HomeMy WebLinkAboutHUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD & METHANE GAS REPORT - FIRE DEPAR MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Council Chamber , City Hall
Huntington Beach, California
Monday, November 2, 1987 ,
A tape recording of this meeting is
on file in the City Clerk 's Office
Mayor/Chairman Kelly called the adjourned regular meeting of
the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach to order at 5: 30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present : Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister
Winchell , Mays , Finley (arrived at 5: 45 p.m. )
Absent : None
(City Council ) - HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD & METHANE GAS
REPORT
The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from Fire Chief
Picard transmitting the Huntington Beach Oil Field and Methane
Gas Report which provides background information, current
statistics and . an outline of the problems facing the oil
industry in Huntington Beach today. Said report outlines those
principle areas that must be addressed and planned in order to
permit the continued coexistence between the oil industry and
the community.
Fire Chief Picard distributed an additional communication dated
October 27, 1987 regarding the Huntington Beach Oil Field and
Methane Gas Report .
Chief Picard introduced Mel Wright, City Geological and
Petroleum Consultant . The Fire chief stated that his report
would cover the following issues : ( 1 ) Why is there an
increased detection of surface methane gas as outlined in the
xoberti Report which may be threatening the safety of the
community? ( 2) Is the current policy of building over or near
active or abandoned oil wells a prudent policy? ( 3 ) Does the
current oil well bond schedule protect the City? ( 4) What is
the future of oil production in Huntington Beach? ( 5) What is
the City 's position on the future of consolidation projects?
John McKay, Fire Captain/oii Field Inspector , reported on sites
designated as being methane gas . deposits . Mr . Wright reported
on the State Department of Gas ana Oil Analyses of each site.
Page 2 - Council/Agency Minutes - ll/2/87
The Fire Chief recommended that the oil Committee be
re-established to study the issue for report and recommendation
to the Council and the Council concurred. He then reported on
the following issues contained in the report: Methane Gas
Issue, Continue to Monitor , Implement Preventative Measures,
So I—Tests, Vapor Barrier , Venting, Prudent Allow Bui din ,
EmergencX Response Program.�T eissues Ot Bui ing Over Oil
Wells, Oil Well Surety Bonds and Consolidation were also
reported on by the Fire Chief .
The Council thanked Chief Picard for his presentation.
(City Council) - CLOSED SESSION RE: LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
Mayor Kelly called a Closed Session of Council to meet with its
designated representatives reyarding labor relations matters
pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 . 6.
RECESS - RECONVENE
The Mayor called a . recess of Council at 6: 25 p.m. The meeting
was reconvened at 6 : 40 p.m.
(Redevelopment Agency) - CLOSED SESSION - TO GIVE DIRECTIONS
TO AGENCY'S NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
SECTION 54956.8 RE: THE PURCHASE SALE EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF
REAL PROPERTY WITHIN VARIOUS PROJECT SITES ALL WITHIN THE
MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AS AMENDED
Chairman Kelly called a Closed Session of the Redevelopment
Agency pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 to give
instructions to the Agency 's negotiator regardiny the
negotiations with the following property owners concerning the
purchase/sale/exchange/lease of the following properties:
1 . Main-Pier Phase I - With Huntington Pacifica I and
Pierside Development, Inc. , and other property owners
regarding real property including City/Agency real
property for the property located within the area south of
Walnut Avenue, between Second and Main Streets, and the
ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway to the frontage road
from Lake Street to the extension of Main Street .
2. Main Pier Phase II - With the Main-Pacitic property
owners and other property owners regarding real property
including the City/Agency real property within the site
bounded by Walnut Avenue, Main Street, 6th Street, and
Pacitic Coast Highway.
3. Town Square - With Mola Development and other property
owners regardiny real property including City/Agency real
property for the site bounded by Main Street, Orange
Avenue, and the extension of 6th Street.
kv
Page 3 - Council/Agency Minutes - 11/2/87
4. Retail Parking Structure Project - With Robert J. Koury
an-ff- other property owners regar ing real property
including City/Agency real property in the second block of
Main Street bounded by Main Street, 3rd Street, Walnut
Avenue and Olive Avenue.
RECESS - RECONVENE
The Chairman called a recess of the Redevelopment Agency at
6: 40 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:55 p.m.
Doug LaBelle read the following statement. prior to the Closed
Session pertaining to Main-Pier Phase I The Agency will
recess to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section
54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's negotiator
regarding negotiatins with Huntington Pacifica I and Pierside
Development, Inc. , and other property owners identitied as:
Stephen Davis, Clyde Gates, Assistance League of Huntington _
Beach, Helen Madzoff, Zeidan/Adel, and city of Huntington Beach
concerning the purchase/sale/exchange/lease/of the property
located within the area south of Walnut Avenue, between Second
and Main Streets, and the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway
to the frontage road from Lake Street to the extension of Main
Street . The Agency may negotiate with those property owners or
their duly authorized representative.
Mr . LaBelle read for the following statement prior to the
Closed Session pertaining to Main-Pier Phase II : The Agency
will recess to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's negotiator
regarding negotiations with the Main-Pacific Property Owners
and other property owners identified as : Margaret Shupe,
Stuart Omohundro, Stantord Tharp, Energy Development Comm. ,
John Conley, City of Huntington Beach, Frank Cracchiolo,
Blanche Wood, et al, Charles Sarrabere, Eldon Bagstad, Jack
Gosney, Ahmad Abdelmuti , Thomas Lindley, Stephen Fithian, Gary
Mulligan, Carlos Costa, Eleanor Draper , Ronald Mage, Dorothy
Terry, and Robert Terry.
Mr . LaBelle read for the following statement prior to the
Closed Session pertaining to .Town Square Subarea : The Agency
will recess to Closed Session pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's negotiator
regarding negotiations with Mola Development and other property
owners identified as : City of Huntington Beach, Elizabeth
Collins , Berta Tovatt , and Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency concern the purchase/sale/exchange/lease/ot the property
located within the area bounded by Main Street, Orange Avenue,
and the extension of 6th Street . The Agency may negotiate with
those property owners or their duly authorized representative.
Mr . LaBelle read for the following statement prior to the
Closed Session pertaining to Parking Structure Project : The
Agency will recess to Closed Session pursuant to Government
Page 4 - Council/Agency Minutes - 11/2/87
Code Section 54956.8 to give instructions to the Agency's .
negotiator regarding negotiations with Robert J. Koury and
other property owners identified as : Shandrick , et al, City of
Huntington Beach, Pacific Southwest Realty, Dennis A. Niccole,
Frances D. Hine, and Paula Tahmisian concerning the
purchase/sale/exchange/lease/of the proprty located within the
second block of Main Street bounded by Main Street, 3rd Street,
Walnut Avenue and Olive Avenue . The Agency may negotiate with
those property owners or their duly authorized representative.
ADJOURNMENT - COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The Mayor/Chairman adjourned the adjourned regular meeting of
the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach.
Alicia M. Wentworth
Clerk of the Redeve opment
Agency and City Clerk and
ex-officio Clerk of the City
Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
ATTEST:
BY
Deputy City Clerk Deputy Clerk
Alicia M. Wentworth
City Clerk Clerk Mayor Chairman
BY
Deputy City Clerk Deputy Clerk
METHANE GAS
AND- .
OIL FIELD REPORT
• METHANE
• BUILDING OVER WELLS
� SURETY BONDS
• CONSOLIDATION
METHANE
• CONTINUE TO MONITOR
� IMPLEMENT PREVENTIVE MEASURES
TESTS (SOIL)
VAPOR BARRIER
VENTING
PRUDENTLY ALLOW BUILDING
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM
ACTION PROGRAM
BUILDING OVER
OR NEAR WELLS
• D.O.G. REVIEW
• INDEPENDENT REVIEW
• CITY REVIEW
• VENTING
• METHANE DETECTION
SURETY BONDS
e INSUFFICIENT
• CURRENT BONDS $102000
• CURRENT ABANDONMENT $30;000 UP
• RECOMMENDED BONDS $50,000
CONSOLIDATION
• CURRENT CITY POSITION
• ENERGY SERIES
• ADVANTAGES OF POSITION
REDUCES NUMBER OF WELLS
REDUCES BLIGHT/ FREES LAND
- ALLOWS EXTRACTION OF OIL
- CONTINUED REVENUE `TO CITY
CREATES SAFER ENVIRONMENT
Ir
J� City of Huntington Beach
cl�al�l 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
FIRE DEPARTMENT
October 27, 1987
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
RE: HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD AND METHANE GAS REPORT
This report is respectfully submitted for your information and is designed to provide you
with background information, current statistics and an outline of the problems facing the
oil industry in Huntington Beach today.
The intent is to outline those principle areas that must be addressed and planned, in order
to permit the continued coexistence between the oil industry and the community.
ISSUES FACING THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH:
1. Why is there an increased detection of surface methane gas as outlined in the
Roberti Report which may be threatening the safety of the community?
2. Is the current policy of building over or near active or abandoned oil wells a
prudent policy?
3. Does the current oil well bond schedule protect the City?
4. What is the future of oil production in Huntington Beach?
5. What is the City's position on the future of consolidation projects?
The following report addresses these issues and makes recommendations for City Council
and staff action.
Sincerely,
"a d C. Picar
ire Chief
RCP/JM/sr
L��cc: Paul E. Cook, Interim City Administrator
1099F
a
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTION SUMMARY
METHANE GAS
The position of the City should be to continue to monitor and gather informational data as
to the quantity and source of the Methane Gas. Findings of the Roberti Study and
subsequent reports find two specific problems and recommend certain preventative
measures on a case by case basis. However, as the oil field becomes capped, additional
repressurization problems may develop over the years.
The Fire Department has developed an Emergency Operational Plan to respond to life
threatening emergencies. The City Task Force has developed a Methane Action Program
which is on schedule and should continue to be followed.
BUILDING OVER OIL WELLS
The position of the City should be to continue to pursue a cautious, prudent and well
planned policy towards the construction of structures over abandoned oil wells. At
present, Huntington Beach has in place one of the most advanced policies in the state.
This position is not risk free but reasonable and prudent.
OIL WELL SURETY BONDS
At present, the coverage provided to the City by Surety Bonds with regards to oil wells is
insufficient. Through City Council action, the coverage needs to be increased to $50,000
to provide the proper protection to the City. The present average cost of abandoning an
oil well is $30,000 and the current surety bond is $10,000 per well.
CONSOLIDATION PROJECTS:
It should be the position of the City to encourage the "unitization and consolidation." This
would accomplish several positive things:
1. Will reduce the number of oil wells and the public safety risk.
2. Will reduce blight and frees valuable land for other land uses.
3. Will allow the oil industry to extract oil as a valuable resource while insuring
continued financial revenue to the City.
4. Would allow for the installation of much safer "state of the art" production
facilities.
5. Would greatly reduce the number of oil operators and will make administration
of the industry from a City standpoint more efficient.
6. Dovetails the modernization of the oil industry with the City's Redevelopment
Plans.
1099F (10/87)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL HISTORY
I-1 GARFIELD AREA
BARLEY FIELD AREA
TOWNLOT AREA
TOWNLOT AREA - LOWER OR MAIN ZONE
I-2 TOWNLOT AREA - TAR (BOLSA) ZONE
TIDELANDS
FIVE POINTS AREA
SIGNAL - BOLSA LEASE
I-3 TOWNLOT AREA - UPPER TAR (MIDDLE BOLSA)
SOUTHEASTERLY EXTENSION OF TOWNLOT AREA
CURRENT PRODUCTION
II. OIL ACTIVITY GRAPHS
II-1 TOTAL WELLS
II-2 ACTIVE WELLS
II-3 SHUT-IN WELLS
II-4 NEW WELLS COMPLETED
II-5 ABANDONMENTS
II-6 DAILY PRODUCTION
II-7 AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION PER WELL
L'Il
METHANE GAS PROBLEM
III-1 BACKGROUND AND ISSUES
III-3 METHANE ACTION PROGRAM
III-7 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FIRE OPERATION PLAN (METHANE)
III-15 GEOCHEMICAL EVALUATION
IV. BUILDING OVER OIL WELLS
IV-1 BACKGROUND
IV-2 OIL AND GAS WELL REVIEW PROCEDURE
V. BONDS
V-1 BACKGROUND
V-2 CHAPTER 15.16, BONDS (CITY OIL CODE)
VI. PREDICTING FUTURE OIL OPERATIONS
VI-1 PREDICTING FUTURE OIL OPERATIONS
VI-2 HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD CONSOLIDATION PLAN
VI-5 OIL CONSOLIDATION AREA MAP
VI-6 SUMMARY OF OIL OPERATORS
VI-8 HUNTINGTON BEACH WELL COUNT
HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL HISTORY
The City of Huntington Beach overlies an old and very productive oil field which, since its
discovery in 1920, has produced almost a billion barrels of oil. Although the field passed
its production peak decades ago, it still produced enough oil during 1979 to rank seventh
among all California oil fields in annual output.
DISCOVERY WELL AND GOLDENWEST- GARFIELD AREA
A series of discoveries, often in widely separated areas, led to the present day Huntington
Beach Oil Field. Each discovery has been followed by a flurry in drilling activity, most of
which, had little or no controls. According to George Hazenbush and Dennis Allen, oil was
first discovered on May 24, 1920, when Standard Oil Company of California completed
well "Huntington #Al" at a depth of 2,199 feet, producing 45 barrels per day of 14 gravity
oil. This same well was subsequently deepened to 2,381 feet and produced 70 barrels of
oil per day after deepening. However, and according to the same authors, it caused little
excitement because of the low rate of production.
