The Coalition to Protect SLO County has successfully gathered enough signatures to put a measure on the ballot this November to ban oil well expansion, fracking, and acidizing in the county, but their work has just begun. Over the coming months, they will have to counteract misinformation from the oil industry.
If Monterey County is any indicator, this will be no easy task. In April 2016, the grassroots group Protect Monterey County collected enough signatures for a similar ballot measure. In the ensuing campaign, the oil industry-backed group Monterey County Citizens for Energy Independence spent more than $5 million to oppose Measure Z. The group’s spokesperson, Sabrina Lockhart, who was also the communications director for the California Independent Petroleum Association, told the press and county that “California already [had] the strictest environmental regulations in place.” This was a creative interpretation of reality: while California may have strict environmental regulations, our state regulatory agency, the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), is not enforcing them. In 2015, the Associated Press revealed that DOGGR had granted more than 2,500 permits to illegally inject toxic oil field wastewater into aquifers that were protected under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). And, compared to other counties, Monterey had very few oil extraction regulations. Despite the tornado of misinformation—and being outspent 18 to 1—Measure Z passed by 56 percent that November.
Creative interpretations of reality have already arrived in SLO County. On May 3, Christine Halley, the spokesperson for Sentinel Peak Resources, which owns the Arroyo Grande oil field, told New Times that Sentinel Peak did not plan to drill more wells (“Fracking initiative gets 20,000 signatures”). In the next breath, she said that future expansion was inevitable. Then, she merely stated what we already know: The EPA was still deciding whether or not to grant an exemption for that portion of the aquifer, which is protected under the SDWA. What she didn’t say was whether the 70 to 80 illegal injection wells at the oil field were still pumping toxic wastewater into the Arroyo Grande aquifer that lies beneath the oil field.
These equivocations pale in comparison to the April 26 letter to the editor (“Arroyo Grande oil field is a net water producer”) in which Halley, in a complete inversion of reality, described the oil field as a “net water producer.” It is true that the oil field releases 500,000 gallons of purified water into Pismo Creek every day. However, very little of this water is reclaimed: Most of its runs straight into the Pacific. Common sense dictates that if we are “concerned about water supply,” we should protect the aquifer and leave the water in it for future use.
Instead, Sentinel Peak is simultaneously depleting and polluting the aquifer. Every barrel of oil Sentinel Peak pumps up is accompanied by 19 barrels of toxic, polluted water. This “produced water,” as the industry calls it, is groundwater that gets released during the drilling process when steam and proprietary chemicals are pumped into injection wells to create pressure changes that release oil. The undisturbed water in the Arroyo Grande aquifer could potentially be used as drinking water, which is why it is still protected under the SDWA. Once the groundwater is mixed with the chemicals used in steam injection, it becomes toxic: Produced water is a form of hazardous waste. It’s saltier than seawater and contains lead, chromium, aluminum, and high levels of petrochemicals like benzene, which is a carcinogen.
Sentinel Peak pulls up more than 1 million gallons of produced water every operating day. Nearly 550,000 gallons of this toxic water are re-injected into the ground as steam for the next round of drilling. Another 500,000 gallons are treated in the reverse osmosis plant and released into Pismo Creek. The final 180,000 gallons, along with the waste products from reverse osmosis, are injected into wastewater disposal wells. The wells are designed to allow the toxic, polluted water to seep out into the spaces between rocks.
Halley goes on to describe the oil field’s economic contribution to our county: 20 employees and 100-plus contractors. Again, the lack of a larger perspective distorts this information. The continued pollution and depletion of the aquifer is a direct threat to the county’s agricultural industry, which employed 3,000 people in 2016, and the tourism industry, which created more than 400 jobs in 2016 alone. On top of this, Sentinel Peak is based in Colorado with a California office in Bakersfield. SLO County bears the environmental costs of oil drilling, while the profits go to a company headquartered in Colorado, with shareholders from around the world. And the costs are significant: aquifer endangerment, fossil fuel emissions from burning natural gas to produce steam, noxious air, and, most significantly, the risk of an injection-induced earthquake along the Arroyo Grande fault, which forms the northern border of the oil field.
