DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field October 10, 2012 Prepared For Plains Exploration & Production Company Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field October 10, 2012 Prepared for Plains Exploration & Production Company 5640 South Fairfax Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90056 and Los Angeles County, Department of Regional Planning 320 West Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012 Prepared by Cardno ENTRIX 10940 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1525, Los Angeles, CA 90024 Tel 424 832 1303 Fax 424 248 2101 Toll-free 800 368 7511 www.cardnoentrix.com Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field Table of Contents Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 Hydraulic Fracturing Study Objectives ................................................................. 1 ES.2 Summary of Findings............................................................................................. 2 ES.3 Oil Production in the Los Angeles Basin and the Inglewood Oil Field ................. 4 ES.4 Well Drilling and Completion ............................................................................... 6 ES.5 Summary of Past and Future Hydraulic Fracturing and High-Rate Gravel Packing at the Inglewood Oil Field ....................................................................... 9 ES.6 Monitoring Conducted During Hydraulic Fracturing and High-Rate Gravel Packing at Inglewood Oil Field ............................................................... 13 ES.7 Regulatory Perspective on the Inglewood Oil Field ............................................ 22 Chapter 1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Chapter 2 Oil Production in the Los Angeles Basin and at the Inglewood Oil Field ............................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Petroleum Geology of the Los Angeles Basin .................................................... 2-5 2.3 Petroleum Production in the Los Angeles Basin ................................................ 2-6 2.4 Petroleum Geology and Production at the Inglewood Oil Field ......................... 2-7 2.4.1 Inglewood Oil Field Geology ................................................................ 2-8 2.4.2 Petroleum Producing Zones ................................................................. 2-21 2.5 Future of Oil and Gas Development in the Los Angeles Basin ........................ 2-23 Chapter 3 Hydraulic Fracturing at Inglewood Oil Field: Past, Present, and Future ................................. 3-1 3.1 Oil and Gas Well Drilling, Including Hydraulic Fracturing Completions .......... 3-1 3.1.1 Drilling, Casing, and Cementing ........................................................... 3-2 3.1.2 Hydraulic Fracturing as a Completion Technique ................................. 3-4 3.2 Hydraulic Fracturing at the Inglewood Oil Field ................................................ 3-9 3.2.1 Conventional Hydraulic Fracturing ....................................................... 3-9 3.2.2 High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing ..................................................... 3-12 3.2.3 Images from January 2012 Completion Operations ............................ 3-20 3.3 Gravel Packs at the Inglewood Oil Field .......................................................... 3-24 3.3.1 Past Gravel Packs ................................................................................ 3-25 3.3.2 Recent High-Rate Gravel Pack Completions ....................................... 3-29 3.4 Anticipated Future Use of Hydraulic Fracturing and Gravel Packing at the Inglewood Oil Field .......................................................................................... 3-31 October 2012 Cardno ENTRIX Table of Contents i Hydraulic Fracturing Study_Inglewood Field_10102012.docx Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field Chapter 4 Environmental Effects Monitored in Conjunction with Hydraulic Fracturing Tests ............... 4-1 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Hydrogeology, Water Quantity and Quality ....................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Geologic Control on the Distribution of Groundwater-Bearing Zones...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................ 4-8 4.2.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................... 4-10 4.2.4 Groundwater Monitoring Associated with High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing ............................................................................ 4-13 4.2.5 Surface Water ...................................................................................... 4-17 4.2.6 Sources of Drinking Water to the Local Community .......................... 4-17 4.2.7 Water Supply Concerns Related to Shale Gas Development Elsewhere in the United States ............................................................ 4-19 4.3 Containment of Hydraulic Fractures to the Desired Zone ................................ 4-24 4.4 Well Integrity .................................................................................................... 4-26 4.5 Slope Stability, Subsidence, Ground Movement, Seismicity ........................... 4-28 4.5.1 Slope Stability ...................................................................................... 