In November of the same year, Standard Oil Company of California drilled what is
generally considered the Huntington Beach discovery well. This well "Bolsa Chica #1,"
located near Reservoir Hill, was completed at a depth of 2,549 feet and came in flowing
at the rate of approximately 2,000 barrels of 28 gravity oil per day. Shortly thereafter,
Eddystone Oil Corporation completed "Ashton #1," at a depth of 3,455 feet, producing
1,300 barrels of 21 gravity oil per day. "Ashton #1" was located approximately one-half
mile northeast of "Bolsa Chica #1." A flurry of drilling followed, which extended into the
Goldenwest and Garfield area. This was the first of the closely spaced wells in the
4 Huntington Beach Field. After the drilling of 100 wells by various companies, and a total
production of 119,000 barrels per day, drilling activity declined in this area by December,
1923.
BARLEY FIELD AREA
The next area of drilling activity, known then as the Barely Field Area and lying north-
west of 23rd Street (Goldenwest Street) between Pacific Coast Highway and Clay Street,
was developed slowly by the Standard Oil Company of California between 1922 and 1926.
TOWNLOT AREA
In April, 1926, drilling restrictions were lifted in the Townlot Area between 17th Street
and 23rd Street which led to the discovery in July, 1926, of the Jones sand by the superior
Oil Company when they completed "Jones #1" at 3,063 feet flowing at the rate of 472
barrels of 17 gravity oil per day. "Jones #1" is located at the corner of 22nd Street and
Pacific Coast Highway. According to Hazenbush and Allen, this zone was probably the
Stray sand, which is actually 350 feet above what is now commonly called the Jones sand.
TOWNLOT AREA -LOWER OR MAIN ZONE
In September, 1926, Wilshire Oil Company discovered what was called the Lower or Main
Zone in the Townlot Area, when they deepened "H.B. #1" at the corner of 22nd Street and
Walnut Avenue to a depth of 4,074 feet, flowing 700 barrels per day of 24.6 gravity oil.
Intensive drilling activity followed, which led to some of the closest well spacing in
California history. Many wells were drilled on 25 x 117-1/2 foot lots with production
reaching a maximum of 63,400 barrels of oil per day from 78 wells in the area.
7008f (10/87) I-1
TOWNLOT AREA-TAR (BOLSA) ZONE
During the development of the Lower or Main Zone in the Townlot Area, shallow oil sands
were noticed while drilling some of the wells. In November, 1926, McKeon Drilling
Company, Inc. completed "Dubois #1" at 1,952 feet, producing 200 barrels of 14 gravity
oil per day. This completion led to another mild flurry of activity and a drilling campaign
to develop the Tar (Bolsa) sands in the Townlot Area.
TIDELANDS -
The offshore pools were discovered in May, 1930, when the Superior Oil Company redrilled
"Babbit #1" from the Townlot Area to an interval of between 3,838 and 4,313 feet
producing 345 barrels of 26 gravity oil pr day. The reported production had increased to
1,450 barrels per day in August of the same year. Although this was considered unusual
production from the Townlot Area, it wasn't determined until later that the well was
bottomed in what was to be known later as the Tideland Pool. This well, located on 21st
Street between Walnut Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway, is generally considered to be
the discovery well of the offshore pool. This fact, however, was not generally known until
Wilshire Oil Company completed "H.B. #15" on Pacific Coast Highway between 18th and
19th Streets, in July, 1933, flowing at the daily rate of approximately 4,800 barrels of 26
gravity oil. -The horizontal drift for this well was eventually determined to be in excess of
1,400 feet offshore from the Pacific Coast Highway. Other operators, including McVicar
and Rood, developers of the "whipstock" (a tool used for directional drilling), soon began
directing wells offshore and completing them in the tideland pool. This led to a
temporary injunction being filed in September, 1933, by the State of California against
one operator which carried an order that a directional survey be made of the well. This
survey proved beyond question that the well was bottomed under State tidelands and
brought about sliding scale royalty agreements between the State Land Commission and
the operators producing from the State tidelands.
In March, 1938, the legislature passed the State Lands Act and a new and far more orderly
stage of offshore development followed. The first successful bidder on a tideland parcel
offered by the newly created State Lands Commission was Southwest Exploration
Company, now Wingle Companies, Inc. Their lease lies between the southerly prolonga-
tion of 23rd Street (Goldenwest) on the southeast to a parallel line about one and
one-quarter miles to the northwest and extends oceanward for one mile beyond the
ordinary highwater mark. Orderly development began in 1938 with from 6 to 50 wells
being drilled each year. There was an average of 452 producing wells in 1967 averaging
approximately 60 barrels of oil per day for each well. The Main Zone is the principal
producing interval, producing nearly three times as much oil as the Jones and from
slightly over twice the number of producing wells.
FIVE POINTS AREA
Development of the Five Points area began in April, 1936, when Twentieth Century Oil
Company completed "Schaaf-Bruce #1" on the south side of Ellis Avenue, east of Beach
Boulevard. Completed in the upper Ashton Zone, low production rates and a thin zone
kept activity in this area to a minimum and a major boom failed to materialize.
SIGNAL -BOLSA LEASE
The year 1940 saw Signal Companies, Inc developing the Signal-Bolsa lease which was an
offset to the Standard-Bolsa lease. Although a productive area, its development was
orderly and uneventful from a historical standpoint.
7008f (10/87) I-2
TOWNLOT AREA - UPPER TAR (MIDDLE BOLSA)
In 1946 and 1947 interest was renewed in the Tar Zone (Bolsa) of the Townlot Area.
O..L. Bolton drilled "Mize #1" at the corner of 20th Street and Orange Avenue in April,
1947. Completed in the upper Tar (middle Bolsa) Zone, this well initially produced 60
barrels of 13.5 gravity oil per day. .This produced another flurry of drilling, resulting in
136 new Tar Zone wells by April, 1949. Initial production of these wells varied between
10 and 100 barrels of 12.5 to 14 gravity oil per day.
SOUTHEASTERLY EXTENSION OF TOWNLOT AREA
Jack Crawford is generally_ credited with the discovery of the Southwesterly extension of
the Townlot Area, however, A. L. Hunter, W. C. Bradford and D. R. Allen stated that it
was Clark C. Peterson's redrilling of the abandoned well "Brower #1" in August, 1953,
near the corner of Huntington Avenue and Chicago Street, which initiated the latest
drilling flurry in Huntington Beach Field. This well flowed at an initial rate of 500 barrels
of 28. gravity oil per day for 3 days, but production declined rapidly leading to the
eventual abandonment of the well. The activity following completion of this well resulted
in Jack Crawford, et al, drilling "Huntington #1" at the northeast corner of Atlanta Street
and Huntington Avenue. "Huntington #1" was completed March 8, 1954 with an initial
production of 200 barrels of 25.9 gravity crude per day. The latest flurry within the
Huntington Beach Field was beginning! Encouraged by this success, Huntington Syndicate
drilled and completed wells "Huntington Syndicate #2 and #3" to the west in the same
Main Zone, each producing at the rate of 150 barrels of 26 gravity oil per day.
Jack Crawford, et al, next drilled and completed the first Jones sand producer in this
area. The well, "Huntington #5" was drilled in the vicinity of First and Olive Streets and
started flowing January 1, 1955, at an initial rate of 735 barrels per day of 20.8 gravity
oil. Now the boom was on in earnest! In rapid succession, 216 wells were drilled, of
which, only 6 were nonproductive.
However, because of the close spacing and rapid withdrawal of the oil and gas, production
per well declined from approximately 500 barrels per day to 15 barrels per day in less than
a year.
Controls have been established through an oil code and through zoning which will lead to
more orderly development if another oil producing area within the city limits is
discovered.
CURRENT PRODUCTION
The current number of wells (1985) in the combined Huntington Beach oil fields are 1,952.
Of these, 993 are producing, with 959 shut in or idle. In the year 1985, there were 8 new
wells drilled; 1986, 1; and 1987, 2. For the year 1985, there were 7 abandonments; 1986,
approximately 10; and 1985, 15. Daily production figures for 1985 were 22,030 barrels per
day, with the well production average being 23.5 barrels per day.
7008f (10/87) I-3
TOTAL NUMBER OF WELLS
(Thousands)
— _ t•— ll.
EO
7.
�'�v, — — ••L ,•y
_� t t' •L t (�)
r•--
r
`\
Y-', `\�, Yam'\ �'�• Y�'\ •�� \, ~'',, \�� •, `", •'\
L_d
7
r�-•
�-- '•.�,� •'•. \, c� a•� ''., '. ° V
- :ti :• :Y .,t tit t t t. ti` t � 4, '' t, C'•f
II-1
NUMBER OF PRODUCING WELLS
(Thousands)
iji
Q:
Q1
t� 4 �'�' t� .ti •� t
'••.� '••�t '•.� '•� '•-.•t,'`��,'tip '•..�,'� '�.� '••.4 L.�� ••. LYi
r--
1r
__r� t ., 4 .`� 4 •,� •,ti '.tip '•. '-.� '� \ � - (j��
J Ii.S
1•V
[+.- •.. 4 'w '., l 4 � 1. k• t ll .
i
UY 't f': C" fT:• LI? •-. li U:• :�_ r�;• V4
.- �-. .-•. r•- .-- ..- ..-- .- i_'• i_'• i_; i_;> iffy i_: i_' i�' i_- -
II-2
NUMBER OF WELLS SHUT-IN
(Thousands)
Q•'
Qj
Li
Cr*,
IL
Oil
11-3
r•.
z
bD
t+7
H
� • 1. f �
r
' I �
I
�- �` ELLS COMPLETED
rzj
A N 41
V % 1 ?2 53 ?4 62 7 ? ter;-• -r 72
W -r 75 5 77 -r 7 2 z 54 t
i EX
NUMBER OF ABANDONMENTS
�i-
a;
L r:
l t n'•,
r•--
t\ t,~ iy
Ld
Ali•
-r
w. •` as
1-_
1�: 1 1•: 1•i 1,: 1-�• 1
II-5
PRODUCTION - BARRELS/DAY'
(Thousands)
EQ
FT
01
L Erl
EE
r7_1
IN:
CS, OU2
11-6
PRODUCTION BARRELS/DAY/WELL
a)
rA
I
r.T.-
LIJ
C-L
CA
u2-
Li
-----------;-
Lij
11-7
METHANE GAS PROBLEM
Methane gas (CH4) is a naturally occurring gas that has existed in the Huntington Beach
sediments for millions of years. In its pure form, it is colorless and almost odorless.-
Although it is nontoxic, it is highly explosive in concentrations of 5 percent to 15
percent. It also acts as an asphyxiant, excluding oxygen from the lungs. Hydrogen
sulphide often accompanies methane and causes the "rotten egg" smell. Highly toxic, it
paralyzes the olfactory nerve at 100 PPM, rendering the victims incapable of assessing
the danger they are in. At 500 .PPM or above, it causes loss of consciousness and eventual
death. Methane and hydrogen sulphide are natural by-products of the decomposition of
organic materials and of the formation of petroleum.
Petrogenic or thermogenic methane is associated with the formation of petroleum.
Biogenic methane is produced near the surface or in sediment depths of 300 meters or
more. Measurable levels of biogenic methane can be detected in former or current swamp
lands, river bottoms, landfill and sewers. All of the above sources exist in Huntington
Beach.
On March 24, 1985, a methane gas explosion and fire occurred at the Ross Dress-For-Less
store in the Fairfax area of Los Angeles. The explosion occurred when methane gas was
trapped in an unventilated room and ignited. The gas entered the building through small
holes between the floor slab and foundation walls. Following the explosion, the gas and
flames spread to cracks in the street, sidewalks and planter area. A pressure relief well
was drilled to vent the gas in a controlled manner and reduce the concentration to below
explosive levels. By 4:00 PM on March 26, all of the flames were out.
As a result of the awareness created by the Fairfax incident, the Southern California Gas
Company immediately notified the City in the Spring of 1985 that a potential for
explosion existed in Huntington Beach when high methane readings were detected during
routine inspection of their lines. The Gas Company determined that the gas was leaking
from an outside source.
Senator Roberti introduced SB 1458, which was signed into law by the Governor on
September 23, 1985, after reviewing the Fairfax situation. The bill required the State Oil
and Gas Supervisor to study abandoned oil and gas wells in areas where methane and other
hazardous gases may accumulate to determine the locations and extent of hazardous gas
accumulations, and to develop a plan to mitigate the problems. Huntington Beach
officials requested that the City be included in the study to determine the source of our
problems.
On October 14, 1986, Senator Roberti announced the results of the study. One hundred
ninety five (195) sites were tested in Huntington Beach. Twenty-three (23) of the sites
were classified as "hazardous" and "dangerous." Although the test sites were located near
known oil fields where abandoned wells exist, the methane gas was classified as biogenic
in all sites except two (2). The biogenic determination is under discussion at this time.
