Toxic Pollutants Released During Oil & Gas Drilling
Here are just some of the risks sited by the California Coastal Commission in 1992 for the proposed Macpherson slant oil drilling project that was blocked by a resident revolt. Read the summary of the seven major risks addressed by the full California Coastal Commission detailed report. Its important to note that none of these issues can be fully mitigated by new technology as E&B Oil will likely claim. There are other risks associated with the project.
 |
| E&B Natural Resources Sign at Site in Long Beach |
#1) This is an actual sign from E&B's drilling site in Long Beach, CA. The previous applicant (Macpherson Oil) proposes to locate a hazardous oil and gas industrial development in a fully developed urban area with nearby residences. Commission staff did not believe the applicant had fully analyzed the potential worst-case accidental release of hydrogen sulfide (see Wikipedia definition) that might occur. In addition, some nearby wells have historically produced significant amounts of hydrogen sulfide. As a result, the applicant agreed to fund an independent, third party review of its hazard risk analysis. The consultant, Arthur D. Little, Inc., working under the direction of Commission staff, determined that hydrogen sulfide, an acutely toxic gas, could be encountered during drilling and/or production and could pose a significant safety risk to offsite populations.
Hydrogen sulfide is lethal within a few breaths at concentrations of 1,000 parts
per million (ppm), and kills within ½-hour at concentrations of 300 ppm. Injuries
may occur at lower concentrations and occupational safety standards are
triggered at 10 ppm.
#2) The project poses a risk of fire and explosion.
#3) Methane Gas Leaks & Explosions - Cause of BP Oil Spill
#4) Withdrawal of reservoir fluids and associated changes in reservoir pressures may lead to subsidence. Subsidence of the nearshore area could lead to changes in beach profiles and result in loss of sandy beach. Subsidence can also cause increase seismic activity.
#5) Re-injection of produced fluids poses a remote risk of increased
earthquake activity.
#6) Project-related operations could result in an accidental oil spill from the
production facility/drilling site (a maximum 2,800-barrel spill), a tanker truck (a
maximum 175-barrel spill), and/or a pipeline (a maximum 141-barrel spill).
#7) I think this signs from E&B Oil explains our spilling concerns.
#8) Reduction of clean air to breath. Don't believe the lies that it won't stink.
#9) Drilling and well work-over activities require a 75 to 135-foot tall drilling
rig which (a) contrasts sharply with existing neighborhood building heights, (b) will be somewhat visible from several coastal public viewing areas, and (c) isincompatible with the low-profile visual character of this beach community. Apparently E&B Natural Resources will be proposing a smaller drilling rig.
#10) The applicant proposes to remove 12 parking spaces, six of which are
Public Access currently available to the public on weekends for beach access.