4-28 4.5.2 Subsidence ........................................................................................... 4-29 4.5.3 Monitoring of Ground Movement ....................................................... 4-29 4.5.4 Vibration and Seismicity During Hydraulic Fracturing ....................... 4-30 4.5.5 Induced Seismicity and Additional Seismic Monitoring During Hydraulic Fracturing ............................................................................ 4-30 4.5.6 Potential for Induced Seismicity at Other Areas in the United States .................................................................................................... 4-32 4.6 Methane ............................................................................................................ 4-36 4.6.1 Subsurface Occurrence of Methane ..................................................... 4-36 4.6.2 Regulatory Framework for Methane .................................................... 4-37 4.6.3 Gas Monitoring Prior to Hydraulic Fracturing at the Inglewood Oil Field ............................................................................................... 4-40 4.6.4 Gas Monitoring After High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing ................. 4-40 4.6.5 Groundwater Monitoring for Methane after Hydraulic Fracturing ...... 4-42 4.6.6 Methane Emissions and Climate Change ............................................ 4-43 4.7 Other Emissions to Air ..................................................................................... 4-44 4.8 Noise and Vibration .......................................................................................... 4-50 4.9 Los Angeles County Department of Public Health Study ................................ 4-54 4.9.1 Mortality .............................................................................................. 4-55 4.9.2 Low Birth Weight ................................................................................ 4-55 ii Table of Contents Cardno ENTRIX October 2012 Hydraulic Fracturing Study_Inglewood Field_10102012.docx Hydraulic Fracturing Study PXP Inglewood Oil Field 4.9.3 Birth Defects ........................................................................................ 4-56 4.9.4 Cancer .................................................................................................. 4-56 4.9.5 Community Survey .............................................................................. 4-56 4.9.6 Health Assessment Limitations and Recommendations ...................... 4-57 Chapter 5 Regulatory Framework ................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Introduction: Local Source of Energy in the Context of Community Concerns ............................................................................................................. 5-1 5.2 Regulatory Framework and Government-Sponsored Reviews of Hydraulic Fracturing ........................................................................................... 5-2 5.3 California Regulations ........................................................................................ 5-3 5.3.1 DOGGR Regulations ............................................................................. 5-3 5.3.2 Baldwin Hills Community Standards District ....................................... 5-4 5.3.3 Proposed California Regulations ........................................................... 5-4 5.4 Federal Regulations and Studies ......................................................................... 5-5 5.4.1 Federal Regulations ............................................................................... 5-5 5.4.2 Federal Studies ......................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (BHC) Will Be Held Friday, September 25, 2020 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM
    BALDWIN HILLS CONSERVANCY NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING The meeting of the Baldwin Hills Conservancy (BHC) will be held Friday, September 25, 2020 10:00 AM - 12:00 PM Pursuant to Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 17, 2020, certain provisions of the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act are suspended due to a State of Emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with the Executive Order, this public meeting will be conducted by teleconference and internet, with no public locations. Members of the public may dial into the teleconference and or join the meeting online at Zoom. Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://ca-water-gov.zoom.us/j/91443309377 Or Telephone, Dial: USA 214 765 0479 USA 8882780296 (US Toll Free) Conference code: 596019 Materials for the meeting will be available at the Conservancy website on the Meetings & Notices tab in advance of the meeting date. 10:00 AM - CALL TO ORDER – Keshia Sexton, Chair MEETING AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED BEFORE ROLL CALL Public Comment and Time Limits: Members of the public can make comments in advance by emailing [email protected] or during the meeting by following the moderator’s directions on how to indicate their interest in speaking. Public comment will be taken prior to action on agenda items and at the end of the meeting for non-agenda items. Individuals wishing to comment will be allowed up to three minutes to speak. Speaking times may be reduced depending upon the number of speakers.
    [Show full text]
  • Into the Heart of Screenland Culver City, California
    INTO THE HEART OF SCREENLAND CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA AN INEXHAUSTIVE INVESTIGATION OF URBAN CONTENT THE CENTER FOR LAND USE INTERPRETATION CENTER E FO H R T L A N N O I D T U A S T E RE INTERP THE HEART OF SCREENLAND “The Heart of Screenland” is the official city motto for Culver City, an incorporated city of 40,000 people in the midst of the megalopolis of Los Angeles. “All roads lead to Culver City,” its founder, Harry Culver, once said. All roads indeed. Culver built the city from scratch starting in 1913, selecting a location that was halfway between downtown Los Angeles and the beach community of Venice, at the crossroads of a now long-gone regional public trolley system. Culver City quickly became home to several movie studios, some of which disappeared, others which still dominate the scene. Hal Roach’s Laurel and Hardy comedies, shot on Main Street, captured the town in the 1920s, and Andy Griffith’s everytown of Mayberry was broadcast from the city’s backlots to screens across America. In the 1950s, the city modernized. Its original Main Street was upstaged by a new Culver Center shopping area, a few blocks west. The studios turned to television, and the 1950s became the 1960s. In the 1970s the studio backlots were filled in with housing and office parks, as homogenization flooded the Los Angeles basin, turning Culver CIty into part of the continuous urban suburb. In the 1990s, the city’s efforts to restore its identity and its downtown Into the Heart of Screenland: Culver City, California An Inexhaustive Investigation of Urban Content came together, beginning a rebirth of the Heart of Screenland.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study
    (310) 253-5710 • FAX (310) 253-5721 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 INITIAL STUDY Project Title: 11111 Jefferson Boulevard Mixed-Use Project Preliminary Project Review Number: PPR P2019-0242 Project Location: The Project Site is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard to the east, Machado Road to the north and Sepulveda Boulevard to the west in the Studio Village community. Generally located at 11111 Jefferson Boulevard, Culver City, California, 90230. Project Sponsor: Jefferson Park LLC Project Description: The 3.43-acre (149,553 square feet [sf]) Project Site, is located at the southern corner of the Studio Village neighborhood of Culver City (City). The Project Site is currently developed with three single-story commercial buildings, surface parking, a parking lot that serves the proximate Exceptional Children’s Foundation (ECF), and landscaping. The Project would construct 230 residential dwelling units, 19 of which would be affordable to very low income households, for a total of 244,609 sf of residential area (including the residential lobby and amenity room); 55,050 sf of ground floor retail area, including a 38,600 sf market, 10,600 sf of restaurants and café, 3,900 sf of retail spaces, and a 1,950 sf gym; and 11,450 sf of second floor office uses within a five story building. The building would be constructed atop one level of subterranean vehicular parking, with parking also provided on the first and second floor of the building. There would be a total of 653 parking stalls (308 stalls for residential, 311 stalls for commercial, and 34 spaces for an off-site use, the ECF).
    [Show full text]
  • Tapping out in Culver City: Re-Envisioning the Inglewood Oil Field
    TAPPING OUT IN CULVER CITY: RE-ENVISIONING THE INGLEWOOD OIL FIELD A comprehensive project submitted in partial fulfillment of the graduation requirements for the degree Master in Urban and Regional Planning Report by: Lingjing Angel Chen and Erika Pinto June 2020 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Urban and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Urban Planning (“Department”) of the University of California, Los Angeles. It was prepared at the direction of the Department and the City of Culver City as a planning client for the comprehensive project. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Urban Planning, the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client. Any errors or omissions are those of the authors. Photo credit for cover page: The Los Angeles Times, January 2019. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 BACKGROUND 6 Overview of Study Area Overview of Oil Fields in Los Angeles Considerations by Culver City Community Support and Opposition RESEARCH ON THE IMPACTS OF URBAN OIL FIELDS AND THEIR POTENTIAL FOR REUSE 16 Health Environmental Brownfield Redevelopment Housing Market CASE STUDIES OF FORMER BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT 26 Case Study 1: Larry Itliong Village Case Study 2: The Grove Shopping Center Case Study 3: Pacific City Case Study 4: Villages at Heritage Springs DATA ANALYSIS: REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF CULVER CITY’S OIL FIELD 33 Scope of Study Legislation Health Environment Economic Impact Remediation Potential Funding Sources for Remediation Amortization Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.) FINDINGS 45 Cross-Jurisdictional Cooperation Legislative Capacity Remediation Liability Strong Community Sentiments Site Specific Constraints RECOMMENDATIONS 51 APPENDIX A 55 APPENDIX B 60 GLOSSARY 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY 65 INTERVIEW REFERENCES 71 Aerial view of the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook and Culver City’s portion of the Inglewood Oil Field below.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Conditions and Issues
    EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ISSUES UNIT SUMMARY EXISTING LAND USES OVERVIEW Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area (KHSRA or the park) comprises approximately 387 acres of parkland set in the midst of urban Los Angeles. The existing park is managed by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation and includes 319 acres native coastal sage scrub habitat, scenic overlooks, interpretive facilities, lawns and landscaped areas, picnic sites, tot lots, a fishing lake, lotus pond, community center, day-use parking, and five miles of trails. There are six restrooms within the park. The community center has four administrative offices and a small meeting room. A small maintenance yard and native plant nursery is maintained on-site. Activities within the park include but are not limited to hiking, biking, walking, running, fishing, picnicking, play, and nature interpretation and education. The Vista Pacifica Scenic Site consists of 50 acres of open space and a scenic view site at the northern tip of the western ridgeline. County-owned parkland that connect the Vista Pacifica Scenic Site to La Cieniga Blvd include a total of 18 acres of open space. Both the Vista Pacifica Scenic Site and adjacent County-owned parklands are currently closed to the public. REGIONAL LAND USE Residential, commercial, and recreation associated uses dominate the surrounding area. Refer to Figure 4 for jurisdictional boundaries. ADJACENT RECREATION USES Three established local parks currently occur in the vicinity of KHSRA. These include Norman O. Houston Park, Ladera Ball Fields, and Culver City Ball Fields. Norman O. Houston Park is four acres and is managed by the City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, and includes a lawn area and tot lots located to the east of the park.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions About the PXP Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study
    10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1525 Los Angeles, CA 90024 USA T 424 832 1303 F 424 248 2101 www.cardnoentrix.com Frequently Asked Questions about the PXP Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study Daniel R. Tormey, Ph.D., P.G. Hydrogeologist, Geochemist, & Civil Engineer Frequently Asked Questions Page 1 The Study Process 1. Why did PXP fund the Study? The Inglewood Oil Field Hydraulic Fracturing Study was funded by PXP as specified in the Settlement Agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the City of Culver City, Mark Salkin, Concerned Citizens for South Central Los Angeles, Community Health Councils, and Citizens Coalition for a Safe Community. 2. If PXP paid for the study, how do we know that it was independent? PXP’s selection of the Independent Consultant was approved by the County of Los Angeles in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. In addition, the study was peer reviewed by two reviewers selected and compensated by the County of Los Angeles as required by the Settlement Agreement. The professional qualifications and independence of the reviewers were two of the criteria the County used in selecting and approving their involvement. The reviewers reviewed the draft Study (submitted 15 July 2012 in accordance with the Settlement Agreement), made comments, and then approved the final study prior to its publication (10 October 2012). In developing the Study, data collected from in-field measurements were used wherever possible in order to minimize the use of best professional judgment alone. 3. Is the Peer Reviewers’ analysis publicly available? Yes. The peer reviewers’ observations about the content of the Study are included as Appendix A of the Study.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Mitigated Negative Declaration
    (310) 253-5710 FAX (310) 253-5721 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title and Culver City File No.: Ivy Station Transit Oriented Mixed Use Development P2015-0141-CP - Comprehensive Plan P2015-0141-HTEX – Height Exception P2015-0141-TTM – Tentative Tract Map City of Los Angeles Case Nos: CPC-2015-4478-GPA-ZC-HD-CU-CUB-ZAD-SPR; VTTM 73977 Project Location: Cities of Culver City and Los Angeles (8824 National Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232) Project Sponsor: Culver Station, LLC Project Description: The project would include a stand-alone 5-story (~72 feet tall) Office Building with retail and restaurant uses on Level 1 (Ground Level) and office uses on Levels 1 to 5. In addition, two interconnected 5 to 6-story buildings atop a single-level podium are proposed that would include a 200-unit Residential Building (up to ~79 feet tall) and a 148-room Hotel Building (up to ~77 feet tall), both of which would have retail and restaurant uses on the Ground Level. The three buildings would be built over a 3-level subterranean parking structure. The buildings would be connected through a series of landscaped courtyards and open spaces at both the pedestrian and podium levels. Overall, the project would provide a total of 148 hotel rooms, 200 residential units, approximately 185,000 square feet of office use, 36,200 square feet of retail use, and 16,100 square feet of restaurant use. Only the Office Building has uses in both jurisdictions, with the Residential and Hotel Buildings being located entirely within Culver City.
