The Baldwin Hills/Inglewood Oil Field operators have been pressuring City officials to put 100 new wells in Culver City. Some of these may be injection/disposal wells (aka the ones that trigger earthquakes). The City is working on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess risks associated with giving the operators permits to set up operations within our City.
If you are concerned about risks to your health, safety and property, then it is urgent to speak out so the City knows you care. Below are some facts/talking points (and an attachment) you can add to your own concerns. The City asks that we submit our comments by Nov 12th. Email them to the Manager of this Project, our City Planner Sherry Jordan or Fax to: (310) 253-5721. More info at the city website: www.culvercity.org/inglewoodoilfield.aspx
Better yet, come join me. Hand deliver your comments tonight, November 9th at City Council meeting which begins at 7PM. I will be there at 6:45PM. If you are willing, you can read your comments. This will inform all those watching the meeting on TV or web to learn about what’s happening. By the way, you do not need to stay for the entire mtg as this item is not on the Agenda, so we should be among the first to speak.
Just as every vote is essential to win an election, so too voicing your comments, written and/or spoken, helps our City better research the facts to stand firm in creating regulations that truly protect us.
Some talking points to let Culver City Council know our health and safety needs:
1. A rigorous health study LA County’s own research published in Section 4.1.1 of the Baldwin Hills CSD EIR states that the “baseline health risk in the vicinity of the Inglewood Oil Field is in the 600-800 excess cancer cases per million individuals exposed, which is considerably higher than levels which are considered acceptable, which are approximately 10 excess cases per million individuals exposed.”
Documented studies, such as the recent one from Johns Hoplins University, School of Public Health, keep coming out indicating health risks for populations living within a quarter mile of oil fields.Among these risks are cancer, reproducitve and neurological disorders, cardiovascular problems, asthma and other respiratory and immune diseases.
Do you have any friends, neighbors, family or pets who live within a quarter mile of the oil field who have died from or suffering cancer, tumors or growths? Asthma or respiratory problems? Fertility issues? If so,include this in your letter requesting a rigorous health study.
2. Insurance for a worst case event indemnifying Culver City and its residents for any and all damages
Just as the oil company has a right to its oil, so we too have a right to our health and safety. Culver City needs to hold the oil & gas (O&G) producers and their leaseholders responsible if there is probable cause that their operations trigger an event within the City.
The San Bruno, California gas pipeline explosion whose fire destroyed homes in an entire neighborhood and killed 8 people is still not fully resolved.
(See http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/09/08/five-years-after-deadly-san-bruno-explosion-are-we-safer) We do not need a fiery inferno such as San Bruno or the Gulf of Mexico disaster,
3. Three active earthquake fault lines (including a 7.9) run through Culver City. Demand automatic shutoff valves and hydrostatic testing of all gas and oil pipelines that go through the City. The oil field may have pipelines going back to 1924 that may be corroding (as in the San Bruno explosion). To avoid a similar disaster or an oil spill like the recent Plains Pipeline in Santa Barbara, which could contaminate our aquifer, it is a basic necessity to have all the pipelines under Culver City tested and approved or replaced before issuing any new permits or renewing older ones. With the ongoing mini-earthquakes/seismicity in the oil field, as well as the uplift and subsidence, it also makes sense to demand that all joints in the pipeline be seismically retrofitted to withstand a major earthquake.
Dr Suzanne DeBenedittis, PhD
I just wanted to point out that once again, one of you links isn’t working. On your article titled “Dear Editor – City at Risk from Fracking” you link to a site that talks about the Inglewood Oil fields. However, when you click the link it takes you to a “dead” site. This is because the link is adding a “%20” in front of the www in the url. Someone NOT internet savvy might not know what to do and thus miss out on this important information. I caught a similar mistake on your last newsletter. Perhaps upgrades are needed in your proofreading department since it appears this keeps happening consistently.