San Fran looks to wean itself off Kern County oil revenues
Act One
BY JOHN COX Aug 3, 2019
For decades, the gift Alfred Fuhrman bestowed on his beloved San Francisco worked just as he hoped it would, paying for upkeep at Golden Gate Park and helping fund the city’s library system.
Few knew, or cared, where the money came from — until about three years ago, that is, when word got out the city had been quietly collecting royalties from petroleum production at the Kern River Oil Field, way down south in Kern County.
Bay Area environmentalists were mortified. The arrangement, still responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in city revenue, would need to end as soon as possible if San Francisco hopes to remain true to its official policies for fighting climate change.
And so it shall be: According to city staff reports and an email from a city real estate official, San Francisco will walk away from its longstanding lease agreement with Chevron Corp. covering 800 acres of land north and northeast of Bakersfield. Within a year, the parcel’s 82 active oil wells, representing a little less than 1 percent of the field’s total, are to be closed for good.
But turning a perceived environmental liability into a well-intentioned sacrifice isn’t always so simple.
Following San Francisco’s adoption of a “Keep It in the Ground” ordinance in late 2016, city officials had planned to install photoelectric solar panels on all 1,500 acres bequeathed by Fuhrman in 1941, including grazing land and about 40 acres west of Coalinga. That was supposed to raise $484,000 per year, more than enough to make up for the lost oil lease revenue.
That plan has since fallen through. Rather than continue to own the property, as originally envisioned, the city wants to sell it with a deed restriction that the land never again be used for oil production.
Act Two
Well-plugging costs add wrinkle to San Francisco’s planned oil pullout
BY JOHN COX Aug 10, 2019
This much is clear about San Francisco’s plan to withdraw itself from Kern County oil production: It isn’t going to be cheap. Question is, who’s going to pay for it?
The answer has yet to emerge from ongoing negotiations between the city and Chevron Corp., which has for decades operated 82 active wells on San Francisco’s behalf in the Kern River Oil field.
From the city’s perspective, Chevron should cover the cost of “abandoning” the wells, a highly regulated and costly process that involves using cement to permanently seal the bores.
“While I can’t get into specifics of our negotiations with Chevron, we believe our lease assigns decommissioning responsibilities to the tenant, in this case, Chevron,” John Updike, senior real estate project manager for the City and County of San Francisco, wrote in an email last week.
Chevron has declined to say publicly whether it agrees with that assessment. But the fact that the matter is still under discussion as part of a broader negotiation may suggest the company is not ready to concede the point as it tries to work out a deal on how to wind down its lease of some 800 acres of city-owned land, a quarter of which is used for oil production.
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
The well-abandonment question has arisen as part of San Francisco’s 2016 ordinance requiring that no city-owned property be used for oil production. The keep-it-in-the-ground policy was crafted specifically to address Chevron’s lease, which officials felt was contradictory to San Francisco’s efforts to combat climate change.
Instead of oil production, San Francisco officials said they intend to convert the land, particularly the northern portion used for cattle grazing, into wildlife habitat.
The city did not buy the property but received it in 1941 as part of a 1,500-acre donation. The land’s oil production royalties have averaged lately about $24,000 per month.
That money helps pay for upkeep at Golden Gate Park and fund San Francisco’s public library system. The royalty revenues are expected to end once Chevron’s lease expires at the end of March.
HT/flyfisher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘Pecunia non olet’
Virtue signaling is typically ineffective and exorbitantly expensive as SF is about to discover.
Lots of speculation without knowledge of the actual agreements. I get the feeling Chevron has the upper hand, SF knows it, and this is just another virtue signaling exercise that only creates division. Wait for the MSM to “report” like it’s a done deal.
“…Instead of oil production, San Francisco officials said they intend to convert the land, particularly the northern portion used for cattle grazing, into wildlife habitat….”
Oh noes… cattle grazing! SanFran is switching to a methane-generating land use…. horribly, deadly, toxic GHG methane… 86 times more potent than CO2! At least according to a 12/22/15 SciAm article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-bad-of-a-greenhouse-gas-is-methane/
The humanity!
You can’t read that fairly simple sentence?
It says the northern portion is used for cattle grazing.
It says SF claims it intends to convert said northern portion into wildlife habitat.
Maybe they mean the wild SF homeless population?
oh wildlife habitat..dont they have enough fire risk there already???
What a joke. San Francisco can only afford it’s insanity because they own the only non federally owned dam and lake inside a National Park anywhere in the Country. They own a dam, flooding Hetch Hetchy valley that floods the better twin of Yosemity (spelling) Park. They generate electricity which they sell for zillions and sell the water to hundreds of cities in California. Their other huge source of income is San Francisco International Airport. Located in San Mateo County but owned by SF, it is a huge source of income.
I saw a story this morning that San Francisco International Airport is going to ban the sale of single use plastic water bottles on the premises.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/02/san-francisco-international-airport-plastic-water-bottle-ban
And since both California and San Francisco have deemed that hydroelectric power is not considered renewable, they should shut down the hydroelectric plant and remove the dam. And then find another more reliable source of water for the city than from those periodic storms that slam the Sierra Nevada mountains. Since California is always in a drought and per their last governor always will be, what possible used could a dam be that only produces power and water resources. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, “Tear Down That Dam!”
Now that would be a first class Virtue Signal
Why has it not occurred to the City of San Francisco to sell the surface and mineral estates to Chevron? If they did that, SF would have sidestepped any inane “keep it in the ground” issues they may have, and Chevron would acquire a 100% net revenue interest in this particular lease, which would be quite valuable for them. Besides…CVX already owns hundreds of thousands of acres of fee minerals in the Permian Basin in West Texas. This would be just another such asset in their inventory.
They’re talking about them in California
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/06/at-4-4-million-per-mile-a-road-to-snow-where/
They’ve tested them in France
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/the-worlds-first-solar-road-has-officially-crumbled-into-a-total-failure/
Other losers in the premature abandonment of the oil wells would be the state and county collectors of severance and ad valorem taxes which are often used to fund local schools. Kern County must love the thought of losing revenue due to it’s neighborly San Francisco decision 🙂
I think you should all read the part where it says, “The royalty revenues are expected to end once Chevron’s lease expires at the end of March.” If that is the case then you need to know the terms of the lease between CVX and San fran. There may be clauses in the lease that allow options; such renewals that CVX could make to extend the lease. Such as prior to the leases end date CVX may have an option to renew for 5 years , or anytime period, which suggests that is why CVX says San fran needs to pay. They may be trying to get out of this provision, violate the terms of the lease, to virtue signal.
Anyway, it is stupid for San fran to adopt this position and lose the money.
San Francisco values the perceived environmental benefits of leaving oil in the ground compared to revenue oil production generates. There is nothing wrong with this, and it’s admirable to see a city talk the talk and walk the walk.
It’s not as if they don’t have underfunded solutions to problems such as homelessness. Also, rich clean benefactors will surely pony up money to more than offset the loss of that dirty oil money to keep the libraries and parks open.
San Francisco may even become more proactive and buy all California oil fields and abandon them prematurely. This would surely almost make a difference preventing catastrophic global climate change!
SF could hire (former) lawyer Steven Donziger to sue Chevron for not adequately cleaning up after themselves, for maybe 9 billion or so.
Worked for Ecuador! -NOT