ISSUES
The City of Huntington Beach must now develop a strategy, which will enable residents to
safely coexist with the methane problem. Issues which must be resolved in cooperation
with the Division of Oil and Gas and the City of Newport Beach include the sources of the
gas, its method of migration; i.e., whether or not it is using oil wells as conduits, which
agency has primary responsibility and liability for the problem, and the development of an
immediate and long-term management strategy.
7008f (10/87) III-1
J
The following program attempts to set a course of action for the City to follow until
further information is available. If so approved and directed, the Methane Task Force,
which is comprised of staff members from the Fire Department, Building and Planning
Divisions, and Public Works will continue to implement the program and will submit
revised programs for your review as necessary.
7008f (10/87) III-2
METHANE ACTION PROGRAM
COMPLETION ESTIMATED*
LEVEL DESCRIPTION DATE COST
I PROTECTION OF LIFE, ENVIRONMENT, AND PROPERTY
GOALS
1. Provide emergency response capabilities for gas-related April, 1986 (with 0
emergencies. limitations)
2. Detect and identify type of hazard. (See attached Ongoing $10,460
equipment list)_
H 3. Protect public health and safety. (See attached fire Ongoing 0
~ operational plan)
w
ACTIONS
1. Hazardous materials response team. Ongoing 0
2. Purchase and maintain equipment and instruments Pending See above
to safely collect and identify gases.
3. Form operational plan to establish procedures to be July, 1986 0
used in case of emergency.
4. Provide training for first responders who handle Unknown Unknown
gas-related emergencies.
7008f (10/87) *Staff time not included
METHANE ACTION PROGRAM (CON'T)
COMPLETION ESTIMATED*
LEVEL DESCRIPTION DATE COST
II ASSESSMENT OF IMMEDIATE RESOURCES AND CONCERNS
GOALS
1. Develop an interim policy for building over or in close January, 1986 0
proximity to abandoned wells.
H
~ 2. Collect readily available data pertaining to the methane. Ongoing 0
ACTIONS
1. Form an interdepartmental Methane Task Force to share May, 1986 0
information, evaluate reports, develop policies and inter-
face with the State Legislature, Department of Oil and Gas,
the City of Newport_Beach and other cities and agencies as
necessary.
2. Adopt an interim policy which regulates building over aban- January, 1987 0
doned wells.
3. Request data from the DOG concerning the abandonment Pending 0
status of wells located near those sites identified as hazard-
ous or dangerous by the Roberti Study.
4. Hire Geoscience Analytical to perform field analysis on June, 1987 $14,000
selected hazard sites. approx.
7008f (10/87) *Staff time not included
i
METHANE ACTION PROGRAM (CON'T)
COMPLETION ESTIMATED*
LEVEL DESCRIPTION DATE COST
5. Prepare the following overlay maps showing known factors In Progress $500
which may be contributing to the methane problem: (materials
a. Roberti test sites only)
b. oil well locations
c. known leaks
,i d. historic swamp lands and Santa Ana River Bed
H e. areas of seawater intrusion
i f. barrier wells
g. water wells
h. earthquake faults
i. gas lines
j. sewer lines and pump stations
k. peat bogs
1. soil contamination
m. landfills
6. Identify funding mechanisms for equipment and outside In Progress 0
studies, such as:
a. Oil Overcharge Funds
b. Legislation
c. Grants
d. General Fund
7008f (10/87) *Staff time not included
a
METHANE ACTION PROGRAM (CON'T)
COMPLETION ESTIMATED*
LEVEL DESCRIPTION DATE COST
III IDENTIFY THE OVERALL SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM AND
DEVELOP A LONG-RANGE MANAGEMENT POLICY
GOALS
1. Delineate the responsibilities of all the affected agencies. In Progress 0
H 2. Identify the causes of the problem and contributing factors. In Progress 0
H
H
01 3. Develop a long-range management strategy. In Progress 0
ACTIONS
1. Form the Methane Gas Interagency Committee, which includes December, 1986 0
the State Legislature, Department of Oil and Gas, City of
Huntington Beach, City of Newport Beach and designated
consultants, to discuss areas of responsibility, coordinate
studies and funding, evaluate issues and develop a manage-
ment strategy.
2. Retain a consultant to be used as needed to interpret data December, 1986 $1,500
gathered under Level II and to advise City on technical matters. to date
3. Determine the distinction between biogenic and petrogenic Unknown 0
gas as it relates to responsibility for the problem.
4. Design a management program to ensure the public's safety Unknown Unknown
and peaceful co-existence with the methane problem.
5. Implement the appropriate mitigation measures. Unknown Unknown
6. Finalize policy for building over abandoned wells. Unknown 0
7M)9f (I WR71 *Ctnff timc not ine-hwlc,l
OPERATION PLAN 8
HAZARDOUS PLUMES, METHANE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE,
OR OTHER HAZARDOUS PLUMES
I. PURPOSE
A. To provide a formalized procedure for responding to a hazardous plume
condition.
B. To provide a guide for responders to follow when responding to and
arriving at a hazardous plume.
C. To provide for proper documentation of Fire Department response to
and handling of hazardous plume conditions.
II. POLICY
A. It shall be the policy of the Huntington Beach Fire Department to:
1. Respond to any request or information that a hazardous plume
condition may exist.
2. Take appropriate action to protect life and property from the
adverse effects of toxic or flammable plume formations.
3. Comply with applicable federal, state, county or local laws,
standards, and procedures in the identification, monitoring and
abatement of any toxic or flammable plume formation.
4. Work with the guidelines of the Orange County Hazardous
Materials Incident Response Plan and the Orange County Fire
Chiefs Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan.
5. To provide statistical guidance for continued monitoring of
hazardous plumes.
III. PROCEDURE
A. This general procedure is intended as a guideline and aid to members of
the Huntington Beach Fire Department and does not supplant common
sense or initiative.
B. The procedure shall be segregated into areas of responsibility.
C. Utilize checklist(s) and act according to instructions.
1099F (10/87) 111-7
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RESPONSE PLAN (METHANE)
1. Respond upon receiving report
A. Letter
B. Verbal
C. Smell
2. Contact Informant
A. Gain additional information
B. Advise of action to be taken
3. Methane H2S or other suspected vapor
A. Respond Engine Company
B. Respond HM-4
C. Notify Battalion Chief
D. Notify Oil Field Inspector
4. Engine Company
A. Investigate site
1. Informant
2. Smell
3. Sight
4. Sound
B. Declare an emergency
1. Evacuation if necessary
2. Prepare for fire
C. Document
1. Incident
2. Supplemental
5. HM-4
A. Establish area to be investigated
B. Establish instruments to be used
1. Life light
2. Bio systems air monitor
3. Drager pumps
4. MSA Explosimeter
5. HM-4 to be used if #1 or #4 fail
6. Survey Map
a. Diet Map
b. City Water Map (plot plan)
1099F (10/87) 111-8
7. Monitoring Log
8. Activity Log
9. Copies to.Oi1 Field Inspector
6. Action based on findings.
A. 20% of LEL - Possible interior fire emergency
B. C 20% of LEL - Notify
1. Property owner
2. Orange County Health Agency
C. Outside Reading
1. 40% LEL @ 6" aboveground
a. Possible evacuation and incident emergency
D. Inside Structure Readings
1099F (10/87) 111-9
j.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RESPONSE TEAM
HAZARDOUS PLUME RESPONSE PROCEDURE
1. Respond to site of hazardous plume site. Meet with informant or Incident
Commander.
2. Establish action plan.
3. Establish safety plan.
4. Calibrate instruments.
5. Select protective clothing.
6. Select area to be surveyed and points to be monitored and instruments to be used.
7. Wearing appropriate protective clothing, use instruments to survey area.
8. Log all readings on Monitoring Worksheets.
9. Complete Supplementary Report.
10. Transfer monitoring oath from Monitoring Worksheet to Monitoring Log.
11. Take appropriate action at any point in procedure when an emergency is
determined to exist.
12. Coordinate surveys, data, monitoring with other agencies as necessary.
13. File survey reports in station file. Second copy to go to Oil Field Inspector.
1099E (10187) II1-10
1. COMPANY OFFICER
RESPONSIBILITY: Respond to incident location. Meet with informant and
conduct a preliminary investigation. Determine if a hazard exists. If unable
to determine if a hazard exists, report such to Fire Dispatch Center.(FDC)
and/or request assistance.
Checklist:
Meet with informant.
Determine if anyone is injured or ill.
Survey area to look for obvious sources of the plume.
Take initiative action in case of hazardous plume.
Notify FDC of action taken.
Notify Battalion Chief of action taken.
Complete incident report and supplementary report.
Notify informant of action taken.
2. OIL FIELD INSPECTOR
RESPONSIBILITY: Upon receipt of information regarding a plume, conduct a
records search to determine oil field activity. Respond to scene with
pertinent records and advise Incident Commander of findings. Act as Public
Information Officer.
Checklist:
Research records for oil field activity.
Respond to scene, establish incident log.
Maintain records control.
Complete supplementary report.
Report findings to Fire Marshal.
3. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TEAM LEADER
RESPONSIBILITY: Respond to incident location. Advise Incident
Commander as needed. Determine area to be surveyed. Conduct survey to
establish perimeter of plume. Maintains detailed records.
Checklist:
Establish command post.
1099F (10/87) III-11
Establish "Hot Zone" if necessary.
Establish hazard reduction zone.
Determine monitoring procedure to be followed.
Request assistance from qualified HAZ-MAT personnel or Fire
Department personnel qualified to do monitoring.
Develop situation map.
Maintain activity log.
Calibrate and prepare instruments to be used.
Select protective clothing.
Research suspected hazards.
Formulate safety plan.
Formulate survey plan.
Maintain detailed records of findings and actions taken.
File supplementary report along survey data.
Provide Incident Commander with guidance on site safety and
hazard abatement.
Coordinate with other interested agencies.
4. BATTALION CHIEF
RESPONSIBILITY: Keep informed by reviewing and approving actions taken
and reports compiled by Engine and HAZ-MAT personnel. Provides guidance
to subordinates as needed. Assumes command for long-term investigations
and declared emergencies. Insures compliance with federal, state, and local
laws.
Checklist:'
Receive report from Company Officer or Team Leader.
Maintain activity log.
Review site safety plan.
Review survey and hazard abatement plan.
Coordinate activities of all agencies and personnel at scene.
Notify appropriate authorities of hazards found and action taken.
1099F (10/87) 1I1-12
Drafts public statement along with Oil Field Inspector.
Ensure that Fire Department operations are delegated to other
agencies when appropriate.
Completes supplementary report and reviews Company Officer and
Team Leader reports.
Notifies Fire Chief or his representative of unusual events or
significant incidents.
5. FIRE DISPATCHER
RESPONSIBILITY: Receives information regarding hazardous plumes and
dispatches personnel accordingly. Coordinates request for assistance from
Company Officers or HAZ-MAT Team Leaders and Battalion Chiefs.
Attempts to ascertain source and extent of plume, injuries or illnesses.
Checklist:
Dispatch appropriate units and personnel.
Notify on duty Battalion Chief of Company or Team response.
Relays informant data via teleprinter.
Recalls off duty personnel as needed.
Keeps log of support activities and action taken.
CONCLUSION:
To prevent undue criticism and to protect against civil litigation, every effort should be
taken to identify, locate and abate a hazard to life and property. Personnel should also be
familiar with Operations Plan 4 "Chemical Hazardous Materials - Leaks and Spills,
Industrial Accidents."
1099F (10187) III-13
REPORT OF METHANE
LETTER VERBAL
OIL FIELD INSPECTOR DISPATCH CENTER
ENGINE CO. INVESTIGATE - INFORM B/C
WITH OIL FIELD INSPECTOR
NO EMERGENCY EMERGENCY
GAS DETECTED-EXPLOSIVE POTENTIAL
GAS DETECTED NO GAS DETECTED B/C RESPONDS .
1
NO EXPLOSIVE POTENTIAL HAZ-MAT TEAM RESPONDS
DOCUMENT DOCUMENT
COPY TO HAZ-MAT COPY TO HAZ-MAT OIL FIELD
INSPECTOR
DOCUMENTS
DISTRICT FP
INSPECTOR
MONITORS
1099E (10187) 111-l 4
NEAR SURFACE HYDROCARBON ACCUMULATIONS
IN
THE CITIES OF NEWPORT BEACH AND HUNTINGTON BEACH
A GEOCHEMICAL EVALUATION
BY
GEOSCIENCE ANALYTICAL, INC.
AUGUST 7, 1987
l 099F (10/87) III-15
INTRODUCTION
Huntington Beach and Newport Beach were two cities included in the Roberti Report (SB
1458) entitled, "A Study of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells and Methane and Other
Hazardous Gas Accumulations" performed by GeoScience Analytical, Inc. (GSA) under the
direction supervision of the Division of Oil and Gas (DOG), State of California. The DOG
wanted to know if there was hazardous or dangerous concentrations of gas in near surface
soils (3' - 8' deep) and if possible the source(s). The cities of Huntington Beach and
Newport Beach were also interested in the origin of any hazardous gases (methane) and
the mechanism of their transport to the surface.
Since the original Report was issued, the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach
have contracted with GSA to undertake further sampling and analyses in an effort to
determine the source(s) of surface methane and the most likely mechanism for its
transport. Specifically GSA will attempt to answer two questions: (1) Is the source of the
gas biogenic (bacterial; a "swamp" gas)?; or thermogenic, that is, the result of heat
induced decomposition of buried organic matter; and, (2) How has it made its way to the
surface? The sampling sites for the study were chosen by the cities in consultation with
their geologists. The Roberti Report served as a reference.