In addition to the above-ground destruction, such an earthquake could allow wastewater to migrate and further contaminate wells. Even without an earthquake, injected toxic waste could be migrating into the Santa Maria basin, which provides water for more than 46,000 people in the Five Cities region.
As a county, we need to take our groundwater and resources into our own hands. The Arroyo Grande oilfield is one of the least productive oil fields in the state. There is a small, finite amount of oil left that will require increasingly resource-intensive processes to produce. All of this is in direct contrast to the legislation we’ve passed on the county and state level that emphasizes renewable energy.
Instead of beating the dead horse that is fossil fuels, it’s time to look to the future and shift our focus toward renewable energy, which will produce more, longer-lasting jobs without the negative side effects that accompany oil drilling. Δ
Katie Ferrari is fighting against Big Oil. Send comments through the editor at clanham@newtimesslo.com or write an opinion piece and send it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Summer Guide 2018.


I WILL VOTE IN NOVEMBER TO BAN NEW OIL WELLS, FRACKING & ACIDIZING IN SLO COUNTY…. we have a beautiful county, let’s protect it. Join me and tell big oil and the political consultants from Sacramento that you don’t need them to tell you how to vote!
Ms Ferrari’s fact based analysis of the situation is a welcome preventative for the incoming tsunami of exaggerations, distortions, and outright lies that big oil will be throwing around. I believe we share a faith in the capacity of an informed electorate to make the right choice. In November, when the majority say “no more new oil wells in SLO County” wouldn’t it be great if Big Oil said “OK, we hear you. We’ll continue operations in a safe manner at the Arroyo Grande and not file lawsuits against you.”
If the EPA grants an exemption for the Arroyo Grande oil field, is voting to ban oil still necessary?
Is there a place where the facts presented by Ms. Ferrari can be substantiated? I didn’t see any references to review said facts with substantive data, research, studies, etc.
Thank you for publishing an informative and important commentary regarding the facts about the oil industry and oil practices that are detrimental to the environment. This information will help SLO county citizens see the issue clearly and realize they need to vote to ban fracking and new oil well development this November.
Our nation’s oil companies’ history includes leaks, spills, blowouts, and injecting toxic water into the ground that puts drinking-water aquifers at risk. Their pollution events are big and small. A big event near SLO County was the Bellevue Blowout. “In 1998, the Lost Hills Field was the site of one of the largest and most spectacular well blowouts in modern U.S. history. The Bellevue blowout also called the “Bellevue gusher” involved six months of uncontrolled natural gas expulsion, and a gigantic gas fire that lasted two weeks. See (wikivividly.com/wiki/Lost_Hills_Oil_FieldOil). Learn from history!
Hey there. We should move forward to crest the world we want to have. We must go full tilt into renewable energy! Lets raise the bar. Fracking and more drilling must transform into more panels and wind. Leave the oil in the ground because we will need itt later for something really important! Full speed ahead. Renewable Energy! Kate
I’m still open to someone, anyone, providing some supporting documentation for the technical claims made my Ms. Ferrari… otherwise, it’s nothing more than an opinion. Maybe it’s in the opinion section because it is just that, opinion.
Read on, I triple-dog-dare ya!
For everyone who has commented about renewable energy (literally every comment), please take a moment to google “Rare Earth Minerals”. You will find articles like the one below that show just how “good” renewable energy is for the environment. Solar panels, wind farms, and electric car batteries don’t just appear on your roof or in your garage. They require significant amounts of rare earth minerals. Just because you don’t see where the product comes from doesn’t mean the impacts don’t exist.
Here is the article (imagine that, a source that substantiates my opinion), as well as some thought provoking quotes:
https://earthjournalism.net/stories/the-dark-side-of-renewable-energy
“These compounds, which are highly toxic when mined and processed, also take a heavy environmental toll on soil and water…”
“This prompts the questions: do we have enough rare earths to build the clean and smart future were imagining; can China, supplier of 90% of the global rare earths over the last 20 years, meet expected growth in demand; and what will the environmental consequences be.”
“A visit to the mines and industrial parks of Ganzhou gives no sense of a glorious kingdom. Its a scene of devastation: crude open air mines and smelters, and rough muddy attempts at restoring the landscape. Its a sight hard to associate with the environmental technologies that rare earths are used in.”
