically)
1212
Census tract
Stimulated Wells
268
82%
New oil and gas wells
70%
Active oil and gas wells
8%
Total Wells
1315
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
92%
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
Percent Non-White
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries (cont’d.)
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
Total Wells
Active oil and gas wells
New oil and gas wells
Stimulated Wells
1380
87%
1380
100%
1194
86%
44
44
0
0
0
6037572201
Los
Angeles
91-95%
6197
82%
6197
100%
5106
82%
43
43
0
0
0
6037208802
Los
Angeles
81-85%
2906
86%
2906
100%
2505
86%
35
35
0
0
0
6037294120
Los
Angeles
86-90%
2370
99%
2370
100%
2337
99%
33
33
0
0
0
6037208301
Los
Angeles
86-90%
2201
98%
2201
100%
2161
98%
26
26
0
0
0
6037543604
Los
Angeles
81-85%
5620
91%
5620
100%
5109
91%
25
23
2
2
0
6037530005
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4346
89%
4346
100%
3872
89%
25
25
0
0
0
6037221401
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3359
91%
3359
100%
3063
91%
21
20
1
0
0
6037541001
Los
Angeles
96-100%
1164
97%
1164
100%
1133
97%
21
21
0
0
0
6037208502
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3571
95%
3571
100%
3385
95%
20
20
0
0
0
6037532303
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4464
97%
4320
97%
4203
94%
19
19
0
0
0
6037532302
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4707
98%
4096
87%
3993
85%
18
18
0
0
0
6037224010
Los
Angeles
91-95%
2433
92%
2433
100%
2246
92%
17
17
0
0
0
6037207103
Los
Angeles
96-100%
2077
98%
2077
100%
2033
98%
16
16
0
0
0
6037211320
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3184
92%
3184
100%
2917
92%
14
14
0
0
0
6037224420
Los
Angeles
91-95%
2369
95%
2369
100%
2243
95%
14
14
0
0
0
6037701100
Los
Angeles
86-90%
746
60%
746
100%
444
60%
13
13
0
0
0
6037294620
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4219
99%
4219
100%
4156
99%
13
13
0
0
0
6037206010
Los
Angeles
96-100%
3127
96%
3127
100%
3002
96%
13
13
0
0
0
6037197600
Los
Angeles
91-95%
2376
80%
2376
100%
1891
80%
11
11
0
0
0
6037291130
Los
Angeles
96-100%
3582
95%
3582
100%
3410
95%
11
11
0
0
0
|
PAGE 24 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Wells with SB4
notifications
Percent Non-White
96-100%
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
Los
Angeles
County
(alphabetically)
6037502802
Census tract
Total Population
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries (cont’d.)
Percent Non-White
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
Total Wells
Active oil and gas wells
New oil and gas wells
Stimulated Wells
86-90%
4195
96%
4195
100%
4036
96%
10
10
0
0
0
6037218800
Los
Angeles
81-85%
2658
97%
2658
100%
2586
97%
8
8
0
0
0
6037980015
Los
Angeles
81-85%
554
80%
503
91%
404
73%
7
7
0
0
0
6037550100
Los
Angeles
91-95%
7518
89%
7518
100%
6653
88%
5
5
0
0
0
6037543305
Los
Angeles
96-100%
2666
73%
2402
90%
1756
66%
5
5
0
0
0
6037540901
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4994
98%
4994
100%
4904
98%
5
5
0
0
0
6037208720
Los
Angeles
81-85%
4179
95%
4179
100%
3970
95%
4
4
0
0
0
6037503000
Los
Angeles
86-90%
6057
95%
6057
100%
5724
95%
4
4
0
0
0
6037502801
Los
Angeles
86-90%
6186
82%
6186
100%
5097
82%
4
4
0
0
0
6037208801
Los
Angeles
91-95%
2995
93%
2995
100%
2791
93%
4
4
0
0
0
6037602802
Los
Angeles
81-85%
4304
99%
4304
100%
4239
99%
3
3
0
0
0
6037553504
Los
Angeles
81-85%
5368
96%
5368
100%
5159
96%
3
3
0
0
0
6037433802
Los
Angeles
86-90%
2780
96%
2780
100%
2655
96%
3
3
0
0
0
6037294610
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4065
96%
4065
100%
3898
96%
3
3
0
0
0
6037603900
Los
Angeles
91-95%
7527
83%
7527
100%
6217
83%
3
3
0
0
0
6037291120
Los
Angeles
96-100%
2210
98%
2210
100%
2168
98%
3
3
0
0
0
6037201402
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4311
96%
4311
100%
4151
96%
3
3
0
0
0
6037550201
Los
Angeles
81-85%
2941
90%
2941
100%
2659
90%
2
2
0
0
0
6037541100
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3321
99%
3321
100%
3294
99%
2
2
0
0
0
6037602801
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3819
99%
3819
100%
3777
99%
2
2
0
0
0
6037203500
Los
Angeles
96-100%
3064
98%
3064
100%
2990
98%
2
2
0
0
0
|
PAGE 25 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Wells with SB4
notifications
Total Population
Los
Angeles
County
(alphabetically)
6037208610
Census tract
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries (cont’d.)
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
Total Wells
Active oil and gas wells
New oil and gas wells
Stimulated Wells
3987
94%
3597
90%
3385
85%
2
2
0
0
0
6037185202
Los
Angeles
81-85%
3712
76%
3712
100%
2825
76%
1
1
0
0
0
6037502004
Los
Angeles
81-85%
4359
92%
4359
100%
4028
92%
1
1
0
0
0
6037603400
Los
Angeles
81-85%
4367
87%
4367
100%
3817
87%
1
1
0
0
0
6037554600
Los
Angeles
81-85%
4374
83%
4374
100%
3613
83%
1
1
0
0
0
6037573004
Los
Angeles
81-85%
5153
92%
5153
100%
4725
92%
1
1
0
0
0
6037551300
Los
Angeles
81-85%
5422
82%
5422
100%
4446
82%
1
1
0
0
0
6037541200
Los
Angeles
81-85%
5662
99%
5662
100%
5622
99%
1
1
0
0
0
6037550700
Los
Angeles
81-85%
6921
79%
6921
100%
5481
79%
1
1
0
0
0
6037550800
Los
Angeles
81-85%
7170
76%
7170
100%
5471
76%
1
1
0
0
0
6037543602
Los
Angeles
81-85%
7762
79%
7762
100%
6148
79%
1
1
0
0
0
6037124103
Los
Angeles
86-90%
2030
82%
2030
100%
1659
82%
1
1
0
0
0
6037503104
Los
Angeles
86-90%
2719
92%
2719
100%
2504
92%
1
1
0
0
0
6037530203
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3238
93%
3238
100%
3005
93%
1
1
0
0
0
6037543201
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3607
99%
3607
100%
3571
99%
1
1
0
0
0
6037530004
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3695
85%
3695
100%
3152
85%
1
1
0
0
0
6037294830
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3707
97%
3707
100%
3592
97%
1
1
0
0
0
6037543903
Los
Angeles
86-90%
3804
92%
3795
100%
3492
92%
1
1
0
0
0
6037482800
Los
Angeles
86-90%
4074
92%
3224
79%
2953
72%
1
1
0
0
0
6037602509
Los
Angeles
86-90%
4118
96%
4057
99%
3891
94%
1
1
0
0
0
6037504101
Los
Angeles
86-90%
5126
80%
5126
100%
4111
80%
1
1
0
0
0
6037541700
Los
Angeles
86-90%
6366
99%
6366
100%
6277
99%
1
1
0
0
0
|
PAGE 26 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Wells with SB4
notifications
Percent Non-White
96-100%
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
Los
Angeles
County
(alphabetically)
6037532304
Census tract
Total Population
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries (cont’d.)
Percent Non-White
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
Total Wells
Active oil and gas wells
New oil and gas wells
Stimulated Wells
86-90%
7058
84%
7058
100%
5893
84%
1
1
0
0
0
6037550300
Los
Angeles
86-90%
7727
84%
7696
100%
6465
84%
1
1
0
0
0
6037403200
Los
Angeles
91-95%
391
31%
391
100%
121
31%
1
1
0
0
0
6037207400
Los
Angeles
91-95%
1363
79%
1363
100%
1082
79%
1
1
0
0
0
6037220100
Los
Angeles
91-95%
2334
96%
2334
100%
2229
95%
1
1
0
0
0
6037241002
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3606
99%
3606
100%
3584
99%
1
1
0
0
0
6037242000
Los
Angeles
91-95%
3938
99%
3938
100%
3910
99%
1
1
0
0
0
6037500403
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4023
95%
4023
100%
3818
95%
1
1
0
0
0
6037543400
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4090
94%
2648
65%
2491
61%
1
1
0
0
0
6037534301
Los
Angeles
91-95%
4636
97%
4636
100%
4511
97%
1
1
0
0
0
6037402403
Los
Angeles
91-95%
5381
79%
4933
92%
3892
72%
1
1
0
0
0
6037203600
Los
Angeles
91-95%
5394
99%
5394
100%
5329
99%
1
1
0
0
0
6037500600
Los
Angeles
91-95%
5688
97%
5688
100%
5506
97%
1
1
0
0
0
6037502200
Los
Angeles
91-95%
6585
90%
6585
100%
5894
89%
1
1
0
0
0
6037203300
Los
Angeles
96-100%
2607
91%
2607
100%
2375
91%
1
1
0
0
0
6037534405
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4292
98%
4292
100%
4215
98%
1
1
0
0
0
6037543000
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4345
100%
4345
100%
4323
100%
1
1
0
0
0
6037553702
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4902
98%
4902
100%
4814
98%
1
1
0
0
0
6037573201
Los
Angeles
96-100%
4930
95%
4930
100%
4703
95%
1
1
0
0
0
6037482402
Los
Angeles
96-100%
6971
95%
6280
90%
5991
86%
1
1
0
0
0
6037402402
Los
Angeles
96-100%
7076
85%
2633
37%
2246
32%
1
1
0
0
0
6039000400
Madera
81-85%
1288
68%
204
16%
139
11%
29
25
4
0
0
|
PAGE 27 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Wells with SB4
notifications
Total Population
Los
Angeles
County
(alphabetically)
6037604100
Census tract
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries (cont’d.)
3626
64%
246
6059086407
Orange
81-85%
6488
70%
6059011721
Orange
81-85%
5023
81%
6059011722
Orange
86-90%
2363
6059099601
Orange
86-90%
6059011720
Orange
6059110500
Orange
6065041500
New oil and gas wells
Stimulated Wells
158
4%
1
1
0
0
0
5398
83%
3762
58%
5
5
0
0
0
5023
100%
4064
81%
1
1
0
0
0
50%
2363
100%
1179
50%
1
1
0
0
0
7016
82%
6116
87%
5003
71%
1
1
0
0
0
91-95%
7329
96%
6620
90%
6322
86%
1
1
0
0
0
91-95%
8631
87%
6914
80%
5980
69%
1
1
0
0
0
Riverside
96-100%
2053
93%
1230
60%
1141
56%
4
4
0
0
0
6065041909
Riverside
81-85%
4990
58%
1433
29%
828
17%
1
1
0
0
0
6065040808
Riverside
81-85%
7008
72%
6064
87%
4384
63%
1
1
0
0
0
6071012400
San
96-100%
Bernardino
3617
91%
1391
38%
1267
35%
1
1
0
0
0
6071004004
San
96-100%
Bernardino
5076
79%
1571
31%
1247
25%
1
1
0
0
0
6071001600
San
96-100%
Bernardino
6133
94%
1664
27%
1567
26%
1
1
0
0
0
6073013205
San Diego
86-90%
2381
92%
2381
100%
2188
92%
1
1
0
0
0
6077003900
San
Joaquin
96-100%
1749
74%
225
13%
167
10%
56
56
0
0
0
6077003803
San
Joaquin
96-100%
5281
74%
2036
39%
1500
28%
23
23
0
0
0
6077004001
San
Joaquin
91-95%
2508
61%
610
24%
370
15%
16
14
2
0
0
6077004902
San
Joaquin
81-85%
6106
36%
351
6%
125
2%
2
2
0
0
0
6095253500
Solano
81-85%
8423
30%
2621
31%
786
9%
202
201
1
0
0
6107003400
Tulare
96-100%
7016
66%
1160
17%
764
11%
84
81
3
0
0
6107004300
Tulare
96-100%
7682
94%
501
7%
469
6%
13
13
0
0
0
6107004500
Tulare
81-85%
6628
76%
255
4%
194
3%
4
4
0
0
0
6111004704
Ventura
81-85%
1469
86%
972
66%
839
57%
50
49
1
3
0
6111004902
Ventura
96-100%
5091
99%
3887
76%
3829
75%
37
30
7
1
0
6113010102
Yolo
86-90%
7702
56%
1062
14%
592
8%
1
1
0
0
0
Wells with SB4
notifications
Active oil and gas wells
7%
Census tract
Total Wells
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well (% of total pop.)
Percent Non-White
91-95%
Non-White Population
within 1 mile of oil and gas
well
Total Population
Merced
Population within 1 mile of
oil and gas well
(% of total)
CalEnviroScreen 2.0 Total
Score (highest percentile =
worst)
6047000201
Population within
1 mile of oil and gas well
County
(alphabetically)
Table 2: Census tracts that fall into the top 20% of Census tracts most vulnerable to health impacts from multiple environmental
stressors as measured by CalEnviroScreen 2.0 and which have one or more oil & gas wells within their boundaries (cont’d.)
Data sources: DOGGR “AllWells” database (as of 7/14/2014). DOGGR SB4 Well Stimulation Notices database (as of July 2014). The total number of active and new oil and
gas wells is the sum of active wells and new wells. Stimulated wells include wells with SB4 notifications.
|
PAGE 28 Drilling in California: Who’s at risk?
Purchase answer to see full
attachment