Preview
1 ROB BONTA
Attorney General of California
2 ANDREW M. VOGEL (SBN 187312)
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
3 LEENA M. SHEET (SBN 235415)
JACKIE K. VU (SBN 253533)
4 ELISE K. STOKES (SBN 288211)
STEVEN W. KERNS (SBN 333983)
5 Deputy Attorneys General
300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
6 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230
Telephone: (213) 269-6376
7 Fax: (916) 731-2121
E-mail: Andrew.Vogel@doj.ca.gov
8
Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents Exempt from Filing Fees
9 Governor Gavin Newsom, California Department of Pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103
Conservation, Geologic Energy Management
10 Division (CalGEM), and Uduak-Joe Ntuk
11
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12
COUNTY OF KERN
13
14
15
16 AERA ENERGY LLC, a California limited Case No. BCV-22-100748
liability company,
17 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO
Petitioner and Plaintiff, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
18 MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
v. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE
19 RELIEF AND DAMAGES
20 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity [Public Resources Code, §§ 3106, 3160, 3161;
as Governor of California; CALIFORNIA Government Code, § 11350; Code of Civil
21 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Procedure, §§ 1060, 1085]
GEOLOGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT
22 DIVISION, a state agency; UDUAK-JOE
NTUK, in his official capacity as State Oil
23 and Gas Supervisor; and DOES 1 through
25, inclusive,
24
Respondents and
25 Defendants.
26
27 ///
28 ///
1
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 Respondents and Defendants Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of
2 California, California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division
3 (“CalGEM”) and Uduak-Joe Ntuk, in his capacity as State Oil and Gas Supervisor of CalGEM
4 (collectively “Respondents”) answer the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus [CCP section
5 1085] and Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief (“Petition”), filed by Plaintiff and
6 Petitioner Aera Energy LLC (“Petitioner” or “Aera”), as follows below.
7 In accord with the Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Case Management entered by
8 the Court on June 3, 2022 (“Case Management Order”), all proceedings concerning the Seventh
9 through Eleventh Causes of Action in the Petition (identified in the Order as the “Second Phase
10 Causes of Action”) are stayed. Respondents will file a responsive pleading to the Second Phase
11 Causes of Action (Paragraphs 138 through 181 of the Petition) in accord with the Case
12 Management Order.
13 INTRODUCTION
14 1. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 1, Respondents admit that Californians
15 use oil, California has a diverse mix of energy sources, and that jobs and economic growth have
16 resulted from the State’s oil resources. Respondents admit that the contents in the referenced
17 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted,
18 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
19 remaining allegations in this paragraph and on that basis deny these allegations.
20 2. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 2, Respondents admit that CalGEM
21 denied Aera’s well stimulation treatment permit applications (“Permit Applications”) for 49 wells
22 in the North and South Belridge oil fields in Kern County on or after July 8, 2021. Respondents
23 admit that the Supervisor’s letters denying the Permit Applications and letter to Jeff Young dated
24 September 16, 2021, speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the
25 remaining allegations in this paragraph.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
2
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 3. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Respondents deny the allegations
2 concerning the existence of the alleged “WST Ban.” 1 Respondents admit that the State Oil and
3 Gas Supervisor (“Supervisor”), exercising his discretion under Public Resources Code section
4 3160, subdivision (d)(3)(A), has not approved any well stimulation treatment permit applications
5 since February 2021. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal conclusions to
6 which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the
7 remaining allegations in this paragraph.
8 4. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 4, Respondents admit that the majority
9 of Kern County’s current oil production takes place in mature fields that have been operating for
10 many decades and that well stimulation treatments are a method used in oil and gas exploration.
11 Respondents admit that well stimulation treatments have been used in California since the late
12 1940s. Respondents admit that Public Resources Code section 3157 speaks for itself.
13 Respondents admit that studies of well stimulations treatment have been conducted, including the
14 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that CalGEM (then known as the Division of Oil, Gas, and
15 Geothermal Resources) prepared and certified pursuant to Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) and the separate
16 study required under SB 4 analyzed the environmental impacts of well stimulation treatments,
17 which documents speak for themselves. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to
18 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the content of other unspecified studies
19 and, on that basis, deny these allegations. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information
20 to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning whether well stimulation is the only
21 meaningful way to extract oil and is essential for production operations to remain economical
22 and, on that basis, deny these allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents lack
23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
24 this paragraph and, on that basis, deny the allegations.
25 5. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Respondents admit that CalGEM
26 has a statutory duty under the Public Resources Code to regulate oil and gas operations in
27
1
Respondents incorporate their denial of any allegation concerning the existence of the
28 alleged “WST Ban” into their responses to Paragraphs 4-137 of the Petition.
3
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 California and that Public Resources Code section 3106 speaks for itself. The remaining
2 allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
3 extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this
4 paragraph.
