By Wendy Moore for the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council

November 12, 2014 Update: The City Council voted unanimously to approve a resolution requesting an EIR on the proposed Termo project, citing the PRNC concern that "drilling may lead to fracking and additional harmful effects to the environment...and possible groundwater/aquifer contamination."

September 11, 2014 Update: The PRNC has submitted a Letter to Supervisor Antonovich requesting an EIR and a Community Impact Statement to Council File 14-1037 in support of Councilmember Mitchell Englander's request for an EIR.

Porter Ranch residents turned out in force with about 250 people present at the August 6 Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council meeting to express concern and get the facts about a proposed oil drilling project in the mountains above the community.

The meeting was held at the Porter Ranch Community School, the new meeting location, on the first Wednesday of the month, the new meeting day, which was selected to avoid conflicts with elections and holidays.

All energy was focused on the proposed Termo project: Drilling of 12 new oil wells on three separate pads covering 5.3 acres in the Aliso Canyon fields, which encompasses an old orchard, two pastures, and over 100 oak trees. The proposed project also includes improvements to the access roads, pruning of 131 oak trees, and the possible removal of one oak tree. The proposed site is on the other side of the ridge line from the Porter Ranch community and would not be visible from Porter Ranch.

Nonetheless, it is in what the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning deems a “Significant Ecological Area” or “SEA,” and thus Termo has filed for a Significant Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit (“SEACUP”) along with an Oak Tree Permit.

Because of the contentious nature of the topic and the energy in the room, PRNC President Paula Cracium carefully laid out how the meeting would be conducted, asking everyone to be respectful of the speakers. With the complicated application and approval process, the Board invited Jarrod DeGonia from County Supervisor Antonovich’s office and Paul D. McCarthy from the County Department of Regional Planning to explain the environmental review process. McCarthy laid everyone’s fears to rest that this project was not going to begin in the next 30 days, because the creation of an environmental impact report itself could take a year, and the County doesn’t do anything in 30 days. At this point there has been no determination about what type of report will be required. View the Environmental Impact Process Presentation.

Rosalba Gonzalez representing State Senator Fran Pavley noted that Senate Bill 4 fracking regulations went into effect this year, requiring notification for any hydraulic acidization. Currently the California Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (aka DOGGR) is in the process of further specifying the scope of regulations necessary to make fracking safe. However, she noted that Senator Pavley is not sure of SB4 applies here and will wait until more information is available to take a position on the project.

Assembly Member Scott Wilk’s representative Andre Hollings essentially echoed those comments explaining that legislatively, nothing can be done yet. “Now is your opportunity to make sure there is no change to your quality of life”…because of this project.

Representing Termo was Ralph Combs, Manager of Corporate Development. Introducing himself, he worked diligently to establish credibility laying out the longevity and security of the company explaining that the company was founded by his great grandfather. He opened his comments emphatically stating, “There is no fracking. We are not proposing fracking as part of this project. The proposed drilling does not pose a threat to groundwater and in fact the site is not located over a ground water basin. The project uses electric motors for the wells to eliminate air emissions.” Further, he clarified that this project is called the North Aliso Canyon Project and has nothing to do with the Aliso Canyon project or construction at the top of Tampa that the Gas Co is currently engaged in.

Outlining the project details, Combs emphasized their efforts to locate wells to minimize impacts. He confirmed that they were at the beginning of a long public process seeking approval for this project. He will be holding a number of meetings for the public beginning with an open house on September 9, 3-7pm at the Porter Valley Country Club. “We are confident that the more you know and understand about this project, the better you will be able to differentiate the facts from the hype.”

PRNC Secretary Eric Nam methodically posed each question submitted by the public to the elected representatives and Termo. People wanted to know how far away the drilling would be from the nearest residence. Combs answered that Site 2 is 1.65 miles from the nearest residence located on Via Urbino. With respect to the nature of the drilling, there were questions about horizontal and slant drilling. Combs replied that these are to be vertical wells, “with a little kick”, not horizontal wells, that go down a mile and horizontally a mile.

Speaking to a question on fracking, he confirmed that hydraulic fracking had taken place at two wells in 2007 and 2011. However, their best performing well had no stimulation. He further clarified that if they wanted to do fracking, they would have to apply for that.

On the subject of safety, Combs specified that the watch dog is DOGGR and that Termo’s highest priority is the safety of their people and the community. They engineer safety into the system. They currently do have production tanks on site that are contained within cement, with leak detection below the tanks, and are visually inspected.

One questioner inquired how the project would affect his property value and would Combs buy his house. Combs did not expect the project, which would be out of sight and out of mind, to negatively impact property values. He in fact lives within a half mile of the Termo Seal Beach field.

Stakeholders also wanted to know why the community would be incented to approve this project. Combs pointed out that the overall benefit is reduced reliance on foreign oil.

During public comment, stakeholder Matt Pakucko countered that the requirements after Termo gets going radically drop in terms of permit seeking and notification. Wells can be reworked into other things. He contended that on June 25, 2014 one of their other wells, which is a lot closer than the proposed project was approved for acidization. The required notification of 1,500 feet from the well head is not useful because, “There’s no one living up there and they don’t have to notify anybody.”

Rosemary Jenkins spoke during public comment about health issues, wanting to know what Termo was going to do about it. Knowing the percentage of chemicals helps doctors to address patient needs. Responding to a number of public comments, Combs said he was looking into it asked that people do contact the AQMD regarding health issues.

In a gotcha moment, Combs faced with a question about investing in the communities where they work. He admitted that while they have been operating in Porter Ranch since 1989, that they have not yet invested in the community. He hopes to rectify that in the future, possibly working with supporting the fire department. Alex Barder, speaking during public comment, noted that we are meeting in a school that is grossly underfunded and Porter Ranch has another school, also grossly underfunded. Termo might consider supporting our schools.

The public may contact Termo at their hotline: 562-773-7242 and there will be a website up at NorthAlisoProject.com shortly.

The PRNC has requested that an Environmental Impact Report be completed so that the Board, stakeholders and elected officials will have better information about the risks of this project. Please join us for our next meeting on Wednesday, September 3, 6pm at the Porter Ranch Community School, located at the corner of Mason and Sesnon.