1099F (10/87) 111-16
-31-
SAMPLE SITES AND COLLECTION PROCEDURES
HUNTINGTON BEACH
The sample sites for the City of Huntington Beach were chosen
by Mr. Mel Wright, City Consultant, and were of two types: soils and
producing wells. The soil sites were some of the areas found during
the original State survey to have high concentrations of methane 'as
well as two unsurveyed areas thought to be similar (14 total sites).
For the most part, these sites were private property and were surveyed
using the soil probe (see Appendix I).
Since it was highly unlikely that the exact spot sampled for
the Roberti Report would be found, two soil probes were taken at each
location, if feasible. In addition, a third sample was taken from a
water meter box if available. Generally these are cement boxes open
to the soil on the bottom with a cement lid flush with the ground sur-
face. The lids have a small lifting hole in them which permits access
but does not permit the gases in the box to circulate freely with the
atmosphere. Using a gas tight syringe equipped with a six (6) inch
#18 gauge needle that could be inserted through the lift hole, twenty
(20)cc of gas was withdrawn from each enclosure and transferred to hydro-
carbon free glass containers for transport to the laboratory. At two
sites, Karales 2 and the intersection of Hamilton and Magnolia, samples
were also collected with a two man hydraulically powered auger (see
Appendix II).
III-17
-32-
Most of _ the area of the City of Huntington Beach that was of
interest here lies over the West Newport Oil Field. A small part lies
over the Sunset Beach Field. For this reason, Mr. Wright picked three
wells within Huntington Beach to be sampled in addition to the two West
Newport offshore wells owned by Newport Beach. The three wells were
Karales 2 and Kernview 1 (Atlanta and Bushard) and Weaver-Community
1. The first two are in the West Newport Field and the latter is in
Sunset Beach Field. All the wells were sampled by opening a small vent
and letting the escaping production gas sweep the air out of glass stor-
age vessels. Oil and water were also collected since they were swept
along by the gas flow.
III-18
.-33-
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The majority of the gas hazard sites of concern in the City
of Huntington Beach are within the boundaries of the West Newport Oil
Field. The one exception is the Algonquin site situated within the
Sunset Beach Oil Field. Counting the two tidelands wells owned by
the City of Newport Beach, four wells were sampled for their produced
gas within the West Newport Field and one within the Sunset Beach
Field. The wells were sampled to gain information about the character-
istics of possible gas sources in the problem areas.
Three of the wells in the West Newport Field (Newport 3, tide-
lands; Karales 2, south side of Brookhurst; and Kernview, Atlanta and
Bushard) produced dry gas with CH comprising at least 98% of the vola-
tile hydrocarbons. The fourth well, Newport 8 (tidelands) was very
wet with CH accounting for only 60% of the volatile hydrocarbons.
A full spectrum of gasoline range components was present in all four
wells with Newport 8 having the greatest amount. The API gravity of
the oils, ranging from 19 to 23 for the field as a whole, reflects
the abundance of the lower end components.
Certain ratios were calculated for the volatile hydrocarbons
in the well gases to aid in their comparison and characterization.
One useful calculation is the ratio iso-b/n-b, a measure of maturity.
Three of the gases, Newport 8, Kernview and Newport 3 were quite simi-
lar ranging in value from 0.39 to 0.56. Karales 2 was distinct from
III-19
-34-
the others with a value of 1.56.
The second ratio calculated was propane:ethane, a wetness
measure. Karales 2 has the lowest value, 0.04, and Newport 8 the high-
est value, 2.62. Newport 3 at 0.91 and Kernview at 0.47 fall in be-
tween. The spread of values is such that Karales 2 is different from
Newport 8. Newport 3 and Kernview have intermediate values and can
not be differentiated from the other two wells.
None of the wells contained detectable amounts of ethylene or
propylene except Karales 2 which had a small amount of propylene, pos-
sibly a contaminant. This is normal because these gases are too reac-
tive to exist for more than very short time periods.
Besides hydrocarbon measurements, the CO2 and N2 contents of
the well gases were measured. Karales 2 contained about 13% CO2'
Nitrogen and 02 were present in their atmospheric ratio implying that
they were present as contaminants, most likely due to leakage when
the sample was collected. The sample collected from the Kernview well
at Atlanta and Bushard also contained 13% CO2. After correcting for
atmospheric contamination during collection using the 02 content, it
was possible to calculate a value of 7% for the N2 content. Newport
#3 also contained 14% CO2 and about 4% N2 after correcting for atmos-
pheric leakage. Newport #8 differed from the others, containing 0.5%
CO and 27% N measure-
ments. and See Table 5 for all gasoline range results).
III-20
-35-
In order to further differentiate and characterize the well
gases, stable carbon (delta 13C) isotopic measurements were made on
the CH and CO2 of each well gas when possible. The Newport and Kern-
view wells' CH were similar with carbon isotopes ranging from -54°/,0
to -58'/0,. The Karales 2 sample was heavier at -47°/,0. Only three
wells contained sufficient CO2 to permit a reliable measurement. Karales
2 CO2 contained much heavier carbon (+20°/00) in comparison to Newport
3 and Kernview (+5.5°/0„ -3.5°/„). Karales 2 and Newport 8 may re-
flect outlying values for well gas parameters while Newport 3 and Kern-
view may reflect average values. Using this assumption, thermogenic
gases, if they are a source of problems in Huntington Beach, fit the
following description. The gases are probably dry (about 2% C2-C4)
and accompanied by 10-15% CO2. Gasoline range components (C5-C8) are
present with the volatiles. The ratio iso-b/n-b is about 0.5 and that
of propane to ethane perhaps 0.7. Finally the delta 13C of the CH
is -56°/00 or -57°/ao while delta 13C for the CO2 .is close to zero,
either positive or negative. Of course, if gases seeping to the surface
from reservoirs are to reflect these values, there can be little change
caused by migration (see Table 6 for isotope measurements).
Only one well, Weaver-Community 1, was sampled in the Sunset
Beach Oil Field. It was very wet (65% CH4) with an iso-b/n-b value
of 0.45. It had low (27) CO2 but the largest amount of N2, 57%, found
in any of the wells after correcting for contamination based on 02
content. Its delta 13C for CH4 was -50.7'/00.. There was not enough
Co to make a measurement. The Sunset Beach field produce:: oil wiLit
III-21
-36-
an API gravity of 30*. This field has some similarities with west
Newport Beach but unfortunately data from only one well is available.
However, the well is less than one -hundred feet from the problem area
at 16642 Algonquin. Therefore, soil gases at this area, if they are
thermogenic, have a high probability of being similar to those found
in the sampled well.
Following, the results of soil gas analyses from specific sites
in Huntington Beach will be discussed and compared with the well analy-
ses. Mr. Mel Wright, acting as consultant to the City of Huntington
Beach and using the Roberti Report as a reference, selected 14 sites
for resampling. These areas all exhibited anomalously high soil gas
concentrations of methane approximately 10 months ago. Upon resam-
pling, six sites no longer had high soil gas hydrocarbon concentrations
but rather were typical of surface biological activity. These sites
were located at the Oceancrest cul-de-sac, the Barados cul-de-sac,
21952 Harborbreeze, 9302 Southshore, 9131 Bermuda and the intersection
of Cape May and Jonesport. At these sites methane was present in
amounts ranging from 3 ppm v/v in the soil gas to 100 ppm v/v; values
indicative of background to slightly above background. The unsaturates,
ethylene and propylene, were present in amounts roughly equal to or
greater than the corresponding saturates ethane and propane, a charac-
teristic not observed with the well gases but typical of near surface
bacterial activity. Also, the unsaturates were present in amounts
as great as 7 to 10% of 'the methane present, again typical of biological
activity and .different from the wells. Presently, these sites appear
III-22
-37-
to contain normal amounts of gases derived from biological activities.
In the original study, only -the site on the Barbados cul-de-
sac was classified as thermogenic, the others being biogenic. The
large changes in the concentrations of the biogenic gases may be the
result of variation in soil moisture content. If the moisture content
is optimum, soil gas concentrations of hydrocarbons will be large and
reflected in sampling results. At other times, concentrations will
be much lower. These changes can occur on a scale measured in days.
The reasons for the disappearance of the apparently thermogenic gas
are not clear. Perhaps a changing water table forced A pocket of gas
to the surface or closed off a migration pathway forcing a new path
for moving gas. The original source of the gas is not known.
The balance of the sites contained soil gases with high concen-
trations of CH4, and other volatile hydrocarbons. In order to determine
the origins of these gases, several analyses including hydrocarbon
composition up to the gasoline range (C8 compounds), inorganic gas
composition (CO2, 02 & N 2) and isotopic composition of the carbon in
CH an CO2 were carried out. The analytical results from the sites,
considered by themselves and in comparison with the well analyses,
are most consistent with a biological origin for the gases.
In considering the analytical results on the recovered gases,
the most striking characteristic is the extreme dryness, in most cases,
of the hydrocarbon fraction, a possible indicator of bacterial origin.
III-23
-38-
Five of the sites (Hagerstown cul-de-sac, intersection of Hamilton and
Magnolia, 9511 Port Clyde, 9772 Kite and 16642 Algonquin) contained
gases whose hydrocarbons were more than 99:9% CH4. At the three other
sites (9611 Rockpoint, Karales 2 and the corner of Malibu and Banning)
methane content varied from 99.0% to 96.7%. By comparison, the well
gases were about 98% dry and in one case only 60% methane. Although
the .difference from 98% to 99.9% does not appear large, it is unusual
to find a thermogenic gas as dry, certainly within the Los Angeles Basin.
The C 2+ fraction of the soil gases, when compared with the C 2+
fraction of the well gases, is further evidence of the dissimilarity
between the two. All the soil gases,. except those recovered from the
Algonquin and Kite sites, have the unsaturates ethylene and propylene
present in amounts similar to propane and the butanes. In some cases,
for example the sample taken at the Hagerstown cul-de-sac, ethane is
present in amounts signifiantly greater than the other C 2+ components_
Similar situations have been encountered in gas samples recovered from
sea floor sediments and are attributed to a small population of ethane
producing bacteria. The presence of the unsaturates is indicative of
a bacterial contribution to the soil gases.
The samples taken from the Kite Street and Algonquin sites are
different from the others because the unsaturates are missing. The
Algonquin site is near abandoned wells and one producing well while
the Kite Street site is within 50' of an abandoned well buried beneath
the street. The composition of the gas from Weaver-Community I near
III-24
-39-
the Algonquin site is completely different from the .recovered soil gas
being 35% wet while the soil gas is 99.9% dry. No sample of gas is
available ,for the well at Kite but, by. comparison with other wells in
the area, it should be at least 1-2% wet and not 99.9% dry as in the
recovered soil sample. At the Algonquin site the ratio of propane to
ethane is about 0.5 while the nearby well is just the inverse, about
2.0. The iso-butane to n-butane ratios are similar for the well and
the site. The gas from. the Kite Street site has about 20 times as much
ethane as propane and the iso-butane to n-butane ratio is about 0.4,
similar to wells in the West Newport field.
Gas samples from the sites with more than trace amounts of the
butanes (Algonquin, Kite Street, Karales 2 and Hamilton at Magnolia)
were analyzed for their gasoline range hydrocarbons, CS - C8' Only
the Algonquin sample contained more than trace amounts. Again, the
soil gases, with one exception, differ from the well gases.
In addition to the hydrocarbon compositional tests, a second
set of interrelated measurements was performed on the recovered soil
gases. The nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 content of many of the recovered
gases was measured as well the delta 13C of the carbon in methane and
CO2. These tests are. useful in determining how biological processes
have altered and/or contributed to the soil gases. The CO2 in soil
gas is the result of respiratory activities while the 02 and N2 are
carried into the soils dissolved in water. In the soil , N2 is mostly
inert but 02 is consumed in metabolic . activities with the pass;1ge of
III-25
-40-
time.
In normal soils without oxygen, bacteria may convert 'CO2 to very
pure CH with a delta 13C of -65'/00 or less. If oxygen is present,
different forms of bacteria will use it to oxidize methane to CO2.
In this case the remaining methane will be heavier than -65'/0o and
the CO2 delta 13C will approach that of the methane from the heavier
side; i.e., it will start out at close to 0'/oo and get lighter. As
the oxygen is consumed the ratio of N2 to 02 will increase from its
atmospheric value of 4.
It is not possible for isotopic data to confirm the biogenic
origins .of the gases found at the intersection of Malibu and Banning
and Karales 2 because not enough methane or CO2 was recoverd to make
reliable isotopic measurements. The remaining wells fall into two -
classes based on the stable carbon isotope ratios of their methane:
those that are heavy, -25'/oo to -30'/00, and those that are light,
-59'/00. The sites at the Hagerstown cul-de-sac, on Port Clyde and
on Kite Street are all about -59'/00, lighter than any of the methanes
from the wells. There has been consumption of oxygen based on the. N2/02
ratios which are 5 and 6 at the Kite and Hagerstown sites and 20 at
the Port Clyde site. The CO2 concentrations vary directly with the
oxygen consumption. At two of the sites (Kite Street and Port Clyde)
sufficient CO2 was recovered to determine reliably that the CO2 was
-50'/00. These facts are consistent with bacterial consumption of methane
which was originally a few to several per mil lighter than
III-26
-41-
Stable carbon isotope ratios of -65*/00 or lighter for methpne are con-
sidered diagnostic of bacterial origin. This confirms the origin decided
for the Port Clyde and Hagerstown sites based- on their hydrocarbon compo-
sition. For the Kite Street site, it is decisive for a bacterial origin.
