The Truth About Senate Bill 1137 and California's Proposed Setbacks
Senate Bill 1137 Relies on Studies that Do Not Relate to California
Many of the studies used by the SAP evaluate fracking, a process that it is currently not allowed in California. Of the 69 studies cited by the SAP to justify the 3,200- foot setbacks, 45 are from other states, and 19 don’t even focus on oil and gas production at all.
.png)
The Scientific Advisory Panel Used the Highly Controversial Bradford-Hill Methodolagy to Draw Conculsions
The Bradford-Hill methodology is used to assess the causality of an observed association between a factor and an outcome. While the criteria are valuable for assessing causality, they are not a formal statistical test and can be subject to interpretation bias. Additionally, meeting all the criteria does not guarantee causality, as some may be met by chance or confounding factors.
.png)
The Scientific Advisory Panel Ignored Studies that Contridicted Their Conculsions
There are several studies that measure actual operations in California and do not support the establishment of a 3,200- foot setback. These studies were ignored by the SAP. The studies affirmed that oil and gas operations can be done safely under California’s strict environmental regulations.
.png)
The Unreliable Data Driving
Senate Bill 1137
One of the first things taught in any science class is that correlation does not mean causations. However, politicians, journalists, and activists continue to cite the studies used by the state's "scientific advisory panel" (SAP) in their advocacy for the 3,200-foot setback introduced by Senate Bill 1137. In reality, a closer look at the scientific evidence used by the “Scientific Advisory Panel” (SAP) to justify these setbacks reveals significant gaps and biases that challenge the establishment of such a distance. Most of the studies are from outside of California. The few that do focus on California don't account for other factors and rely on the fallacy of correlation equals causation.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Scientific Advisory Panel's Report:
What was in the scientific advisories panel's report?
The 3,200-foot setback introduced in Senate Bill 1137 was developed using a state-commissioned Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) report. The SAP reviewed 72 peer-reviewed studies that totaled over 500 pages. However, only six of these studies were from California, and none of those demonstrate that oil and gas production emissions cause health impacts.
What does the report actually say?
The report includes many calls for "more study" and many observations that the data they need to assess risk are not available or do not exist. Being in a state of not knowing is not a good reason to shut down an industry that grew in California and has been woven into the fabric for more than a century. According to the State-sponsored CCST SB-4 study on this topic: "[a] long list of plausible hazards have been described, but the reader is cautioned to treat these as a "checklist" of possible impacts, not at all a list of impacts that are generally occurring. Existing regulations prevent or mitigate many of these risks; however, an evaluation of the effectiveness of this regulatory framework was beyond the scope of this study." In contrast, this study takes the approach that the long list of potential unknown risks is proof of sufficient risk to shut down much of the production without further information.
What method did they use?
To achieve their desired result, SAP cherry-picked results using the Bradford-Hill method to fit their narrative of causation. Even the courts have agreed that bending traditional Bradford Hill analyses that assess a single association into combined or "shared" analyses that include multiple associations is a misuse of this method's intended framework and masks the weaknesses and inconsistencies of the scientific literature.
What the SAP omitted?
The SAP narrowed the scope of their review of health impacts to only epidemiological literature and excluded health risk assessments based on actual emissions data, as well as public health studies, such as those conducted by Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. Where the study does mention state-sponsored studies, such as the SNAPS study in Lost Hills and Inglewood Oil Field, it neglects to describe that the data collected for these studies found no emissions over any thresholds set forth by local air districts. Thus, where actual site-specific data clearly shows a lack of impact, the SAP pin their conclusions on a body of epidemiological literature that find potential associations.
Reducing Permit Review Bottleneck:
Only 24 new well permits were issued in 2023, a significant drop from previous years, and only 12 Underground Injection Control Projects have been approved, each taking about 25 months to process. CIPA aims to expedite the approval process, which currently has over 1,300 applications pending. We are working with state leaders on solutions to reduce this backlog or pursue other avenues, including taking legal action. CIPA meets twice monthly with the Oil and Gas Supervisor to review CalGEM practices and explore resolving the permit bottleneck.
Only 24 new well permits were issued in 2023, a significant drop from previous years, and only 12 Underground Injection Control Projects have been approved, each taking about 25 months to process. CIPA aims to expedite the approval process, which currently has over 1,300 applications pending. We are working with state leaders on solutions to reduce this backlog or pursue other avenues, including taking legal action. CIPA meets twice monthly with the Oil and Gas Supervisor to review CalGEM practices and explore resolving the permit bottleneck.
Do California Newspapers Cause Homelessness?
To demonstrate how ridiculous relying on the fallacy of correlation equals causation, we have mapped the relationship between major newspapers in California and the population density of homeless individuals. Using the same logic that politicians, media, and activists are using to justify setbacks, one must ask themselves the following questions:
-
"What are newspapers in California doing to cause people to be experiencing homelessness?"
-
"Will a ban on major newspapers fix California's homelessness problem?"
-
"Should we ensure California newspapers are miles away from our downtowns, as that would eliminate the high density of unhoused individuals across California's major cities?"
Below are Maps of Major Newspapers and their Surrounding Population of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
Almost everyone would agree that the idea of newspapers causing homelessness is absurd, yet the same faulty logic is being used by California's politicians, media, and activists to justify Senate Bill 1137's 3,200-foot setback for oil wells. In reality, no scientific studies in California have demonstrated that oil wells cause health ailments. In fact, factors like ports, freeways, natural methane vents, and hundreds of other pollutants are significantly more harmful to an individual's health. It's time to reject unfounded claims and focus on real solutions. Stand up against Senate Bill 1137 and demand evidence-based policies that ensure California can continue to thrive and meet our energy needs.
Conclusion: Do California Newspapers Cause Homelessness?