5 6. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Respondents admit that well
6 stimulation treatments are a method used in oil and gas exploration and are subject to technical
7 requirements. Respondents admit that Public Resources Code section 3106, California Code of
8 Regulations Title 14, sections 1780-1789, and the cited document speak for themselves. The
9 remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is
10 required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations
11 in this paragraph.
12 7. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 7, Respondents admit that California
13 Code of Regulations Title 14, sections 1780-1789 and the cited document speak for themselves.
14 The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is
15 required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations
16 in this paragraph.
17 8. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Respondents admit that the
18 California Legislature passed SB 4 in 2013. Respondents admit that the text of SB 4, the statutes
19 cited in this paragraph, and the EIR that CalGEM prepared and certified pursuant to SB 4 speak
20 for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no
21 response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining
22 allegations in this paragraph.
23 9. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 9, Respondents admit that the EIR, the
24 text of SB 4, and Public Resources Code sections 3150-3160 speak for themselves. Respondents
25 lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
26 concerning whether oil produced by unspecified foreign counties is subject to rigorous
27 environmental review, greenhouse gas mitigation, and worker safety inspections as in California
28 and, on that basis, deny these allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain
4
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
2 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
3 10. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 10, Respondents deny that the
4 Supervisor has a statutory mandate solely to encourage the production of oil and gas.
5 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
6 allegations in this paragraph concerning unspecified oil industry jobs and, on that basis, deny
7 these allegations. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal contentions to which no
8 response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining
9 allegations in this paragraph.
10 11. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 11, the allegations of this paragraph
11 concerning the First through Sixth Causes of Action are legal contentions to which no response is
12 required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations
13 in this paragraph. The Seventh through Eleventh Causes of Action are stayed under the Court’s
14 Case Management Order. Respondents will respond to the allegations concerning those causes of
15 action in accord with the Case Management Order.
16 12. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 12, Respondents admit that Aera
17 recovers light oil from reservoirs at its operations in the North Belridge, South Belridge, and Lost
18 Hills oil fields. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the
19 truth of the allegations in this paragraph concerning Aera’s alleged injury, its current and planned
20 well stimulation treatment operations in Kern County, and whether the low permeability of these
21 reservoirs requires the use of well stimulation treatments to produce economic rates and, on that
22 basis, deny these allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal
23 contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
24 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
25 13. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 13, Respondents admit that the
26 contents of the EIR speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain
27 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
28 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
5
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 14. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 14, Respondents admit that the
2 Governor Gavin Newsom’s (“Governor”) public statement on September 23, 2020, speaks for
3 itself. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this
4 paragraph.
5 15. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 15, Respondents lack sufficient
6 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Aera’s
7 opinions about climate change, the best way for the State to address the climate crisis, and the
8 effect of unspecified international conflicts and, on that basis, deny these allegations.
9 Respondents admit that operators continued to produce oil in California and Californians
10 currently use oil and that the contents of the EIR speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted,
11 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
12 16. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 16, the allegations in this paragraph are
13 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
14 Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph.
15 17. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 17, the allegations in this paragraph
16 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
17 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph.
18 18. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 18, the allegations in this paragraph
19 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
20 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. The Seventh through Eleventh
21 Causes of Action are stayed under the Court’s Case Management Order. Respondents will
22 respond to the allegations concerning those causes of action in accord with the Case Management
23 Order.
24 19. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 19, the allegations in this paragraph
25 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
26 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph.
27 ///
28 ///
6
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 PARTIES
2 20. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 20, Respondents lack sufficient
3 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Aera’s corporate identity or business
4 and on that basis deny these allegations, except that Respondents admit that Aera currently acts as
5 operator of numerous oil-producing properties in Kern County. The remaining in this paragraph
6 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
7 response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
8 21. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 21, Respondents admit that
9 Respondent and Defendant Gavin Newsom is the Governor of California. Respondents admit that
10 Governor Newsom is sued in his official capacity. The remaining allegations in this paragraph
11 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
12 response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
13 22. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 22, Respondents admit CalGEM is an
14 agency of the State of California with a district office in Bakersfield, California and is charged
15 with the regulation of drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of onshore
16 and offshore oil, gas, and geothermal wells within the State of California. The remaining
17 allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
18 extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this
19 paragraph.
20 23. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 23, Respondents admit that
21 Respondent and Defendant Uduak-Joe Ntuk is the State Oil and Gas Supervisor and that he is
22 responsible for making decisions for CalGEM on well stimulation treatment permit applications
23 Respondents admit that the Supervisor is sued in his official capacity. The remaining allegations
24 in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the
25 Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
26 24. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 24, Respondents lack sufficient
27 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph and,
28 on that basis, deny the allegations.