The sites at Rockport and the intersection of Hamilton and Mag-
nolia contained methane that was very similar isotopically, both contain-
ing carbon with a delta 13C value of about -25'/0,. The CO2 recovered_
at the same sites was also similar having a delta 13C of about -24°/00,
very nearly the same as that of the methane. Buried organic matter
subjected to high temperatures (>120'C) will produce methane as dry
and as heavy as observed here. However, the Los Angeles Basin has a
low temperature gradient (35°C/km) and is considered coal basin.
Also, known production is from 8,000 feet or shallower implying tempera-
tures of less_ f-La-n. .100°C.
If oxygen depletion and CO2 concentrations are considered, both
these sites are similar to the Port Clyde, Kite Street and Hagerstown
cul-de-sac sites previously discussed. At those sites bacterial oxida-
tion had made the methane perhaps 5'/0o heavier. If a similar effect
has occurred at the current sites, then the methane source for these
sites is near -30°/,,. If the source is non-biogenic, it must be quite
hot, geologically unlikely in the Los Angeles Basin.
Biogenic methane is derived from anaerobic bacteria which convert
CO2 to methane. In such disparate environments as swamps and the rumen
III-27
-42-
of cattle, the resultant methane is usually 35`/oa lighter than the.
CO2 source. Huntington Beach, in the areas these samples were recovered
from, is built over a low lying marine flood plain. Consequently, most
of the carbon dioxide in soils deeper than 10 feet is derived from marine
carbonate which contains carbon of about 0V0,. Bacterial methane from
! such a source would be quite dry, as observed, and have an isotopic
value of -30°/oo to -35°/00. Near the surface, oxygenated waters pro-
vide a means for aerobic bacteria to utilize the methane for a food
source, enriching the remaining methane to -25°/0, and producing CO2
with a similar isotope ratio.
Finally, the Algonquin site must be considered. It is a special
case because it is surrounded by several abandoned wells and has a pro-
ducing well within 200 feet of .it. The gas recovered at the site con-
tains no unsaturates and is the only soil gas to contain more than trace
amounts of C5 to C8, or ' gasoline range, hydrocarbons. These facts,
while not conclusive, are indicative of an oil related source. However,
the extreme dryness of the soil gas (99.9% methane) in comparison to
the wells (65% methane) and the relative heaviness of the soil methane
(-310/„ vs -510/00) imply unrelated sources. Additionally, the CO2
in the soil gas is much heavier at -9°/,o than found at other sites
and the oxygen is severely depleted (N2/02=26).
Besides these differences, there is one other dissimilarity.
'The sampling site is in the middle of a large area that has almost no
open space because everything is covered with asplia l t. or concrete_ This
III-28
-43-
explains the extreme oxygen depletion since there is no opportunity
for water to carry dissolved oxygen into the soil. The CO2 delta 13C
value is close to marine values because aerobic bacteria are inactive.
The heavy methane (-31`/00) . has not been altered by bacterial
oxidation. Although it is not certain, the unsaturates are absent be-
cause the gases have been trapped long enough for them to react or their
formation is in some way dependent on aerobic bacteria. Finally the
gasoline range components may be present because the trapped methane
has not been able to sweep them away as they are given off by the as-
phalt. Alternatively, with several wells in the area, it is quite like-
ly that spills may have occurred which are still giving off trace amounts
of gasoline- range hydrocarbons.
III-29
-44-
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Areas within Huntington Beach- that are subject to hazardous or
even dangerous accumulations of methane in their soil gases have been
studied to determine the origins of the hazard causing gases. There
are two possibilities for the origin of the soil gas methane which is
responsible for all the problems. Either the methane is related to
the West Newport Field and Sunset Beach Field oil production activities
or to natural near surface production of methane by bacteria. In order
to decide between these two choices, samples of the soil gases in problem
areas chosen by Mr. Mel Wright, a consultant to the City of Huntington
Beach, were recovered. In addition, histories of the oil fields were
examined as well as general characteristics of the oil province known
as the Los Angeles Basin which contains both fields.
Based on comprehensive chemical evalution of the samples and
information concerning the oil fields, we conclude that the soil gases
we examined are biogenic in origin. The evidence to support this con-
clusion is as follows. The gases are all dry, another characteristic
of biogenic gas. Thermogenic gas can also be dry but the temperatures
present in these fields are not high enough to have produced such gases.
In addition, most of the gases are much drier than any of the wells
sampled, a further indication of different origin. Unsaturated hydro-
carbons are prevalent and are found in biogenic , not thermogenic, gases.
According to the soils encountered in sampling, Huntington Beach
III-30
i
i -45-
i
is underlain by wet clays derived from old river flood plains and salt
marshes. Such soils are a good source of biogenic methane colloquially
known as swamp gas which normally is lighter than -60.0 to -65.0
All the methane samples have been oxidized somewhat judging by the
depletion of oxygen in many gas samples. Accordingly, the sites at
the Hagerstown cul-de-sac, on Port Clyde Street and on Kite Street
-all have normal biogenic sources in shallow surface soils. The three
sites containing heavier methane (Algonquin, Rockport Street, and the
intersection of Hamilton and Magnolia) are also biogenic but using CO2
whose source is primarily marine.
Although the soil gases are not related to oil production, it
is probable that in at least two cases the gases are using well casings
as conduits. One such location is in the middle of Kite Street and
the second is underneath an apartment building on Algonquin. To miti-
gate the problem on Kite Street, we recommend that shallow gravel filled
trenches be placed beneath the street with perforated PVC pipe running
through them. The pipes would all go to a street light pole and then
be vented perhaps 25 feet above street level. The Algonquin problem
is more severe because a building is involved. Areas not covered
by the buildings are cemented for parking. Probably some of the cement
will have to be cut out and a venting system similar to the one de-
scribed above installed. The cement will have to be relaid over the
trench lines. If there are enclosed areas within the buildings that
do not have good air circulation methane monitors and a fan ventil-
ation system must be installed to guard against an explosive build-up of
III-31
-46-
gas.
Other areas within Huntington Beach that have soil gas problems
with close association with a well and that feel threatened should
determine the areal extent of the problem. If it is small, perhaps
nothing should be done except to be sure that closed spaces are occa-
sionally vented. If the area is larger and/or appears to extend beneath
a building or residence, a simple perforated PVC pipe in gravel trench .
system is a cost effective way to mitigate the problem. Ventilation
or methane gas monitors should also be considered.
In areas of new construction soil surveys should be performed
to detect abnormal soil gas concentrations. Building permits should
not be issued allowing construction over abandoned wells even if there
is no detected leak at the current time. If general soil "gasiness"
is detected, either a vent system or a plastic building seal should
be considered.
III-32
Cl - C4 HYDROCARBONS
Sample Site Cl C2 C2: C3 C3: iso-C4 n-C4
Ocean Crest cul-de- 3.43 0.20 0.43 0.06 0.30 0.07 0.35
sac - A
- B 3.47 0.14 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.16
- C 2.07 - - - - 0.03 0.12
H 21952 ularborbreeze 4.09 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.08 - 0.10
H �
H - A
i
w - B 3.67 0.13 0.32 0.07 0.26 0.10 0.30
- C 2.95 0.06 0.24 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.14
9131 Bermuda 4.74 0.13 0.06 0.04 0.15 0.03 0.10
Cape `lay & Jonesport 101 .00 0.17 0.25 0.08 0.15 0.02 0.14
Intersection - A
- B 3.40 0.08 0.11 0.02 0.04 - 0.06
Barbados cul-de-sac 5.30 - - - - 0.01 0.03
- A
- B 19.90 0.13 0.15 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.37
TABLE 4 (cont.)
C1 CHYDROCARBONS
Sample Site C1 C2 C2: C3 C3: iso;C4 n-C4
9302 South Shore - A 18.10 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.03 0.07 0.18
- B 11 .00 0.22 0.33 0.23 0.48 0.21 0.23
r
1 �
TABLE 4A
Cl - C4 HYDROCARBONS AND INORGANIC GASES
Sample Cl C2 C2: C3 C3: iso-C4 n-C4 CO2 02 N2
9611 Rockport A 76005.0 746.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.07 0.24 47000 134000 770000
9611 Rockport B 1862.0 18.5 0.2 t 0.1 0.03 0.18 3293 200000 800000
Malibu & Banning 558.0 17.9 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.05 0.12 2583 197000 797000
Karales #2-5' 343.0 3.1 0.3 1 .2 0.5 0.22 1.42 30000 101000 840000
Karales #2-9' 498.0 4.2 - 2.2 0.5 0.33 2.38 84000 40000 831000
Karales #2 Well 816460.0 5800.0 - 2532.4 2.4 224.00 144.00 134000 3000 12000
Bushard 547910.0 4744.0 - 2232.0 - 508.00 1039.00 131000 37000 221000
& Atlanta Well
Algonquin Well 143550.0 15228.0 - 31517.0 - 8940.00 20041 .00 20000 31000 696000
H 9511 Port Clyde 91477.0 9.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.02 0.13 59000 36000 748000 ;
H A A
H f
u, 9511 Port Clyde 4926.0 0.7 0.1 - - - 6190 179000 729000
QnB
9511 Port Clyde 16900.0 0.6 - - - 0.2 - 11000 215000 757000
hazer Box
7a-,ilton & 6888.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 t 0.04 0.19 42000 94000 790000
`faenolia
Kite & Sparkman 238510.0 57.7 0.3 3.4 0.3 0.48 1 .16 6510 120000 598000
A
Kite & Sparkman 398760.0 68.2 - 1 .9 - 1 .37 2.12 10000 96000 459000 .
B
Kite & Sparkman 6596.0 2.1 - - - - - 2615 199000 780000
Water Box
Hagerstown 2.61550.0 63.1 0.3 1 .4 0.3 0'.32 0.26 12000 140000 550000
A
Hagerstown 622370.0 137.0 - 2.8 0.2 0.65 0.31 29000 45000 281000
:lltionquin 191880.0. 10.0 - 4.9 - 1 .25 4.82 141000 23000 598000
HUNTINGTON BEACH (C, C$ HYDROCARBONS) �
C
^ cti
C v v C C v c v
a C cco N m w a cCp
C C O v C (Ur-I >1 (UC
H v L v H IJ Aj ri L
>. C v v O >. C c ?, v v v
C m C C H .0 v v m .0 C E r v
u m m U I~ a u u m v .,4 _
v c u x a, v m H m v u c $. v ., y
E v c v v U E x >, v E
•rr a v c z r-1 •rI v .G v s •rl v u I •. r O
ID O G. m O >, v .0 C O a C C.
1 r4 1 L r-I L I I v m r-I I I v w 1 v U
N U O C U u M O x U (n O .0 cl Ln E
T V) v . v w VI 1 v >\ w V) I w
Sample Site N U ra A. U E N •rI M .0 U N r+ C N N m
Weaver Community A - 639 5711 4748 440 1993 201 970. 1893 1351 1350 321 354 911 - 53 30 279
Karales 2 5 10 38 47 10 28 46 10 18 14 21 19 3 17 - 1 3 7
Kernview - 39 351 277 37 153 16 229 - 94 139 28 34 112 12 22 5 38
H 16642. Algonquin - 0.6 64..8 0.6 8.9 3.7 29.8 26.4 - - 65.0 46.0 0.1 57.2 9.1 8.8 1 .9 10.0
H
cw Karales 2 (5' ) - - - 0.1 - - - - - - - - 2.3 - - - ,
0
Karales 2 (9' ) - - 0.1 0.1 - - - - - - - - - 0.6 -
H & M (5' ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 .7 - - -
H & M (9' ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Kite Street (3' ) - - - - 1 .6 - 009 - 0.4 - - - 1 .2 - - - -
Kite Street (0.5' ) - - 0.1 0.1 - 0.1 - - - 0.1 - - - 2.2 - - - -
TABLE 5 '
-51-
TABLE 6
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DELTA 13C MEASUREMENTS
SITE delta 13C-CH4 delta 13C CO2
Atlanta & Bushard -54.8 -3.5
(Kernview 1)
Karales 2 -46.8 +19.6
Algonquin -50.7 +
(Weaver-Community 1)
Newport 8 -58.1 +
Newport 3 -54.3 +5.5
Kite Street -59.6 -49.9
9511 Port Clyde -58.3 -47.6
Hagerstown cul-de-sac -59.0 + _
9611 Rockport -24.6 -24.0
Hamilton & Magnolia -24.4 -24.1
Intersection
16642 Algonquin -31.6 -9.7
III-37
-s2-
APPENDIX I
PROBE METHOD: C1-C HYDROCARBONS AND NON-HYDROCARBON GASES
The soil probe is a stainless steel rod with a 1/16" hole running
its length. The tip of the probe is a screw-on chisel point which con-
ceals a side port connected to the hollow center (see Fig. 1). The
small bore size minimizes the atmospheric air contamination in the soil
gas sample. To recover a soil gas sample, the probe is ' driven to a
nominal depth of three (3) feet in the soil using a slide hammer.
At depth,- a gas tight syringe is used to remove air from the
probe's hollow center and the probe rotated twice to expose the side
port to soil gases. The soil gases are removed by syringe for analysis
of their hydrocarbon content (see Fig. 2 for a typical chromatogram)
using FID chromatographs. As little as 10 ppb vol/vol of hydrocarbon
can be detected.
The advantages of the soil probe method are its rapidity, ability
to access areas not possible with a drill truck, and little or no damage
to the environment.
III-38
r .
-53-
SAMPLE WITHDRAWAL PORT
SLIDE RESTRAINT
SLIDE
SLIDE RESTRAINT
7
SOIL GAS INLET
TfULADED CHISEL POINT
FIG, l: SOIL CAS PKO(tG
III-39
-54-
F!LT
a
Figure 2: Hydrocarbon by Flame Ionization Detector
Gas Chromatography: Methane: 250 ppb ;
ethane: 400 ppb; ethylene: 500 ppb ;
propane: 350 ppb; propylene: 300 ppb;
iso-butane: 200 ppb; n-butane : 500 ppb.
III-40
-55-
APPENDIX II
CANNED HEADSPACE: Cl--C, HYDROCARBON GASES
In the canned headspace method, 300 - 400 cc of sediment is col-
lected from the bottom of an augered hole by removing the auger and
taking the sediment sample directly from the auger blade. The sediment
is immediately canned with 200 cc of water in a No. 212 can (860 cc vol-
ume). .The lid is equipped with a silicon septum.
In the laboratory, each can is shaken for five (5) minutes on
a Harbil agitator to homogenize the sample and bring all hydrocarbons
into equilibrium with the headspace gas (250 cc). An aliquot of the
headspace gas is withdrawn for analysis by FID chromatography. The
data are reported as volume of hydrocarbon gas per volume headspace
gas. The limit of detection is 10 ppb for the hydrocarbon analysis.
Thus the canned samples serve not only as confirmation of the probe
results but also as a reservoir of gas for additional tests such as
isotopic analyses in cases where it is necessary. The canned samples
also provide information about the vertical extent of anomalies.
Although the methane measurements are of primary importance,
quantitation of the heavier hydrocarbons is necessary with respect to
determining the origin of the methane in anomalies, since this informa-
tion has a direct bearing on mitigation procedures. Once the hydrocarbon
III-41
-56-
gas composition is known from the field analysis of a gas probe sample
or confirmed with analysis of the canned sample headspace, it is pos-
sible to make a reliable decision regarding the source utilizing criter-
ia established by the oil industry and organic geochemists. Although
unusual situations may be encountered, certain guidelines are reliable.
If the soil gas contains methane accompanied with unsaturates (ethylene
and propylene) present in amounts comparable to the corresponding sat-
urates (ethane and propane), the gas is bacterial in origin. In some
cases, the methane can be very dry (less than 1% C 2+) constituting more
than 99% of the hydrocarbon gas. If the unsaturates are missing or
present in only minor amounts and the C 2+ gases constitute up to 20
or 30% of the hydrocarbon gases, the origin is petroleum related. If
hydrocarbon gases are the result of thermal processes, the unsaturates
are missing and methane constitutes 97% - 98% of the hydrocarbon frac-
tion.
Besides the chemical composition of the hydrocarbons, the stable
carbon isotopic compositon of the carbon in the methane can be measured
and this information combined with the compositional information to
decide the hydrocarbon gas origin. Methane containing carbon with an
isotopic ratio of less than -60*/0o to -65*/,o is biogenic, while
methane with an isotopic ratio greater than -55'/,a but less than
-40°/0, is petroleum related. Methane with carbon measuring -40°/oa
or greater is derived from thermal processes.
III-42
-57-
REFERENCES
Allen, D.R. and Hazenbush, G.C. (1957); Sunset Beach Oil Field: Calif.
Div. of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations - Cal. Oil Field, 43(2).
Bostik, N.H., Casman, S.M., McCulloh, T.H., and Waddell, C.T. (1978);
Gradients of Vitrinite Reflectances and Present Temperature in
the Los Angeles and Ventura Basins, CA. in Symposium in Geochemis-
try:: Low Temperature Metamorphism of Kerogen and Clay Minerals;
ed. J. Oltz, The Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontolo-
gists and Mineralogists.
Connan, Jacques (1984); Biodegradation of Crude Oils in Reservoirs
in Advances in Petroleum Geochemistry, 1 ed. Brooks, J. and Welte,
D., p. 299-317.
Hunter, A.L. and Allen D.R. (1956); Recent Developments in West Newport
Oil Field: Cal. Div. of Oil and Gas, Summary of Operations - Cal.
Oil Fields, 42(2).
Ingram, W.L. (1968); Newport Oil Field: Cal. Div. of Oil and Gas, Sum-
mary of Operations - Cal. Oil Fields, 54(2), part 2.
III-43
BUILDING OVER OIL WELLS
With 3,816 wells having been drilled in Huntington Beach over the last 50 years, develop-
ment of properties on, over or in the proximity of producing, idle or abandoned wells
occurs with increasing frequency.
The State of California, Division of Oil and Gas, does not recommend the building of a
structure over any abandoned oil well.
This policy stand by the Division of Oil and Gas would make large parcels of land within
the City undevelopable. It had been the policy of the City in the past to allow construc-
tion over abandoned oil wells.
With the recent problems associated with methane gas, and the Divisions policy about
building over wells,.a new approach from both the safety and liability points had to be
adopted.
Through the City Oil Code the following ordinance was adopted in 1981 and amended in
1987:
15.32.120 Abandonment requirements prior to new construction. All abandoned
or deserted wells or drill sites shall meet the most current abandonment
requirements of the Division of Oil and Gas prior to the issuance of any building .
or grading permit for development of the property.
New structures shall not be constructed directly over abandoned wells unless
due to configuration of the property it is necessary. If it can be proved to be
safe and this is no other alternative, it may allowed if procedures set forth by
the Fire Chief are followed.
This ordinance did two things: 1) It allows the City to require owners of properties who
wished to develop said properties to bring their wells up to the most recent abandonment
standards, as required by the Division of Oil and Gas. With time and through redevelop-
ment those older wells built over some years ago will be brought up to a much safer
standard, 2) It gives the Fire Chief the authority to require and set standards. If proven
to him by experts within the petroleum field, that construction over abandoned wells can
be done in a manner as not to endanger life or property it will be allowed. Each situation
is examined on a case by case bases with advanced inspections and reporting required,
methane venting systems and in some cases permanent monitoring devices required.
Attached is the Huntington Beach Fire Department procedure and guidelines for building
over abandoned oil wells as set forth by the Fire Chief.
7008f (Revised 10/28/87) IV-1
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
OIL AND GAS WELL REVIEW PROCEDURE
Name of Applicant Address of Applicant
Date Plan Check Number
Plan Checker's Name Signature Phone Number
A review of State Division of Oil and Gas maps indicated that your proposed construction
site located at lies within
the boundaries of
(Oil Field/County)
There is/are (number) active, idle, or abandoned wells(s) located on or
adjacent to the site; therefore, before a building permit can be issued, it is necessary to
obtain a site-plan review from the State Division of Oil and Gas. The Division of Oil and
Gas will determine if affected wells have been abandoned to current standards. Wells not
abandoned to current standards, may require abandonment/reabandonment.
THE STATE DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS RECOMMENDS THAT A DILIGENT EFFORT BE
MADE TO AVOID BUILDING OVER OR IN THE PROXIMITY OF ANY WELL.
I. SITE REVIEW PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED BY PROJECT APPLICANT.
A. Contact the Division at:
Division of Oil and Gas
245 West Broadway, Suite 475
Long Beach, California 90802
213-590-5309
B. Provide the following information:
1. Area Location
2. Oil Field/County
3. Company/Operator
4. Well Designation
5. Major Cross Street (or other identifier)
C. The applicant must submit the above well information to the Division of
Oil and Gas office. The Division of Oil and Gas engineers will review the
data and provide the applicant with the well location information.
D. Using the well locations provided by the Division of Oil and Gas, uncover
the well(s) and have the well location(s) surveyed by a licensed surveyor.
If any well cannot be located using the original description of record, a
diligent effort, including excavation, must be made to locate it. Some
surface indications that may help in locating wells are metal detector
responses, the presence of well cellars, oil field debris, and oil-saturated
earth.
1099F (10187) IV-2
Plot the location of each well .on the site plan. The well survey
description must reference a point on the site plan which, in turn, must
reference a point on an existing Division map if a common point is not
available. Identify each well with the name of the company/operator and
well designation. Submit three (3) copies of the final site plan and three
(3) copies of each well location survey to the Huntington Beach Fire
Department for verification of the plotted well locations. Following well
location verification, the Huntington Beach Fire Department will forward
them to the Division of Oil and Gas for site evaluation.
The site plan should indicate the property boundaries, an area of at least
twenty-five (25) feet outward from the perimeter of the property, any
proposed or existing structures, and any existing or proposed roads or
streets that pass through or are immediately adjacent to the property.
The site plan should also include a plot (to scale) of all existing and
proposed oil field facilities (tanks, processing equipment, enclosures,
pipelines, etc.) that will be operating on the site after completion of the
proposed development. You must also include a description of the
existing type and height of all oil field enclosures and list any facility
modifications that are part of the development plans.
E. The following procedures are to be used to locate site plan wells and to
verify that an adequate search was completed:
Step 1. The developer/landowner shall survey the well locations using
the "Location of Record" and dig a hole that is at least fifteen
(15) feet long, fifteen (15) feet wide, and twelve (12) feet
deep, if necessary. If any indications of an oil well are
observed upon completion of the excavation, or if there is any
information available that original conditions have changed
since the well was drilled, a larger hole may be required.
Step 2. If the well is not located using procedures listed in Step 1, a
metal detector should be used to survey the area (inside and
outside the excavation). All safety precautions must be
observed while working inside the excavation site. If it is
unsafe to enter the excavation, the -metal detector can be
lowered by means of a rope and/or extension device.
Step 3. The developer/landowner shall excavate all indicated metal
detector locations by digging a hole that is at least ten (10)
feet long, ten (10) feet wide, and twelve (12) feet deep, if
necessary. If any indications of an oil well are observed upon
completion of the excavation, or if there is any information
available that the original conditions have changed since the
well was drilled, a larger hole may be required.
Step 4. The developer/landowner shall notify the Division of Oil and
Gas to witness all completed excavations before they are
refilled. Pictures shall be taken of all excavations and each
picture labeled appropriately. A Division of Oil and Gas
Engineer should also review the well survey.
Step 5. If the well search efforts proved unsucessful, the Division of
Oil and Gas representative and the developer shall prepare a
1099F (10/87) IV-3
brief written report describing the search procedures and attach the
excavation pictures.
F. A Division of Oil and Gas Engineer will review the submitted plans to
determine what well work is required. The Division of Oil and. Gas
Engineer will prepare Form OG 190, which will indicate the wells that need
to be abandoned or reabandoned before a building permit can be issued.
Form OG190 will also include requirements and recommendations
regarding any active well facilities that will remain after the
development is completed.
When the review is complete, the reviewing Engineer will affix the
Division of Oil and Gas certification stamp to the three (3) copies of the
site plans and three (3) copies of Form OG 190. Two (2) copies (along with
two (2) copies of the well location surveys) will be returned to the
Huntington Beach Fire Department, which will then forward one (1) copy
to the applicant. The remaining copy will be retained by the Division's
district office.
II. ABANDONMENT PERMIT PROCESS.
A. Before any well operations are commenced, an application to abandon or
reabandon each well must be filed with the Division of Oil and Gas (Form
OG 108 or OG 123). This application must outline the work proposed to
upgrade the well to current requirements.
B. The Division will respond with a permit (Form OG111) that sets forth the
conditions and requirements to be met.
C. A well abandonment contractor may be retained by the applicant to do
the required abandonment work.
D. The Fire Department must witness welding of the top plate.
E. When the well work is complete and all records received, the Report of
Operations (Form OGl09) and the Report of Well Abandonment or
Reabandonment (Form OG 159) will be issued. A copy of each will be sent
to the Fire Department and the applicant.
NOTE: IF, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, ANY PREVIOUSLY
UNKNOWN WELL IS DISCOVERED, THE DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS MUST BE
NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY SO ABANDONMENT REQUIREMENTS CAN BE
DETERMINED.
III. PRIOR TO RELEASE OF BUILDING PERMITS.
The base principle is that no buildings should be built over abandoned oil wells.
If it can be proven to be safe and there is no other alternative, the following
criteria must be met:
Analysis of well by a State of California registered Petroleum Geologist
or Petroleum Engineer. (These may be obtained in the Pacific Coast Oil
Directory, or Personnel Directory of California Oil and Gas Producers.)
1099F (10/87) IV-4
Protection Designs (if needed)
Vapor venting systems
Methane detection
Etc.
Well abandonment to current Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) Standards.
Review by the City of Huntington-Beach.
Proven well with integrity.
Property owner responsible for correcting all future problems.
Title disclosure to future property owner and their responsibilities.
