Building Near Oil Wells Requires Engineering, Not Hysteria

California’s fight over development near idle and abandoned oil wells is too often framed as if mere proximity equals danger. That is the wrong test. As CIPA member Tim Rathmann recently argued, the real question is whether a site is properly evaluated, managed, and mitigated before construction begins. California has thousands of legacy wells in developed areas, and redevelopment can move forward safely when qualified engineers and geologists identify the wells, review the records, assess methane and vapor conditions, and address risks early rather than pretending every parcel near a well is permanently unusable.

That is the heart of the matter. Safe development does not mean careless development. It means competent development. Rathmann notes that California’s challenge is not simply that old wells exist in urbanized areas, but how those wells are evaluated, regulated, and, where necessary, re-abandoned to modern standards. CalGEM oversees well integrity and abandonment, and California’s current rules require idle wells to be tested and, if needed, repaired or permanently sealed and closed. In other words, the state already has a regulatory framework for doing this work responsibly. The grown-up answer is due diligence, not panic.

Rathmann is also correct that redevelopment and public health are not mutually exclusive. He points to successful projects in places like Huntington Beach and Long Beach where redevelopment moved ahead with the help of experienced petroleum engineers and geologists. The process is not mystical. Review the historical well files. Locate the wells in the field. Test for leakage. Coordinate with regulators. Install vapor intrusion mitigation systems where warranted. Handle the site like professionals instead of treating a map symbol like a ghost story.

The La Brea Tar Pits offer an especially inconvenient fact for the fear industry. Official project documents for the tar pits state that the site sits over an oil field, that hydrogen sulfide and methane are present in the subsurface, and that crude oil and methane gas leak out of petroleum deposits and migrate upward to the ground surface. A peer-reviewed study found that the park emits about 500 kilograms of methane per day, with additional emissions from bubble plumes in the lake and from a nearby intersection, and described the area as the highest natural gas flux measured for any onshore seepage zone in the United States. Yet Los Angeles has not responded by declaring the surrounding area unfit for urban life. Instead, the city regulates methane zones and requires mitigation systems for buildings in those areas. That is what practical governance looks like.

That comparison matters. Natural seeps at La Brea vent according to geology’s timetable, not a permit condition. Regulated oil and gas infrastructure, by contrast, is subject to oversight, testing, access requirements, plugging standards, and, when development is proposed nearby, site review and mitigation. Even CalGEM’s own guidance does not say nearby development is forbidden; it says developers should locate wells, leak-test them, coordinate with local agencies, and avoid building directly over them. That is not a warning that development near wells is inherently unsafe. It is a roadmap for how to do it safely.

California should stop letting ideology masquerade as land-use policy. The serious approach is straightforward: identify the well, determine its condition, plug or re-abandon it to current standards if needed, preserve access, mitigate methane and vapor where necessary, and then let redevelopment proceed. Fear is easy. Engineering is harder. But engineering is how cities are actually built, how risks are actually managed, and how valuable land is actually returned to productive use. Rathmann’s point is the right one: development near old wells can be done safely, and California should govern accordingly.