A hugeย report was published on Oct. 10 by Los Angeles County that’ll likely open the floodgates for hydraulic fracturing (โfrackingโ) for unconventional oil and gas in the Monterey Shale basin. The report, as it turns out, was done by LA County in nameย only.ย
As theย Los Angeles Timesย explained, the study found โno harm from the methodโ of fracking as it pertains to extracting shale gas and oil from the Inglewood Oil Field, which theย Times explains is โthe largest urban oil field in the country.โ
In the opening paragraphs of his article, Ruben Vives of theย Times wrote,
A long-awaited study released Wednesday says the controversial oil extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, would not harm the environment if used at the Inglewood Oil Field in the Baldwin Hillsย area.
The yearlong study included several issues raised by residents living around the field, such as the potential risks for groundwater contamination, air pollution and increased seismicย activity.ย
It’s not until the middle of the story that Vives says the study wasn’t done by LA County itself, but rather what he describes as a โconsulting firm that conducted the studyโ by the name ofย Cardnoย Entrix.
Cardno Entrix isn’t any ordinary โconsultingย firm.โ
It’s the third party contractor that conducted the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), ran the public hearings and made the website all on behalf of the Obama State Department’s review process for the controversial Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Cardno Entrix, in turn, was hired by TransCanada to do the EIS, a conflict-of-interest blatant enough that it’s yielded an ongoing Office of the Inspector General investigation of State’s entire review process.
Study By and For Gas Industry, Connected to SUNY Buffalo Shale Resources and Societyย Institute
Though published under the auspices of LA County, the study wasn’t even paid for by the County at all. Rather, as Vivesย explainedย in his Timesย article, the oil and gas industry paid for the entireย enchilada:
Plains Exploration and Production Co., the owner and operator of the oil field, paid for the review as part of a settlement agreement with Culver City and environmental and community groups. The report was reviewed by two independent firms selected by the company and Los Angelesย County.
Vives never identified the โindependent firmsโ serving as the peer reviewers, but the study itself, which contains the five-page peer review paper,ย reveals two reviewers: JP Martin Energy Strategy LLC and Peterย Muller.
JP Martin Energy Strategy is a consulting firm run by John Martin. Martin also serves as Director of the increasingly controversial SUNY Buffalo Shale Resources and Society Institute (SRSI). He is credited with publishing โthe initial research on the natural gas potential of New York’s Utica Shale that helped stimulate significant industry investment in this resource,โ according to theย biographical sketch on his consulting firm’s website.
Muller formerly served as a Senior Geologist for Alpha Geoscience, where from Jan. 2010-March 2012, he researched โshale gas development issuesโ including โflowback treatment, stray gas, [and] permitting,โ according to his LinkedIn page. He now serves in a consulting capcity for various hydraulic fracturing projects for the shale gasย industry.ย
Miller and Muller closed their five-page peer review paper by writing, โUpon review, we both feel, based on information provided us and our own experience, that the report is adequate, complete and accurate and reflected thoughtful consideration for our comments andย suggestions.โ
This situation parallels what DeSmog wrote about in our first ever article on the SRSI, as the โpeer reviewโ panel for its first ever study had four out of five members on the payroll of the oil and gas industry.
Stars Aligning for Shale Gas Industry’s Californiaย Dreamin’
Concerned that the Inglewood study was conducted by and for the shale gas industry, Damon Nagami of the Natural Resources Defense Councilย wrote, โwe need additional review from independent experts who have no financial stake in the studyโs outcome.โ But the recent history of the Keystone XL pipeline review process shows that’s highly unlikely.ย ย
The stars, it seems, are aligning quickly in the City of Angels for the oil and gas industry, with โthis areaโฆquietly becoming the hottest potential investment in the West,โ according to an August 2011 story in San Luis Obispo’sย New Times, which reported that the Monterey Shale has upwards of 15 billion barrels of recoverableย oil.ย
It’s โCalifornia Dreamin‘โ for the oil and gas industry in the Monterey Shale. Will that mean a โCalifornia Nightmareโ for everyoneย else?
Update: In an interview with DeSmogBlog,ย Paul Ferrazzi, Co-Founder of Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community,ย stated the following:
โUnfortunately, given the Settlement Agreement terms acceptable to all parties involved and the history of the implementation of the agreement by both the County and PXP one could only assume the results would be favorable to the oil operator and industry. We wish we could have some confidence in this study but given the study preparing company’s as well as the peer reviewer’s direct advocacy for the industry we do not feel it was adequately conducted, properly reviewed, or that the public should take comfort in the conclusions of theย study.
If anything, this study raises more questions than it answers. The public should be able to ask for clarification and further support for the authors’ contentions. CCSC urges the County to use the study as a starting point for further discussion, and allow public participation and informative responses to test the validity, assumptions and conclusions of theย study.โ
Image Credit:ย Johansson | ShutterStock
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts