'Fracking' for oil prompts questions about local oversight, contamination
Marga K. Cooley
Santa Maria Times
06/01/2011
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has been used recently by Denver-based energy company Venoco, Inc. to extract oil from two wells in the Careaga Canyon oil field near Vandenberg Air Force Base, has raised concerns among residents and land owners that the procedure could contaminate ground water, and prompted officials to start asking questions.
The common yet controversial process, which has reportedly not been used before in Santa Barbara County, involves pumping pressurized liquid into wellbore at such a rate that the pressure cracks surrounding rock and the oil flows up and out at a greater rate than normal. It’s used to extract crude, natural gas or even water, from places deep underground that typically aren’t very productive.
Specifically, questions focus locally on oversight, the chemicals used in the fracking process and what type of water was used.
The process has raised concerns over the last year in Monterey County, as well, where plans by Venoco to drill up to nine exploratory wells in the Hames Valley using fracking prompted an appeal by the Ventana Conservation and Land Trust of Lockwood.
Venoco did not respond to questions by presstime Tuesday.
Chris Wrather, a Los Alamos ranch owner and chair of the Los Alamos Planning Advisory Committee, said he’s concerned that Venoco is drilling through the aquifer and using the fracking technique with little oversight.
“I would like to see a regulatory framework that assures the safety of our aquifer throughout the drilling process, monitors the drilling and completion of the wells during the process, and includes water quality monitoring as an early warning of any failure in the drilling and completion process,” Wrather said.
After hearing about the fracking from Los Alamos Valley rancher Steve Lyons, on whose land Venoco drilled, 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr asked for an informational presentation on the process, which is set for the board’s Tuesday meeting.
“I’m concerned, given the concern there is in other parts of the country about the process,” Farr said Tuesday. “I want to learn about it.”
Farr said that among the things she wants to find out are whether county applications for new wells have been modified to identify whether applicants are planning to use fracking, and whether Venoco is violating any county rules or policies by using the procedure.
Wrather said he hopes the board presentation clarifies the existing regulatory framework and lays the groundwork for more comprehensive regulation.
As general manager of the 1-square-mile Los Alamos Community Services District, Kevin Barnard has contacted the State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources for more information about the process, but said he’s not having much luck making a connection.
“I’m trying to find out whether they (Venoco) have a well plan, how deep it is as it relates to water,” Barnard said. “I would think that would be public information yet nobody seems to be able to provide me with that.”
Barnard said he’d like to see more oversight of such operations, more communication between county agencies and some type of notification plan in place in the event of emergency.
“We’re just left out in the dark,” he said.
Barnard said he’s also concerned about any waste that might be being put back in the injection wells and who’s monitoring it.
In a written response to questions from Doug Anthony, Deputy Director of the county Planning and Development Department, Venoco said in early May that water used for fracking the wells at 825 Old Careaga Canyon Road and on the south side of Highway 135 was “obtained from a private source less than five miles from the project site.”
The statement leads to speculation by Barnard that the water came from the district’s hydrants. If so, he said, it’s potable and alleviates some of the water contamination concerns.
Venoco said in the letter that the water was mixed with proppant, which holds fractures open, and chemicals stored on-site that “were added in small amounts to the water and proppant as it was pumped down hole.”
“Due to proprietary trade secrets employed in order to maintain competitive advantage, the actual quantities added are confidential,” the letter states. “The majority of the fluid was recovered and disposed of at the permitted LA No. 1 injection well in accordance with existing regulations.”