    [Show full text]
  • DEPARTMENT of CITY PLANNING City Planning Commission
    DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Recommendation Report m City Planning Commission Date: March 10, 2016 Case No.: CPC-2015-2593-GPA-ZC- HD- Time: After 8:30 A.M. ZAA-SPR Place: Los Angeles City Hall CEQA No.: ENV-2014-4755-EIR 200 N. Spring Street, Room 350 Incidental VTT-73656-CN Los Angeles, CA 90012 Cases: Related Cases: None Council No.: 10 - Hon. Herb J. Wesson Jr. Public Hearing January 6, 2016 Plan Area: West Adams-Leimert Park- Completed: Baldwin Hills Appeal Status: Appealable to City Council Specific Plan: None Expiration Date: March 21, 2016 Multiple Approval: Pursuant to Section 12.36 of Certified NC: West Adams the L.A.M.C. (Multiple General Plan: Existing: Limited Entitlements), appealable to Manufacturing City Council by any party Proposed: Community Commercial Zone: Existing: MR1-1VL Proposed: [T][Q]C2-2D Applicant: CP V Cumulus, LLC. Representative: Brad Rosenheim, Rosenheim & Associates PROJECT 3321, 3351 South. La Cienega Boulevard LOCATION: 5707-5735 West Jefferson Boulevard. PROPOSED Mixed-Use Development of 1,210 dwelling units, and 300,000 square feet of commercial and PROJECT: office floor area. The commercial space would include 200,000 square feet of office space, 50,000 square feet of grocery store, 20,000 square feet of restaurant space, and 30,000 square feet of general retail. Parking would be provided within a combination of above ground and subterranean parking levels for the project, in accordance with Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). The project will have an FAR of 3.9:1. The project includes demolition and removal of all existing structures to be replaced with an approximately 1,900,000-square-foot transit-oriented, mixed-use structures consisting of podium style buildings, ranging in height from 110 feet for the podium buildings and up to approximately 320 feet for the tower.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC COMMENTS for 08/13/2020 City Council Special Meeting
    PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR 08/13/2020 City Council Special Meeting 1 From: Nancy Smith Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 3:55 PM To: Baker, Heather Subject: Culver City Inglewood Oil Field Attachments: IMG_5857.jpg Nancy Smith August 7, 2020 TO: Culver City Council Members: Thank you for hearing me today councilmembers. My name is Nancy Smith. I am a mineral owner and therefore a property owner with vested rights in Culver City. This property has been in my family since 1941 .( see attachment) I support the Inglewood Oil Field. The oil produced in Culver City supports my livelihood. I rely on this income to support my family. My mineral rights are vested property rights derived from the oilfield that are not yours to arbitrarily take away. You have not considered any of my rights or the damages you would owe to me in your process. Attempts to amortize my property rights are illegal when applied like this and I intend to defend myself to the fullest protection afforded by the law and will join the many others who stand similar to me to defend our rights. The City has spent millions of taxpayers dollars in failed attempts to marginalize the oil field, including the City’s draft EIR and Specific Plans, all of which have resulted in nothing but wasteful spending. This City has declared a state of fiscal emergency, and yet again you are risking millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to ultimately fail again. That is grossly irresponsible governing. Culver City cannot afford more egregious spending. I pay taxes in this City and urge you to redirect your efforts and our hard-earned money to advance the numerous truly pressing needs such as homelessness, which face the City and its constituents.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