Filing cost of $244.
IV. GUIDE FOR CONTENT OF ABANDONED WELL DISPOSITION REPORT.
A. Well History - When drilled, when abandoned. Special shooting or
recompletion work. Production oil and gas at, or last reported, prior to
abandonment.
B. Casing and Liner - Types and depths, pipe grades. Submit copies of DOG
Well History form.
C. Cement - Location and amounts; completion and abandonment. Submit
copies of DOG Abandonment form and pertinent well cementing data.
D. Zonal Depths - List oil and/or gas show depths.
E. Copy of Electric Log and/or Core Data and/or ditch or sidewell sample
description and/or Drillers Log.
F. Diagram of well showing casing, cement, and zones roughly to scale.
G. Gas - Leaking at beginning, during, or after work on well. Report
change. What is analysis of gas (Cl, C2, C3, C4, C5, etc.), approximate
.flow, heavy, medium, light?
H. Issues and types of recommendations that must be made by preparer:
1. Reabandon; must reabandon if not to present DOG Code.
2. Design vented recovery system; must use if well is to be built over.
3. Install permanent detector and alarm system.
4. Don't built over.
5. Don't build near.
6. Okay to build near, or over, stipulate why.
7. High gas flow needs flare installed.
8. Overall safety of well.
This guide is to be considered a minimum.
1099F (10187) IV-5
BONDS
With the past fall in .oil prices and the decrease in production for many of the smaller
producers, more and more oil wells are being shut down.
At present, the City requires through Ordinance Corporate Surety Bonds in the amount of
ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per well; or in lieu of filing a separate bond on each well,
owners may file a Blanket Bond in the amount of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) if more
than five (5) well are owned.
With the cost of abandonments and site clean up costing on an average of forty thousand
dollars ($40,000), and capable of running as high as one hundred thousand dollars
($100,000) the City is now in an unprotected position should any operator default on his
well.
It is recommended that the Oil Code Bonds be increased to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000)
per well; or in lieu of filing a separate bond on each well, owners may file a Blanket Bond
in the amount of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) if more than five (5)
wells are owned. If the well owner and property owner are one in the same, provisions
could be made to have the property pledged in lieu of bonds.
Attached is a copy of the current bond ordinance from the Huntington Beach Oil Code.
7008f (10/87) V-1
15.16.010--15.16.040
Chapter 15.16
BONDS
Sections-
15. 16.010' Existing wells--Exception for present bonds.
15.16.020 New wells--Bond required.
15.16.030 Bond form.
15.16.040 Single bonds.
15.16.050 Substitutions.
15.16.060. Blanket bonds.
15. 16.070 Default in performance of conditions--Notice to
be given.
15.164080 Exoneration.
15.16.010 Existing wells--Exception for present bonds.
Ex-cept as to oil bonds existing on the effective date ot this
oil code which satisfy the requirements of the previous
Huntington Beach Oil Code, a bond in the form required by this
title shall be filed for each well drilled prior to said
effective date of this title, which -has not been abandoned
prior to said .effective date in accordance with the standards
-and laws of the state of California and the requirements. of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81)
15.16.020 ' New wells--Bond required. A *bond or bond rider
in the form required by this title shall _ accompany every.
application for drilling or reworking of any oil well,
injection well, or disposal well. (Ord. 2491, . 1 Jul 81)
15.16.030 Bond form. Bonds or riders to existing bonds
shall be on forms approved by the city attorney and shall be
filed with the department. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81)
. 15.16.0.40 Single bonds. Corporate surety bonds in the
penal sum of ten thousand dollars ($10., 000) shall be required
for .each well. The bonds. shall be executed by the operator as
principal and by. the authorized surety company as surety and.
conditioned that the principal named in the bond shall
faithfully comply with this title and any other ordinance of
the city of Huntington Beach, which ordinance, law, rule or
regulation in any manner pertains or applies to any of the
principal's oil operations. Compliance by the principal named
in the bond shall include compliance with any and all
j
V-2
15..16.050--15 .16 .070
l
provisions, amendments and changes in the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code regularly adopted. The bond shall secure the
city of Huntington Beach against all costs, charges and
expenses incurred by it for the failure of the principal to
comply fully with the. provisions of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code. The bond shall include the correct name and
number and legal description or -precise location of the well
and such other information as may be necessary to identify the
oil well readily. Any operator may furnish negotiable
securities or cash in lieu of a corporate surety bond.. . The
obligations and liabilities under the bonds required hereunder
(corporate, surety or cash) are continuing obligations and .
liabilities, and the liability of the surety under this bond
may be terminated solely and only at the time or times, in the
manner and by. strict compliance with the provisions for
termination of liability as set forth in the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code. Regardless of expenditures which may incur
from .action on any bond, said bond shall always be maintained
at its original face value,. and .it shall be the responsibility
of the principal to insure and provide that the bond shall be
fully. maintained. (Ord.. 2491, 1 Jul 81)
15.16 .050 Substitution. A substitute bond may be filed in
lieu .of the bond on file hereunder and the department shall
accept and file same if it is qualified in proper form. and
substance. The bond for which it is substituting shall then be
exonerated. (Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81)
15.16.060 Blanket bonds. Any operator, in lieu of filing
a separate bond on each well as required by the foregoing, may
file a blanket bond .in the amount of fifty thousand. dollars
($50,000) if he has more than five ( 5) wells. (Ord. 2491,
1 Jul 81)
15 .16 .070 Default in -performance of conditions--Notice to
be given. Whenever the department finds that a default has
occurred in the performance of any requirement or condition of
these regulations, a written notice thereof shall be given to*
the principal and to the surety on the bond. Such notice shall
specify the work to be done, the estimated cost thereof and the
period of time deemed by the department to be reasonably
necessary for the completion of such work . After receipt ' of
such notice, the surety shall, within the. time therein
specified, either cause or require the work to be performed, or
failing thereupon, shall pay over to the department 125 percent
of the estimated cost of doing the work as set forth in the
V-3
' 15.16 .080
notice. Upon receipt of such monies, the department shall
proceed by such mode as deemed convenient to cause the required
work to be performed and completed, but no liability shall be
incurred therein other than for the expenditure of said sum in
hand. In the event that the well has not been properly
abandoned under the regulations of the division of oil and gas,
such additional money may be demanded from the surety as is
necessary to restore the drill site in conformity with the
regulations of this title.
In the event the surety does not cause the work to be
performed and fails or refuses to pay over to the department
the estimated cost of the work to be done as set forth in the
notice,/ the city may proceed to obtain compliance and abate the
default by way of civil action against the surety., or by
criminal action against the principal, or by both such
methods. (Ord. 2491, . 1 Jul 81)
15.16 .080 Exoneration. When the well or wells, covered by
said bonds have been properly abandoned in conformity with all
regulations of this title, and in conformity with all
regulations of the division of oil and gas and notice to that-
effect has been received by the department, or upon receipt of
a satisfactory substitute bond, the bond issued in compliance
with these regulations shall be terminated and cancelled and
the surety relieved of all obligations thereunder .
(Ord. 2491, 1 Jul 81)
V-4
PREDICTING FUTURE OIL OPERATIONS
The City faces important decisions regarding land use as the oil in the field continues to
.be depleted and pressure increases to abandon parts of the field and to redevelop the
surface. Fiscal impacts are important factors in determining the best use of the land and
the City's policy toward continue oil operations.
The lack of available open space in this area and the growing housing shortage create
pressure to abandon oil fields and to redevelop them for housing. At the same time, rising
oil prices and the relaxation of price controls on domestic oil make continued oil
production, even at low levels, increasingly attractive. Higher prices may also make more
expensive production techniques (such as water injection) profitable in parts of the field
where they have not yet been applied. Further, while production in the Huntington Beach
field has been declining, new technologies are being tested here which might rejuvenate
the field.
In light of these changing variables and different possibilities, several "scenarios" of oil
operations over the next decade have been analyzed. The first assumes, overall, that the
number of wells, acreage and production levels remain relatively unchanged. This could
come about if the decline of production in some parts of the field are balanced by new
waterflood projects and other enhanced recovery program. Production among small
independents is assumed to continue dropping, but the "recycling" of their parcels to new
uses would proceed very slowly, largely due to the increasing price of oil. Thus, the
number of wells, acreage, and overall oil production would remain relatively constant for
the next ten years.
The second scenario envisions a gradual phase-out of oil operations in the Townlot and
Downtown during the late 19801s, but operations elsewhere in the City will continue
relatively unchanged. This is theorized, because the Townlot and Downtown areas are
especially valuable part of the City, and pressures for redevelopment there will be
stronger than elsewhere.
The third scenario sees a phase-out of the small-scale independent operations during the
next decade, while the major oil compancies continue operating near their present levels.
In many way, this scenario may best approximate what will actually happen. Discussions
with the major oil companies in Huntington Beach indicate that they expect to continue
operating at least another 20 years and that the technologies may not dramatically
increase production, but will offset recent declines and keep production levels up for
several years. At the same time, the production of the independents has continue to
decline. Generally speaking, they cannot apply. the enhanced recovery technologies
available to the larger companies. As their,production drops and the value of the surface
for housing continues to rise, these parcels would gradually recycle.
The last scenario considers the possibility that, rather than abandoning their operations,
the small independent oil companies along with one or more of the majors, join together
and form a "unit." By combining the resources of all the participants, the unit has the
capital and the surface acreage to apply waterflood and other enhanced recovery
techniques. Thus, production increases and the operations continue throughout the 19801s.
7008f (10/87) VI-1
HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD CONSOLIDATION PLAN
At the end of 1985, the Huntington Beach Oil Field contained approximately 1,944 wells.
Of those, 992 were active and 952 shut-in. The active wells produced on average nearly
22,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD)during 1985.
On an arbitrary basis of size (as measured by number of wells) the sixty-six operators in
the Huntington Beach Oil Field can be segregated into three groups. Those groups which
might be referred "to as majors," "independents" and "small operators." Exhibit A which
lists these operators by group indicates the well status as of December 31, 1985 and
results of full year 1985 operations. The following chart indicates the relative size of
each group on a percentage basis.
# in Group % Wells % Active % Idle %BOPD % Gas
Majors 3 84.0 72.1 96.4 95.0 93.0
Independents 10 9.2 17.2 0.9 3.1 3.
Small Operators 53 6.8 10.7 2.7 1.9 3.2
TOTALS 66 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
The above table highlights the fact that the three largest producers in the field, Shell,
Chevron and Union Oil produce most (95.0%) of the oil. Conversely the remaining 63
producers with 16.0% of the oil wells produce only 5.0% of the oil. Even more dramatic,
however, is that the 53 "Small Operators" as a group only produce 1.9 percent of the oil.
It is generally acknowledged that the larger operators are better prepared to meet the
operating requirements imposed upon them by the City's Oil Code, the California Division
of Oil and Gas (DOG) and environmental agencies such as the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and others.
The transfer of the areas operated by the "Small Operators" to operators of larger size
should be an important objective in the City's regulatory scheme for the field.
The Coastal Energy Impact Program produced by the City of Huntington Beach in
February 1980, contained recommendations for policies and actions to be included in the
City's Local Coastal Plan. At Part E.3.2 policy recommendations were made with regard
to "Unitization and Consolidation and Siting Priorities." The following is the text of those
policy recommendations:
"Unitization and consolidation help to reduce the amount of land use for oil
activities, which is a more efficient use of this valuable coastal resource.
Policy III-2-a: Encourage unitization and consolidation when such
activities 1) reduce the area used for oil facilities, 2) are
not more environmentally disruptive than existing
arrangements and 3) do not jeopardize public health, safety
or welfare.
7008f (10/87) VI-2
The following sitting priority requires consolidation of new oil facilities either
in existing islands or on other oil parcels, where possible. This practice
concentrates the adverse impacts of oil facilities which tends to make
mitigation strategies easier and less expensive. Where consolidation or
clustering is infeasible, new sites outside the coastal zone are generally
preferred over new sites within the coastal zone. This reflects the special
value of the coastal zone for other competing uses. In all cases, environmental
impacts, public safety and welfare, and aesthetic considerations must be taken
into account in choosing the site for new facilities.
Policy III-20-b: Adopt the following priority for siting new oil-related
facilities, provided that in each case a) the new activities
are adequately screened and buffered from surrounding
uses, b) adverse environmental impacts are mitigated to
the maximum extend feasible, c) the activities do not
jeopardize public health, safety or welfare, d) there is no
other feasible location which is less disruptive:
1. existing consolidated islands (including the entire
Aminoil lease)
2. new consolidated islands
3. existing oil parcels
4. new parcels outside the coastal zone
5. new parcels within the coastal zone
The mechanism at hand for such an amalgamation of the interests held by the "Small
Operators" is unitization. Unitization allows the combination of a sufficiently large area
to justify the use of enhanced oil recovery methods which changes the overall character
of the reservoir performance (oil recovery rate) and therefore, economics of the project
area.
There are three major unitization (or consolidation) projects, at present, under various
stages of assembly within the Huntington Beach Oil Field. These three projects, the
Townlot Area, the Springfield Area and the North Flank Area, encompass essentially all of
the onshore portion of the oil field not otherwise controlled by either Chevron or Shell (in
the Bolsa Chica). These three areas are shown o_n Exhibit B, the map of the Huntington
Beach Master Plan - Oil Well Consolidation.