“Looking at rare earths throws up other unanswered questions about our low-carbon future. How will all that waste water be handled? Will there be new drinking water safety issues?”
The answer is not as easy as “Renewable Energy!” Additionally, as reserves for these minerals shrink in China, where do you think these will be produced from in the future? Environmentalists conveniently want to use renewable energy, as long as the process of making renewable energy is not done near them. I guess it’s out of sight out of mind. Does the environment only matter when it’s near you?
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/mining-strategic-minerals-environmentalists-make-america-vulnerable/
In conclusion, I challenge you to spend 10 minutes on Google and explore these concerns for yourself. I’m not saying there is a right or perfect answer, but I do believe it’s important to have a broader perspective.
Please respond! Hit me with some facts, tell me where I’m wrong, but if you do make sure you have something to back up your claims.
Mr or Ms VoiceofReason, is it your position that we as a World should abandon mining metals (some rare but most not) used in MRI machines, cell phones, solar energy, and alternate forms of energy generating and storage technologies? Are you saying “drill-baby-drill” and “burn-baby-burn” until we can no longer breath from growing CO2 levels as our planet heats up? I can visualize the billowing smoke in that Mad Max dystopian scenario.
I want to Triple-Dog-Dare YOU to come out from the shadows and reveal your true-self. Hiding behind an alias makes you appear to be more than one person, when yet again another single-use alias replies to an oil-related opinion or story. The more likely explanation is that these posts are from a party-of-one “paid for political manipulator” in business to stir the pot.
Mr or Ms VoiceofReason, Its not clear what youre asking. I do think Ms. Ferrari is clear and references her sources which she comments on. The referenced oil operation is reinjecting millions of gallons of toxic waste water and gas into an aquifer 2 miles from the city of Pismo Beach each week. According to DOGGR, last calendar year, the Arroyo Grande Oil Field injected 239,919,414 gallons of waste water into the Arroyo Grande ground aquifer. Thats not a typo, yes 239 MILLION gallons. Along with that water, they injected 200,975,000 cubic feet of gas and air (reported to DOGGR in Mcf), besides the waste water now we need to worry about the GAS injected into the ground? Im no expert, but this doesnt sound like a good thing.
My understanding is that the Arroyo Grande oil field facilitates this injection with wells, many of which are said to be illegally outside allowable defined water aquifer boundaries but unenforced by DOGGR. Apparently there are thousands of these illegal wells in California, but in our backyard why?. Yet, the injection of unwanted oil waste, water, and gas continues. A friend just sent me a copy of a February 2018 letter from the EPA (yes, the EPA) in response to a Freedom of information request. The request was for the existence of any current EPA-issued Permits for the Arroyo Grande Oil Field the letter says there are no records. Unlicensed to operate in our county, who do we talk to about that?
That said…
“If you need to know one thing about rare earth metals, its that theyre crucial to modern technology, helping power everything from MRI machines and satellites to headphones and nuclear reactors. If you need to know two things, its that despite their name, theyre not at all rare.”
“The name rare earth is a historical misnomer, stemming from that when they first discovered, they were difficult to extract from surrounding matter. The USGS (United States Geological Survey) describes rare earth elements as moderately abundant, meaning that although theyre not as common as elements like oxygen, silicon, aluminum, and iron (which together make up 90 percent of the Earths crust), theyre still well dispersed around the planet.”
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/17/1724644…
The reference you offered is made to be scary, China is a major producer of solar panels because they do it cheaper and under less regulation, but Canadian producers manufacture a higher quality product.
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-so…
https://qz.com/871907/2016-was-the-year-so…
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Renewable…
https://greenthinkenergy.com/solar-vs-coal…
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/…
Invest in Battery Technology – https://qz.com/1125355/solar-and-wind-are-…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
“All energy sources have some impact on our environment. Fossil fuelscoal, oil, and natural gasdo substantially more harm than renewable energy sources by most measures, including air and water pollution, damage to public health, wildlife and habitat loss, water use, land use, and global warming emissions.”