    (310) 253-5710 FAX (310) 253-5721 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title and Culver City File No.: Synapse at Platform P2016-0050-SPR, P2016-0050-MND Project Location: 8888 Washington Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232 Project Sponsor: Platform Hayden Tract III, LLC Project Description: The project would redevelop a 0.60-acre property located at 8888 Washington Boulevard on the south side of Washington Boulevard between Higuera Street and Landmark Street in Culver City. The existing single-story auto repair shop building and associated asphalt-paved surface parking lot and vehicular storage area would be removed as part of the project. The project is proposing a mix of retail, restaurant, and office uses within a 4-story building (up to 56 feet). On Level 1 (Ground Level), the building would include approximately 2,878 square feet (SF) of retail uses within the eastern portion and 3,184 SF of restaurant uses within the western portion. Levels 2 through 4 would include approximately 59,325 SF of office uses. Parking for the proposed uses would be provided on the Ground Level and within a 3-level subterranean automated parking structure. Environmental Determination: This is to advise that the City of Culver City, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION based on the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ·Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California-An Introduction
    ~ ~ CJBRARW ~ tJ w; tf ~ ~ o v.. \.1 , rt ~I t t....ISRt'..!-".•., I ~ P 0 ~ A fH.. 11. 11 " 1i ~ ; JUN 31971 .1 J 0 ·Geology of the .. _;J- -.,..,_ ~ ~ ~t~A'S~ lfTtJRfi:a ~ ~0 ifBRAII ~ ~ ·~ 0 •o-4= Los Angeles Basin ltJ 00 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ·00 California-an 5 .J -•o-4 ~ ·'¢ ~ I IZ4 0 Introduction ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ E-1 ·~ z GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 420-A .r .. ~z ~ ~ ~ 0 as: 00 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ t:.t:s IZ4· ~ 00 Q ~ -~ t:.t:s 0 ~ 0 ·~t:.t:s I· ~ ~ :3·o q; ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ GEOLOGY OF THE LOS ANGELES BASIN Isometric block diagram, basement surface of the Los Angeles basin. Contour interval is 1,000 feet; exposures of basement rocks are patterned; fault surfaces are hachured. Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California . an. Introduction By R. F. YERKES, T. H. McCULLOH, J. E. SCHOELLHAMER, and J. G. VEDDER GEOLOGY OF THE EASTERN LOS ANGELES BASIN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 420-A The evolution of a most prolific oil district and the framework for several detailed reports on its geology and gravitational aspects UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTONY: 1965 t:.tBRAR · 8URfAU OF UtM£1 L-IBRARY SPOkANI. WASH. ~ 31971 .-* o;mr ~ ttfASJ QfTfJIN ~0 UBRAR'C UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent o£ Documents, U.S. Government. Printing.Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Page A1 Stratigraphy of the basin-Continued IntroductionAbstract------------------------------------------- ______________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Hey V., Thank You for Letting Me Write a Los Angeles Guide for You. It Will Be Brash and Quick and Fast and Expansive and P
    Hey V., Thank you for letting me write a Los Angeles guide for you. It will be brash and quick and fast and expansive and probably boring, so there’s an index at the end. Within the guide, interesting stuff is in italics, good stuff is in bold. Truth be told, you can probably just read Jonathan Gold’s 101—dunno if they keep updating it since he died a few years ago (apparently so, but at least not under his name)— the guy knew the Los Angeles culinary scene in and out, high and low, very much internationally, so what you’ll get below… is not that. [ed. I’ve scrapped the idea of an index and, much rather like French books, I’ll put in chapter headings at the end of the guide, that’ll be easier, since you can spot the bold and italics a mile away and the rest is just drivel.] Ah, Los Angeles—and not ‘LA’ as everyone calls in the bone I pick even with the locals. Regrettably, it’s actually a kind of nice place. There are nicer people and wonderful food and surprisingly more culture than New York—why else would Werner Herzog live here if he’s not such a post-modern shill nowadays?—but it also has worse catchy names for shops and the dumbest fads like matcha. Fucking matcha. Or some dude calling himself ‘Chief Nasologist’ selling ‘energizing inhalers’—uh, dude, I’m pretty sure those are poppers. And, unfortunately, nearly all the good stuff is all behind closed doors, and I think this is why people network like crazy in this city, because otherwise it’s lonely and tiring in a house with terrible insulation and a no-good ceiling fan.
    [Show full text]