CIPA Opposes L.A. Council Motion to Ban Routine Oil Well Maintenance
- Randle Communications
- Apr 2
- 2 min read
The California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) formally submitted a letter opposing Agenda Item No. 5 (Council File No. 24-1580) ahead of the March 25, 2025, meeting of the Los Angeles City Council’s Planning and Land Use Management (PLUM) Committee. The proposed motion would direct the City’s Department of Planning to draft an interim control ordinance banning acid-based oil well maintenance activities specifically routine cleaning procedures such as descaling.
CIPA voiced strong concern over the proposed ban. The association emphasized that the targeted maintenance activities are fundamental to safe and efficient oil field operations and are already subject to rigorous regulatory oversight at the local, state, and federal levels.
The letter highlighted several key points:
Routine, Safe, and Regulated: Acid-based well cleaning is a standard maintenance practice that removes scale and buildup inside wells. It is short in duration, uses limited equipment, and closely resembles cleaning methods used in everyday operations, including the City’s maintenance of public swimming pools and water treatment systems.
Regulatory Compliance: Well maintenance is not only safe but necessary to comply with state and federal regulations. These include oversight by CalGEM and the U.S. EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act and notification requirements under South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1148.2.
Public Safety & Environmental Responsibility: Prohibiting these activities could inadvertently increase risks by preventing necessary upkeep, potentially resulting in regulatory violations and unsafe well conditions. CIPA warned this would undermine both field safety and environmental stewardship.
Policy Inconsistency: The proposed motion also contradicts the City’s General Plan, which supports responsible petroleum extraction to reduce dependency on imported oil and ensure local energy security.
CIPA urged the Council to reject the motion, calling it legally preempted, redundant with existing regulations, and arbitrarily aimed at disrupting essential oilfield operations.