At present each of these unit areas can be characterized by the following table:
Est. Current
Size Number of Production
Area (Acres) Existing Wells (BOPD)
Townlot 315 166 400
Springfield 140 41 150
North Flank 640 201 400
TOTAL 1,095 408 950
7008f (Revised 10/28/87) VI-3
The installation of unitized consolidated oil projects in each of the three project areas
would significantly increase oil production from fewer wells. It would also dramatically
reduce the acres impacted by oil operations. While actual operating history will be
required to ascertain the accuracy of the estimates, initial estimates for each of the
consolidated projects are as follows:
New Potential Est. Peak
Consolidated Wells Ultimate Production
Area Drill Sites Required Recovery Rate (BOPD)
Townlot 4 or 5 70 30 M Bb1s 7,500
Springfield 1 45 10 M Bbls 2,500
North Flank 3 or 4 100 20 M Bbls 5,000
TOTAL 8 to 10 215 60 M Bb1s 15,000
The full implementation of oil well consolidation in each of the three project areas would
incrementally add 14,000 BOPD to the field's daily production level. While that would be
a very significant 64 percent of current production level, it will represent a much larger
percentage addition as the daily production rate from the offshore and other onshore
portions of the field continue to decline. Such additional production suggest a
stabilization of the overall oil production rate in the City which would result in a
stabilization of City revenues from oil production.
This additional oil will be produced from significantly fewer wells. For the three project
areas taken together, total wells are reduced by nearly 50 percent. More importantly, the
215 required wells would be centralized in 8 to 10 consolidated drillsites.
The total number of operators in the field would drop from 66 to around 10. In addition to
the three majors and 3 consolidated project operators, there would only be a few other
operators with a limited number of wells not otherwise consolidated/
A greatly reduced number of operators would make administration of the City's Oil Code
simpler and more effective. Importantly the consolidated project operators would not
only have the financial strength to meet Code requirements, but also to respond more
effectively and appropriately to any chronic or emergency problem, such as pipeline leaks
in City streets or methane leaks. At present, City code enforcement officers have a
problem of determining the responsible party for such problems. Under a full field
consolidation scenario, each large project area operator would assume broad responsibility
for such general problems in their area.
7008f (10/87) VI-4
4I 1 Llt�l ,%tW I-_
A k � OIFlii 1
•lf--trj'� S�NY
g �Y k� eravrec� re
alEv
M.
L
C C foRv - `-
�' vv
:ffno — P J Y ern o
� :.r .._ - ` _.. --• MarHr� a a 4tDERT � 27 i�_-- �•r KON A
s
FRANKLiN
Zo l
{ sxNlC3 R J,OEL IN v cw+K+
FW rowH a I rY
x, `ig� 8� CREEK MINTS G
a+rrm -y - tiod
AfT.+• a --a- �. +5w� i �.,owaE COND
'W2TFLN vu 8
i
1 J. LMuw
l' MOO LE
rT.
n q mr,v flCrida # - s IST
w s F Q
,
PRESTO
ea� �i K _ FO C CL NOM4D CK�Q H\A
F}k4 )4 ALy, #� M1 ,.V� R� .� HARBOR RAINBOW `r"�11E
h -
V
o-LOW IDE EJaUV1lL gARFn
��� l ;~w{3 x o � I wADEeRI'.Y,r�' sPEaRv G
n .
P r uEvc�.wo TLRF GNEn 2,3
K 'XA
AYES
"4.. �'_ �-7 w--0 TYLER >
—��-- +( z r
K.Q,y 6a SEA }. .UA . I 3 6R AMo rrp
?I
o .; �''" `' '" ; �`
SErk.
a W
a VILLAGE
YORK— YOR OWN bav
LJ I HIME.c=rF�
z� cy (CIVIC
I T >_ _
�s, Frrlrn,=v' C�� e rilxJTING1cN '�.F'vTFE
`�1 T CJ-f✓7FY tl'.a3 ¢ F -SVGS !-! / MwL+ x .-:,� "ry+ .c �r
�FtRY t `N
<o SEACi.I� HI SCFK.z.A �.n
YwL
TICA D EW"y
I- - S I I�
K 'ALAS
fir
O R •.ixc ' - .� .00EAN '. G
Pa.A+srFwcSP,yRI 7 F
_-i'I. FI , Q ,pk" ..syJ y -I fir.^.: FLSilQ+t4N �t�YFI VET
LC AA
/ k`�+.tivaxrf
R 1 .< x.4G tt sat 3a Q,'t rvl�+anx
J EA c`
c , I TH R p
�9 n a :o w I- HsrEa
w >
' A _ InDIA PO y15 - � tlf ryl� �W
j
r�-r�--
HAR FCRI` FTI.Yt to EI I'Y
—oil
�'' •' zl F_! VA t EHBTIDf `ER
AIPf.LNRSON
FRw vK HuNT,
F INT. f I�; z n
nl RMAIO * ` r �CRA!iF
i.c IH LIFFS Sr, SET u 1
TR PK I I 1 XFI
h A r
\F e a u
a o g A a SE ^IRe R
s y YS a
� 5P sHE�L� r to eJ^,vnE Z'f Al-VSFFI[7J bs
IA4i"-1-1x-
C—C w
N PA (� ARI15Ga /I A-'I}
FISHrIErr i swr � _3 �y 31 x NNY ,t
-,AY "-
cl
qv
V �4-stia x nu�nr
Au
OIL h ;v rs
CONSOLIDATION AREAS vz—s °:4�ti� l� `Ix m x,Y�
HI.R-i'CINGTON PEACH OIL FIELD
SIP111ARY OF Fill. OPERATORS
SORTED BY TO1AL DWELLS AS OF 12-31-85
OPERATOR WELLS ACTIVE -IDLE BBLS. BOPD GAS I,1F.,TER
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIPS & 91 UNIT 89O 394 496 5895178 16151 2255053 99774039
CH&IRON, U.S.A. ,INC. 706 297 409 937978 2569 596887 18531-7789
UNION OIL COMPANY 37 24 13 782868 2144 119138 1575531
3 1633 715 918 7616024 20864 2973078 119881359
HATHAWAY, J. I . 30 27 3 44541 122 28177 468025
HUNTINGTON BEACH COMPANY 20 19 1 41424 113 21884 5370@4
JACAT OIL COMPANY 20 20 0 21110 57 62 �44_'•0
INDEPENDENT EXPLORATION CO. 18 15 3 30528 83 18227 221652
LJEAVER & MOLA 18 17 1 28830 78 26046 1412-
BRAYTON PETROL & LBZ UNIT 18 18 0 21213 58 O 15"2111
HUNTINGTON SIGNAL OIL CO. 17 17 0 28108 77 10T24 61625
ENERGY DEVELOPMENT OF CALIF 14 14 0 25258 69 4511
UlE I R OIL COMPANY 13 13 0 9364 25 512 1 1317
ELLIOTT, W. M. JR. 11 11 0 5031 13 9822 1143
10 179 171 8 255407 120169 1788701
IrIEAVER, CARL M. PROPERTIES 8 8 0 1156? 31 115=1 75?
CAPRCi OIL CO. 8 8 0 4526 12 8720 ARC-?
THOMAS, JOHh1 A. 8 1 7 35.'_4 9 A745
SHAFFER, JOSEPH N. 6 1 5 3704 t0 0 �3496
CANTOR, GEORGE (ESTATE OF) 6 6 0 3300 9 0 2(?350
UlEAVER & I:JEOVER 5 4 1 4289 11 21?7 <'1'
H & 0 OIL COMPANY 5 5 0' 3421 9 O 64?5
V IGUE, ROBERT D. 5 5 0 1635 4 0 1716
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY OF 4 3 1 22965 62 17816 ='3=0
BRADLEY, MUHL & ASSOC. 4 4 0 8820 24 741 1;i6,•O
S.' C. OIL COMPANY, INC. 4 4 0 6769 18 2886 -7RA
ISHIBASHI , AKIRA 4 4 0 4760 13 11220 r,O
PETROPRIZE 4 4 0 4413 12 144 42207
ROHRIG, JOHFJ H. & 1,-J.F. 4 3 1 3213 8 0 26741
SCOTT, IJILI_IAP1 J. 3 3 0 7343 20 8788 15=2.111
bJILLIAMS, B.G. & V.J. 3 3 0 4739 12 5811 1perirn
8ONASP 3 3 0 4327 11 7 547 5302?
ALEXA14DER OIL 3 2 1 3940 10 O 7825
E & S PRODUCTION 3 3 0 3441 9 6+60 ?242n
ROUNTREE, JOHN S. 2 2 0 4828 13 1509 37819
AL.I/ OIL COMPANY 2 1 1 4175 11 0 6010
ASTRO OIL COMPANY 2 2 0 3-26 ? 913 2214
KING A. 2 2 0 1 569 4 174 ?60A
SHULL, R. I,J. 2 2 0 1345 3 912 12490
HUNTINGTON PACIFIC CORP. 2 2 0 10e7 2 0 5B144
HUDSON, JAMES T.(ESTATE OF) 2 1 1 928 2 547 7240
YOUNG, .RICHARD & ASSOC. 2 1 1 376 1 249 13
TERNO. COMPAPJ`i , THE 1 1 0 C903 16 320 2'01 41
Jill-LER, LES 1 1 0 3350 9 10 7,21 6?0 0 0
O'DONNELL OIL CO. 1 1 0 3039 8 0 n
RENNER, MRS. WII_VIAN J. 1 1 0 1676 4 224X. 11 ,-0
OIL C011PANY I 1 0 1570 4 0 `?1
VI-6
HUNTINGTON BEACH OIL FIELD
SUr NARY OF OIL OPERATORS
SORTED BY TOTAL WELLS AS OF I2-31-85
OPERATOR WELLS ACTIVE IDLE BBLS. BOPD GAS WATER
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MUTZ OIL 1 1 0 1419 3 0 7004
HARDLY ABLE OIL CO. I 1 0 1385 3 0 17430
YUNKER, MORTON & DOLLEY 1 0 1 1370 3 0 7761
MILLER & WILSON 1 1 0 1358 3 0 3A-
WISE, SUSAN E. ANDERSON I 1 0 1184 3 0 3552
RUPE, ARTHUR N. I 1 0 1159 3 0 10,131
KERtVIEW OIL CORPORATION 1 1 0 1137 3 704 52`
VASTERLING, LARRY R. 1 1 0 1073 2 0 107
KIESAU ESTATE 1 1 0 1030 2 475 103n
MARVIEW OIL COMPANY i 1 0 1030. 2 735 103n
FREE OIL COMPANY 1 1 0 909 2 0 99n
PLEGEL, EMIL & RUBY I 1 0 885 2 0 492�
BEACH SUPPLY COMPANY 1 1 0 516 1 285 119f:
DAVIS, DAVIS °< DAV I S 1 0 1 443 1 0 1 161
MARION, A.C. , <TRUSTEE) 1 0 1 237 0 0 1570
PAULY OIL COMPANY 1 0 1 233 0 0 247
SIGNAL ASSOCIATES 1 1 0 217 0 392 3
AMERICAN OIL SERVICE 1 0 1 0 0 0 n
HUNT.A)ALLEY CHURCH OF NAZAR 1 0 1 0 0 0 n
OCEAN FRONT OIL CO. 1 0 1 0 0 0 2000n
ABC OIL COMPANY 1 1 0 801 2 0 5291
53 131 106 26 160556 415 103998 137731,2
66 1944 992 952 8031987 21974 3197241 12304741 "
VI-7
HUNTINGTON BEACH WELL COUNT
WELL
COUNT TOTAL
YEAR SHUT-IN PRODCNG TOTAL NEW WELLS ABN'D CHANGE BBLS/DAY B/D/WELL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1960 417 1637 2054 18 -- 45,200 27.6
61 390 1652 2042 48 60 -12 43,531 26.4
62 438 1655 2093 76 25 51 42,458 25.7
63 414 1723 2137 75 31 44 42,870 24.9
64 489 1712 2201 87 23 64 43,979 25.7
65 558 1712 2270 87 18 69 52,939 30.9
66 - 655 1681 2336 86 20 66 60,657 37.6
67 758 1575 2333 28 31 -3 56,977 35.6
68 834 1448 2282 11 62 -51 52,770 36.3
69 862 1384 2246 5 41 -36 48, 125 34.8
70 883 1332' 2215 12 43 -31 44,903 35.6
71 911 1253 2164 18 69 -51 45,175 41.5
72 936 1175 2111 25 78 -53 59, 114 53.5
73 951 1104 2055 14 70 -56 56,407 52. 1
74 890 1124 2014 7 48 -41 52,072 46.4
75 916 1091 2007 11 18 -7 47,049 42.0
76 907 1086 1993 5 19 -14 40,957 36.0
77 903 1047 1950 2 45 -43 34,802 31.9
78 931 991 1922 10 38 -28 30,779 30.4
79 938 968 1906 3 19 -16 29,265 31. 1
80 935 978 1913 11 4 7 28,017 29.2
81 894 1030 1924 18 7 11 27,530 29.2
82 967 975 1942 29 11 18 27,816 29.3
83 975 965 1940 5 7 -2 24,858 25.7
84 992 959 1951 22 11 11 23,638 25.6
85 959 993 1952 8 7 1 22,030 23.5
VI-8