7
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 25. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 25, Respondents admit that this Court
3 has jurisdiction over the First through Sixth Causes of Action in that the Petition alleges claims
4 for writ relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and declaratory relief under Code of
5 Civil Procedure section 1060. The Seventh through Eleventh Causes of Action are stayed under
6 the Court’s Case Management Order. Respondents will respond to the allegations concerning
7 those causes of action in accord with the Case Management Order. The remaining allegations in
8 this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court
9 requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
10 26. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 26, Respondents admit that venue is
11 proper in this Court. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to
12 which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the
13 remaining allegations in this paragraph.
14 27. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 27, the Seventh through Eleventh
15 Causes of Action are stayed under the Court’s Case Management Order. Respondents will
16 respond to the allegations concerning those causes of action in accord with the Case Management
17 Order. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response
18 is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining
19 allegations in this paragraph.
20 FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND
21 28. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 28, Respondents admit that that Aera
22 operates a lawful oil exploration business in Kern County, including portions of the referenced oil
23 fields. Respondents admit that the contents of any written material cited as support for these
24 allegations speak for themselves, without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents.
25 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
26 allegations concerning the full details of Aera’s oil drilling business operations and on that basis
27 deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations
28 in this paragraph.
8
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 29. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 29, Respondents lack sufficient
2 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the details
3 of Aera’s oil drilling operations and on that basis deny the allegations. Except as expressly
4 admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
5 30. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 30, Respondents admit that diatomite
6 reservoirs are layered biogenic silica formations that have long, continuous vertical oil columns.
7 Respondents admit these reservoirs are considered “light-oil,” meaning that the recoverable
8 hydrocarbons within the formation have low viscosity and are able to flow at normal temperatures
9 within the formations. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as
10 to the truth of the remaining allegations concerning Aera’s oil drilling operations and whether the
11 low permeability rates of these reservoirs requires the use of well stimulation treatments to
12 produce at economic rates and, on that basis, deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted,
13 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
14 31. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 31, Respondents admit thatAera’s
15 drilling permits will expire if it does not commence drilling operations after 24 months.
16 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
17 remaining allegations concerning Aera’s oil drilling operations and unspecified drilling permits
18 and on that basis deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the
19 remaining allegations in this paragraph.
20 32. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 32, Respondents admit that Aera must
21 obtain CalGEM’s approval before drilling a new well and to carry out well stimulation treatments
22 on a new well. Respondents admit that the cited case and applicable Public Resources Code
23 provisions concerning notices of intention to commence drilling (including Public Resources
24 Code section 3203) speak for themselves. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information
25 to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning all of Aera’s oil drilling operations
26 and on that basis deny the allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal
27 contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
28 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
9
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 33. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 33, Respondent admits that operators
2 have produced oil in California since the late 1800s. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or
3 information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and on
4 that basis, denies the allegations.
5 34. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 34, Respondents admit that the
6 California Legislature established the division that is now known as CalGEM in 1915, that
7 CalGEM has regulatory jurisdiction over the drilling, operation, maintenance, plugging, and
8 abandonment of oil and gas wells in California oil and gas fields, underground natural gas storage
9 facilities, and geothermal operations, and that the contents of documents cited by Aera in this
10 paragraph speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining
11 allegations in this paragraph.
12 35. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 35, Respondents admit that the
13 California Legislature enacted the provisions of Division 3, Oil and Gas, of the Public Resources
14 Code in 1939, that CalGEM is responsible for regulating the drilling, operation, maintenance,
15 plugging, and abandonment of oil and gas wells in California, and that Public Resources Code
16 section 3106 speaks for itself. Respondents admit that oil and gas operators in California have
17 used well stimulation techniques in order to increase recovery of oil since at least the 1950s.
18 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the
19 allegations concerning the requirement for stimulation for unspecified wells and, on that basis,
20 deny these allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations
21 in this paragraph.
22 36. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 36, Respondents admit that Public
23 Resources Code section 3106 speaks for itself. The remaining allegations in this paragraph
24 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
25 response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
26 37. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 37, Respondents admit that Public
27 Resources Code sections 3150 through 3160 speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in
28 ///
10
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court
2 requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
3 38. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 38, Respondents admit the Legislature
4 passed SB 4. Respondents admit that the contents of SB 4, the other bills referenced in this
5 paragraph, and the EIR speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain
6 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
7 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
8 39. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 39, Respondents admit that SB 4, the
9 Senate Floor Analysis cited by Aera, and the EIR speak for themselves. The remaining
10 allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the
11 extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this
12 paragraph.
13 40. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 40, Respondents admit that Public
14 Resources Code section 3160 and California Code Regulations Title 14, sections 1780-1789
15 speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to
16 which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the
17 remaining allegations in this paragraph.
18 41. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 41, Respondents admit that the
19 referenced statements by a CalGEM representative speak for themselves. Except as expressly
20 admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
21 42. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 42, Respondents admit that California
22 Code Regulations, Title 14, sections 1780-1789 speak for themselves. The remaining allegations
23 in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the
24 Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
25 43. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 43, Respondents admit that well
26 stimulation treatment operations in California occur under a comprehensive regulatory scheme,
27 the regulations for which were adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code,
28 §11340 et seq.). Respondents admit that the contents of the referenced CalGEM study speak for
11
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no
2 response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining
3 allegations in this paragraph.
4 44. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 44, Respondents admit that the
5 contents of SB 4 and Public Resources Code sections 3160 and 3161 speak for themselves.
6 Respondents admit the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
7 45. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 45, Respondents admit that the
8 contents of the EIR speaks for itself and that the EIR recommended mitigation measures to
9 address potential environmental impacts of well stimulation treatments. The remaining allegations
10 in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the
11 Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
12 46. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 46, Respondents admit that the
13 contents of the EIR speaks for itself. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal
14 contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response,
15 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
16 47. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 47, Respondents admit that CalGEM
17 successfully defended the EIR against a legal challenge in the cited Center for Biological
18 Diversity appeal and underlying trial court litigation. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents
19 deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
20 48. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 48, Respondents admit that the
21 contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves,
22 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge
23 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and,
24 on that basis, deny these allegations.
25 49. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 49, Respondents admit that the
26 contents of the EIR speaks for itself. Respondents admit that the contents of the remaining written
27 material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, without necessarily admitting
28 the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief
12
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, on that basis, deny these
2 allegations.
3 50. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 50, Respondents admit that California
4 relies almost exclusively on oil produced in-state or imported waterborne. Respondents admit that
5 the contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves,
6 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge
7 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and,
8 on that basis, deny these allegations.
9 51. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 51, Respondents lack sufficient
10 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph and,
11 on that basis, deny these allegations.
12 52. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 52, Respondents admit that the
13 contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves,
14 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge
15 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and,
16 on that basis, deny these allegations.
17 53. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 53, Respondents admit that the
18 contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves,
19 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge
20 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and,
21 on that basis, deny these allegations.
22 54. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 54, Respondents admit that Governor
23 Jerry Brown’s statements and the EIR speak for themselves. Respondents admit that the contents
24 of the remaining written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves,
25 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Except as expressly admitted,
26 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
27 55. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 55, Respondents admit that
28 California’s demand for fossil fuels had grown prior to January 2020. Respondents admit that
13
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 Director Shabazian’s statements speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents
2 deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
3 56. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 56, Respondents admit that the
4 contents of the EIR speaks for themselves. Respondents admit that the contents of the remaining
5 written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, without necessarily
6 admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to
7 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, on that basis, deny
8 the allegations.
9 57. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 57, Respondents admit that the
10 Governor’s May 2019 summary of the State’s revised budget speaks for itself. Except as
11 expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
12 58. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 58, Respondents admit that in July
13 2019, the Governor ordered the replacement of the former Supervisor at CalGEM. Respondents
14 admit that the Governor’s public statements speak for themselves. Respondents admit that the
15 contents of the remaining written material cited as support for these allegations speak for
16 themselves, without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Except as expressly
17 admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
18 59. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 59, Respondents admit that the
19 contents of the EIR speaks for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the
20 remaining allegations in this paragraph.
21 60. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 60, the allegations in this paragraph
22 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a
23 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph.
24 61. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 61, CalGEM’s press releases speak for
25 themselves. Respondents admit that CalGEM did not invite public comment on its press releases
26 but deny that CalGEM was under a legal obligation to do so. The remaining allegations in this
27 paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court
28 requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
14
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR
DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748)
1 62. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 62, Respondents admit that the
2 contents of the cited 2019 Oil and Gas Initiatives (“2019 Initiatives”) speak for themselves.
3 Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
4 63. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 63, Respondents admit that the
5 Supervisor, exercising his discretion under Public Resources Code section 3160, subdivision
6 (d)(3)(A), did not approve any well stimulation permit applications from August 2019 to March
7 2020. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this
8 paragraph.
9 64. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 64, Respondents admit that Lawrence
10 Livermore National Laboratory conducted an independent review of pending well stimulation
11 treatment permit applications that spanned almost six months and that Governor’s cited tweet
12 speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in
13 this paragraph.
14 65. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 65, Respondents admit that Lawrence
15 Livermore National Laboratory conducted an independent review of pending well stimulation
16 treatment permit applications, including Aera’s pending applications, that spanned alm
Preview
1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 2 ANDREW M. VOGEL (SBN 187312) Supervising Deputy Attorney General 3 LEENA M. SHEET (SBN 235415) JACKIE K. VU (SBN 253533) 4 ELISE K. STOKES (SBN 288211) STEVEN W. KERNS (SBN 333983) 5 Deputy Attorneys General 300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702 6 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230 Telephone: (213) 269-6376 7 Fax: (916) 731-2121 E-mail: Andrew.Vogel@doj.ca.gov 8 Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents Exempt from Filing Fees 9 Governor Gavin Newsom, California Department of Pursuant to Gov. Code § 6103 Conservation, Geologic Energy Management 10 Division (CalGEM), and Uduak-Joe Ntuk 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF KERN 13 14 15 16 AERA ENERGY LLC, a California limited Case No. BCV-22-100748 liability company, 17 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO Petitioner and Plaintiff, VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF 18 MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR v. DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE 19 RELIEF AND DAMAGES 20 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity [Public Resources Code, §§ 3106, 3160, 3161; as Governor of California; CALIFORNIA Government Code, § 11350; Code of Civil 21 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, Procedure, §§ 1060, 1085] GEOLOGIC ENERGY MANAGEMENT 22 DIVISION, a state agency; UDUAK-JOE NTUK, in his official capacity as State Oil 23 and Gas Supervisor; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 24 Respondents and 25 Defendants. 26 27 /// 28 /// 1 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 Respondents and Defendants Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of 2 California, California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division 3 (“CalGEM”) and Uduak-Joe Ntuk, in his capacity as State Oil and Gas Supervisor of CalGEM 4 (collectively “Respondents”) answer the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus [CCP section 5 1085] and Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief (“Petition”), filed by Plaintiff and 6 Petitioner Aera Energy LLC (“Petitioner” or “Aera”), as follows below. 7 In accord with the Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Case Management entered by 8 the Court on June 3, 2022 (“Case Management Order”), all proceedings concerning the Seventh 9 through Eleventh Causes of Action in the Petition (identified in the Order as the “Second Phase 10 Causes of Action”) are stayed. Respondents will file a responsive pleading to the Second Phase 11 Causes of Action (Paragraphs 138 through 181 of the Petition) in accord with the Case 12 Management Order. 13 INTRODUCTION 14 1. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 1, Respondents admit that Californians 15 use oil, California has a diverse mix of energy sources, and that jobs and economic growth have 16 resulted from the State’s oil resources. Respondents admit that the contents in the referenced 17 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, 18 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 19 remaining allegations in this paragraph and on that basis deny these allegations. 20 2. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 2, Respondents admit that CalGEM 21 denied Aera’s well stimulation treatment permit applications (“Permit Applications”) for 49 wells 22 in the North and South Belridge oil fields in Kern County on or after July 8, 2021. Respondents 23 admit that the Supervisor’s letters denying the Permit Applications and letter to Jeff Young dated 24 September 16, 2021, speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the 25 remaining allegations in this paragraph. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 3. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Respondents deny the allegations 2 concerning the existence of the alleged “WST Ban.” 1 Respondents admit that the State Oil and 3 Gas Supervisor (“Supervisor”), exercising his discretion under Public Resources Code section 4 3160, subdivision (d)(3)(A), has not approved any well stimulation treatment permit applications 5 since February 2021. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal conclusions to 6 which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the 7 remaining allegations in this paragraph. 8 4. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 4, Respondents admit that the majority 9 of Kern County’s current oil production takes place in mature fields that have been operating for 10 many decades and that well stimulation treatments are a method used in oil and gas exploration. 11 Respondents admit that well stimulation treatments have been used in California since the late 12 1940s. Respondents admit that Public Resources Code section 3157 speaks for itself. 13 Respondents admit that studies of well stimulations treatment have been conducted, including the 14 Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) that CalGEM (then known as the Division of Oil, Gas, and 15 Geothermal Resources) prepared and certified pursuant to Senate Bill 4 (“SB 4”) and the separate 16 study required under SB 4 analyzed the environmental impacts of well stimulation treatments, 17 which documents speak for themselves. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to 18 form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the content of other unspecified studies 19 and, on that basis, deny these allegations. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information 20 to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning whether well stimulation is the only 21 meaningful way to extract oil and is essential for production operations to remain economical 22 and, on that basis, deny these allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents lack 23 sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in 24 this paragraph and, on that basis, deny the allegations. 25 5. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Respondents admit that CalGEM 26 has a statutory duty under the Public Resources Code to regulate oil and gas operations in 27 1 Respondents incorporate their denial of any allegation concerning the existence of the 28 alleged “WST Ban” into their responses to Paragraphs 4-137 of the Petition. 3 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 California and that Public Resources Code section 3106 speaks for itself. The remaining 2 allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the 3 extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this 4 paragraph. 5 6. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Respondents admit that well 6 stimulation treatments are a method used in oil and gas exploration and are subject to technical 7 requirements. Respondents admit that Public Resources Code section 3106, California Code of 8 Regulations Title 14, sections 1780-1789, and the cited document speak for themselves. The 9 remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is 10 required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations 11 in this paragraph. 12 7. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 7, Respondents admit that California 13 Code of Regulations Title 14, sections 1780-1789 and the cited document speak for themselves. 14 The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is 15 required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations 16 in this paragraph. 17 8. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Respondents admit that the 18 California Legislature passed SB 4 in 2013. Respondents admit that the text of SB 4, the statutes 19 cited in this paragraph, and the EIR that CalGEM prepared and certified pursuant to SB 4 speak 20 for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no 21 response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining 22 allegations in this paragraph. 23 9. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 9, Respondents admit that the EIR, the 24 text of SB 4, and Public Resources Code sections 3150-3160 speak for themselves. Respondents 25 lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations 26 concerning whether oil produced by unspecified foreign counties is subject to rigorous 27 environmental review, greenhouse gas mitigation, and worker safety inspections as in California 28 and, on that basis, deny these allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain 4 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 2 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 3 10. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 10, Respondents deny that the 4 Supervisor has a statutory mandate solely to encourage the production of oil and gas. 5 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 6 allegations in this paragraph concerning unspecified oil industry jobs and, on that basis, deny 7 these allegations. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are legal contentions to which no 8 response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining 9 allegations in this paragraph. 10 11. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 11, the allegations of this paragraph 11 concerning the First through Sixth Causes of Action are legal contentions to which no response is 12 required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations 13 in this paragraph. The Seventh through Eleventh Causes of Action are stayed under the Court’s 14 Case Management Order. Respondents will respond to the allegations concerning those causes of 15 action in accord with the Case Management Order. 16 12. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 12, Respondents admit that Aera 17 recovers light oil from reservoirs at its operations in the North Belridge, South Belridge, and Lost 18 Hills oil fields. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the 19 truth of the allegations in this paragraph concerning Aera’s alleged injury, its current and planned 20 well stimulation treatment operations in Kern County, and whether the low permeability of these 21 reservoirs requires the use of well stimulation treatments to produce economic rates and, on that 22 basis, deny these allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal 23 contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 24 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 25 13. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 13, Respondents admit that the 26 contents of the EIR speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain 27 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 28 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 5 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 14. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 14, Respondents admit that the 2 Governor Gavin Newsom’s (“Governor”) public statement on September 23, 2020, speaks for 3 itself. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this 4 paragraph. 5 15. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 15, Respondents lack sufficient 6 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Aera’s 7 opinions about climate change, the best way for the State to address the climate crisis, and the 8 effect of unspecified international conflicts and, on that basis, deny these allegations. 9 Respondents admit that operators continued to produce oil in California and Californians 10 currently use oil and that the contents of the EIR speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, 11 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 12 16. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 16, the allegations in this paragraph are 13 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 14 Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. 15 17. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 17, the allegations in this paragraph 16 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 17 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. 18 18. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 18, the allegations in this paragraph 19 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 20 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. The Seventh through Eleventh 21 Causes of Action are stayed under the Court’s Case Management Order. Respondents will 22 respond to the allegations concerning those causes of action in accord with the Case Management 23 Order. 24 19. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 19, the allegations in this paragraph 25 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 26 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. 27 /// 28 /// 6 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 PARTIES 2 20. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 20, Respondents lack sufficient 3 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of Aera’s corporate identity or business 4 and on that basis deny these allegations, except that Respondents admit that Aera currently acts as 5 operator of numerous oil-producing properties in Kern County. The remaining in this paragraph 6 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 7 response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 8 21. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 21, Respondents admit that 9 Respondent and Defendant Gavin Newsom is the Governor of California. Respondents admit that 10 Governor Newsom is sued in his official capacity. The remaining allegations in this paragraph 11 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 12 response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 13 22. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 22, Respondents admit CalGEM is an 14 agency of the State of California with a district office in Bakersfield, California and is charged 15 with the regulation of drilling, operation, maintenance, and plugging and abandonment of onshore 16 and offshore oil, gas, and geothermal wells within the State of California. The remaining 17 allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the 18 extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this 19 paragraph. 20 23. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 23, Respondents admit that 21 Respondent and Defendant Uduak-Joe Ntuk is the State Oil and Gas Supervisor and that he is 22 responsible for making decisions for CalGEM on well stimulation treatment permit applications 23 Respondents admit that the Supervisor is sued in his official capacity. The remaining allegations 24 in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the 25 Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 26 24. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 24, Respondents lack sufficient 27 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph and, 28 on that basis, deny the allegations. 7 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2 25. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 25, Respondents admit that this Court 3 has jurisdiction over the First through Sixth Causes of Action in that the Petition alleges claims 4 for writ relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and declaratory relief under Code of 5 Civil Procedure section 1060. The Seventh through Eleventh Causes of Action are stayed under 6 the Court’s Case Management Order. Respondents will respond to the allegations concerning 7 those causes of action in accord with the Case Management Order. The remaining allegations in 8 this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court 9 requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 10 26. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 26, Respondents admit that venue is 11 proper in this Court. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to 12 which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the 13 remaining allegations in this paragraph. 14 27. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 27, the Seventh through Eleventh 15 Causes of Action are stayed under the Court’s Case Management Order. Respondents will 16 respond to the allegations concerning those causes of action in accord with the Case Management 17 Order. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response 18 is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining 19 allegations in this paragraph. 20 FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND 21 28. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 28, Respondents admit that that Aera 22 operates a lawful oil exploration business in Kern County, including portions of the referenced oil 23 fields. Respondents admit that the contents of any written material cited as support for these 24 allegations speak for themselves, without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. 25 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 26 allegations concerning the full details of Aera’s oil drilling business operations and on that basis 27 deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations 28 in this paragraph. 8 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 29. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 29, Respondents lack sufficient 2 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the details 3 of Aera’s oil drilling operations and on that basis deny the allegations. Except as expressly 4 admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 5 30. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 30, Respondents admit that diatomite 6 reservoirs are layered biogenic silica formations that have long, continuous vertical oil columns. 7 Respondents admit these reservoirs are considered “light-oil,” meaning that the recoverable 8 hydrocarbons within the formation have low viscosity and are able to flow at normal temperatures 9 within the formations. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as 10 to the truth of the remaining allegations concerning Aera’s oil drilling operations and whether the 11 low permeability rates of these reservoirs requires the use of well stimulation treatments to 12 produce at economic rates and, on that basis, deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted, 13 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 14 31. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 31, Respondents admit thatAera’s 15 drilling permits will expire if it does not commence drilling operations after 24 months. 16 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 17 remaining allegations concerning Aera’s oil drilling operations and unspecified drilling permits 18 and on that basis deny the allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the 19 remaining allegations in this paragraph. 20 32. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 32, Respondents admit that Aera must 21 obtain CalGEM’s approval before drilling a new well and to carry out well stimulation treatments 22 on a new well. Respondents admit that the cited case and applicable Public Resources Code 23 provisions concerning notices of intention to commence drilling (including Public Resources 24 Code section 3203) speak for themselves. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information 25 to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning all of Aera’s oil drilling operations 26 and on that basis deny the allegations. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal 27 contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 28 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 9 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 33. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 33, Respondent admits that operators 2 have produced oil in California since the late 1800s. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or 3 information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and on 4 that basis, denies the allegations. 5 34. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 34, Respondents admit that the 6 California Legislature established the division that is now known as CalGEM in 1915, that 7 CalGEM has regulatory jurisdiction over the drilling, operation, maintenance, plugging, and 8 abandonment of oil and gas wells in California oil and gas fields, underground natural gas storage 9 facilities, and geothermal operations, and that the contents of documents cited by Aera in this 10 paragraph speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining 11 allegations in this paragraph. 12 35. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 35, Respondents admit that the 13 California Legislature enacted the provisions of Division 3, Oil and Gas, of the Public Resources 14 Code in 1939, that CalGEM is responsible for regulating the drilling, operation, maintenance, 15 plugging, and abandonment of oil and gas wells in California, and that Public Resources Code 16 section 3106 speaks for itself. Respondents admit that oil and gas operators in California have 17 used well stimulation techniques in order to increase recovery of oil since at least the 1950s. 18 Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the 19 allegations concerning the requirement for stimulation for unspecified wells and, on that basis, 20 deny these allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations 21 in this paragraph. 22 36. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 36, Respondents admit that Public 23 Resources Code section 3106 speaks for itself. The remaining allegations in this paragraph 24 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 25 response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 26 37. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 37, Respondents admit that Public 27 Resources Code sections 3150 through 3160 speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in 28 /// 10 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court 2 requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 3 38. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 38, Respondents admit the Legislature 4 passed SB 4. Respondents admit that the contents of SB 4, the other bills referenced in this 5 paragraph, and the EIR speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain 6 legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 7 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 8 39. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 39, Respondents admit that SB 4, the 9 Senate Floor Analysis cited by Aera, and the EIR speak for themselves. The remaining 10 allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the 11 extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this 12 paragraph. 13 40. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 40, Respondents admit that Public 14 Resources Code section 3160 and California Code Regulations Title 14, sections 1780-1789 15 speak for themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to 16 which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the 17 remaining allegations in this paragraph. 18 41. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 41, Respondents admit that the 19 referenced statements by a CalGEM representative speak for themselves. Except as expressly 20 admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 21 42. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 42, Respondents admit that California 22 Code Regulations, Title 14, sections 1780-1789 speak for themselves. The remaining allegations 23 in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the 24 Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 25 43. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 43, Respondents admit that well 26 stimulation treatment operations in California occur under a comprehensive regulatory scheme, 27 the regulations for which were adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (Gov. Code, 28 §11340 et seq.). Respondents admit that the contents of the referenced CalGEM study speak for 11 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 themselves. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no 2 response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining 3 allegations in this paragraph. 4 44. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 44, Respondents admit that the 5 contents of SB 4 and Public Resources Code sections 3160 and 3161 speak for themselves. 6 Respondents admit the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 7 45. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 45, Respondents admit that the 8 contents of the EIR speaks for itself and that the EIR recommended mitigation measures to 9 address potential environmental impacts of well stimulation treatments. The remaining allegations 10 in this paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the 11 Court requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 12 46. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 46, Respondents admit that the 13 contents of the EIR speaks for itself. The remaining allegations in this paragraph contain legal 14 contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a response, 15 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 16 47. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 47, Respondents admit that CalGEM 17 successfully defended the EIR against a legal challenge in the cited Center for Biological 18 Diversity appeal and underlying trial court litigation. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents 19 deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 20 48. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 48, Respondents admit that the 21 contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, 22 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge 23 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, 24 on that basis, deny these allegations. 25 49. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 49, Respondents admit that the 26 contents of the EIR speaks for itself. Respondents admit that the contents of the remaining written 27 material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, without necessarily admitting 28 the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief 12 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, on that basis, deny these 2 allegations. 3 50. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 50, Respondents admit that California 4 relies almost exclusively on oil produced in-state or imported waterborne. Respondents admit that 5 the contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, 6 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge 7 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, 8 on that basis, deny these allegations. 9 51. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 51, Respondents lack sufficient 10 knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in this paragraph and, 11 on that basis, deny these allegations. 12 52. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 52, Respondents admit that the 13 contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, 14 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge 15 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, 16 on that basis, deny these allegations. 17 53. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 53, Respondents admit that the 18 contents of any written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, 19 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge 20 or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, 21 on that basis, deny these allegations. 22 54. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 54, Respondents admit that Governor 23 Jerry Brown’s statements and the EIR speak for themselves. Respondents admit that the contents 24 of the remaining written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, 25 without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Except as expressly admitted, 26 Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 27 55. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 55, Respondents admit that 28 California’s demand for fossil fuels had grown prior to January 2020. Respondents admit that 13 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 Director Shabazian’s statements speak for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents 2 deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 3 56. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 56, Respondents admit that the 4 contents of the EIR speaks for themselves. Respondents admit that the contents of the remaining 5 written material cited as support for these allegations speak for themselves, without necessarily 6 admitting the truth of such contents. Respondents lack sufficient knowledge or information to 7 form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in this paragraph and, on that basis, deny 8 the allegations. 9 57. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 57, Respondents admit that the 10 Governor’s May 2019 summary of the State’s revised budget speaks for itself. Except as 11 expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 12 58. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 58, Respondents admit that in July 13 2019, the Governor ordered the replacement of the former Supervisor at CalGEM. Respondents 14 admit that the Governor’s public statements speak for themselves. Respondents admit that the 15 contents of the remaining written material cited as support for these allegations speak for 16 themselves, without necessarily admitting the truth of such contents. Except as expressly 17 admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 18 59. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 59, Respondents admit that the 19 contents of the EIR speaks for themselves. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the 20 remaining allegations in this paragraph. 21 60. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 60, the allegations in this paragraph 22 contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court requires a 23 response, Respondents deny the allegations in this paragraph. 24 61. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 61, CalGEM’s press releases speak for 25 themselves. Respondents admit that CalGEM did not invite public comment on its press releases 26 but deny that CalGEM was under a legal obligation to do so. The remaining allegations in this 27 paragraph contain legal contentions to which no response is required. To the extent the Court 28 requires a response, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 14 DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES (BCV-22-100748) 1 62. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 62, Respondents admit that the 2 contents of the cited 2019 Oil and Gas Initiatives (“2019 Initiatives”) speak for themselves. 3 Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. 4 63. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 63, Respondents admit that the 5 Supervisor, exercising his discretion under Public Resources Code section 3160, subdivision 6 (d)(3)(A), did not approve any well stimulation permit applications from August 2019 to March 7 2020. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in this 8 paragraph. 9 64. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 64, Respondents admit that Lawrence 10 Livermore National Laboratory conducted an independent review of pending well stimulation 11 treatment permit applications that spanned almost six months and that Governor’s cited tweet 12 speaks for itself. Except as expressly admitted, Respondents deny the remaining allegations in 13 this paragraph. 14 65. Responding to the allegations of Paragraph 65, Respondents admit that Lawrence 15 Livermore National Laboratory conducted an independent review of pending well stimulation 16 treatment permit applications, including Aera’s pending applications, that spanned alm