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewa…
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-a…
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/renewa…
http://www.energyandpolicy.org/value-of-so…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmenta…
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/busin…
https://www.greenandgrowing.org/renewable-…
“Efficiency is a much greater factor for non-renewable energy sources because they have to pay for their fuel. Renewable sources dont. The wind blows and the sun shines regardless of whether anyone puts up a solar or wind farm to capture it. The wind and sun are free resources.
Car engines only turn about 20% of the energy in gas into movement, with the rest being waste heat. Coal plants achieve from 33% to 40% efficiency in the best cases, with the rest being just wasted heat. Combined cycle gas plants, where the heat is used in addition to the mechanical energy to generate electricity manage to make it up to about 54% efficiency.”
IMPORTANT…
“But all of those fossil fuel sources are paying for 100% of the fuel, and the negative externalities of the fuel are from 100% of it. In fact, CO2 emissions are two to three times the mass of the fuel inputs, so its arguable that we are paying for 300% of the fuel but only getting 20% to 50% out of it.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/11…
YES! Thank you Mr. Timewell for providing some substantive debate and actual sources for your claims.
In regards to Rare Earth Minerals, I never said we shouldn’t be pursuing them. I simply pointed out the inconvenient fact that the creation of renewable energy has significant impacts on the environment and that just because we don’t see those impacts in SLO County doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I think it is this larger global perspective that is missing from the arguments made for renewable energy. I am with you 100% on the use of renewable energy. Let’s pursue them, let’s use them, but let’s do it in a way that stays true to capitalism and has a more broad prospective than “oil bad, solar good”. I also prefer to stay away from forcing companies out of business or out of our area just because certain groups are spreading fear and logically shaky narratives. A perfect example is the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. This plant is literally closing because environmentalists have lobbied regulators and made it so expensive and difficult to renew permits that PG&E has decided to forgo the renewal process. How is that capitalism? How is that good for SLO County?
My main concern with this whole ban fracking and new oil wells initiative is that it doesn’t stand for progress, just against petroleum production in SLO County. Here is the inconvenient truth: If less petroleum is produced in California, more petroleum we will simply imported to support our needs. See the following link from CA.gov:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/petroleum_data/statistics/crude_oil_receipts.html
We use about 2 million barrels of oil EVERY DAY. In other units, this is 84 MILLION gallons. As this graph shows, California and Alaska support has decreased significantly over the last 20 years and we have filled that gap with foreign imports. Put another way in this link:
https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA
“Crude oil production in California and Alaska has declined, and California refineries have become increasingly dependent on imports to meet the state’s needs.33,34 Led by Saudi Arabia, Ecuador, and Columbia, foreign suppliers now provide more than half of the crude oil refined in California.35,36”
Both of those links are from state websites and they both say the same thing. I think it would be more fitting (and somewhat humorous) if the Coalition’s slogan read something more like this:
“Ban Fracking and New Oil Wells: SUPPORT MORE PETROLEUM IMPORTS FROM SAUDI ARABIA, ECUADOR, AND COLUMBIA”
I mean, it literally says it right there in an unbiased government website, decreased petroleum production in CA results in increased imports from foreign countries. So tell me, which is more detrimental to our environment and our local economy: 1) Producing and using petroleum products in California or 2) limiting our production in California and simply importing more from overseas?
It also sheds a different light on statements made by some (Ms. Ferrari).
“Instead of beating the dead horse that is fossil fuels, it’s time to look to the future and shift our focus toward renewable energy…”
Is that horse really dead? We seem to still be using quite a bit of petroleum on a daily basis for a statement like this to be true. If renewable energy is the future, then I support taking measures to increase its use immediately, but the simple fact is that limiting petroleum production in California WILL NOT achieve the use of more renewable energy, it will just shift the petroleum supply from a local economy boost to a foreign economy boost that we all get to pay for through a higher cost of living.
Finally, I am going to stay the Voice of Reason. I’m just a regular ole American who likes using logic and reason to debate the issues. It is flattering that you think I’m part of some big, well oiled machine (pun intended) who is trying to sway the public with alternative facts, as Ms. Ferrari has also suggested. This accusation is simply untrue as I have made an effort to back my claims using fair and unbiased sources. Am I stirring the pot, or am I just pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable?