Photo credit: Think Progress
Governor Jerry Browns claims to care about what climate change is doing to our planet, so why does he refuse to stand up to big oil right here in California? He knows California is in the midst of the worst drought ever yet he signed SB-4 last September, a bill that took effect this year. The passage of SB-4 means there will be no moratorium against fracking and gas and oil companies can do as they please as long as they have a permit from the state.
Thousands of Californians came from all over the state on Saturday, some driving five hours from Los Angeles to tell Gov. Brown they had enough of his lies! But I never saw any local news stations in Orange County reporting about this event. Did you?
Years ago news stations didn’t report certain events because they didn’t want to offend their sponsors. These days those sponsors OWN our media so of course we won’t hear about Californians protesting Gov. Brown’s decision. The good thing is that we now have social media and it seems that a lot more people get their information online than they do from local news sources.
California farmers were told last month they will not be getting water from the state this year. That means dairy farmers, like Albert Straus who owns Straus Family Creamery in Marshall California, will have to hope the well on his property has enough water for his dairy cows until the drought ends. But who knows when that will happen? Do you know that it costs on around 100,000 dollars to drill a new well? (That is if there IS any water left under their land.) How many farmers have that kind of money laying around?
There is only so much water to go around and right now there are towns like Lake of the Woods, located an hour north of Los Angeles, who will run out in a few months. They will have to have water trucked in and yet oil and gas will be allowed to not only suck out this precious commodity from our water tables, stealing it from those who need it most but they will replace it with hazardous waste. I can live without gas but I need water. What about you?
Gov. Brown will be back to work today so if you are concerned or “mad as hell!” about his decision to take the oil industries side in this fracking debate you can call him (and I hope you do). (916) 445-2841
SOURCES:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/15/3410011/dont-frack-ca/
http://californiafrackinglaw.com/governor-jerry-brown-signs-well-stimulation-treatment-law-a-nutshell-on-what-sb-4-says-about-state-agencies-well-ownersoperators-and-property-owners/
*Since we are big Downtown Jerry Brown fans…..we can only say….even Jerry…. we can disagree with at times. This is one of those times.
Fracking…..sounds far too much like Tar Sands…for our appetite!
One of our famous local photographers went up there as well. I’m hoping for permission to add his photos to yours.
Permission? You don’t need no stinking permission Greg.
He’s a pro and he appreciates being asked for it, so yes I do.
Did all those people scrap their auto’s and either walk, ride a bike or take ox carts?
What would that have to do with being in opposition to fracturing the earth for natural gas?
Um, seriously…?
Wait, are you and cook both saying that just because someone uses a internal combustion engine – even maybe a hybrid, carpooling, bus – they are de facto supporting and necessitating FRACKING? Go on…
NO.
But, I would be curious to note what percentage of those who did travel over 20 miles are aware that their participation was, in part, enabled by fractured hydrocarbons . . .
Tell us in more detail how their travel was “in part enabled by fractured hydrocarbons.” I know that’s your area of expertise.
Refining transportation fuel (gasoline, diesel) has two major variables that impact the cost to the consumer:
1) Crude Oil
2) Utilities (natural gas , water, electricity)
“Fracking” dramatically lowers both. The question for those who oppose it must include what cost they believe society should pay to ban its use.
Are you willing to pay $5 a gallon? $6? $8?
Given CA’s overblown dependence on natural gas for electricity, ditto for your light bill.
So, Vern– to put it back to the original question, how many of those who showed up to protest would do so if they had to double the cost of driving to get to the protest? Are they aware of the massive benefit to society or are they just upset because of the risk they perceive to other intangibles, which they value greatly?
Like all things, this involves quite a bit of compromise. I’m not convinced those who object to a technology that’s been in use for almost as long as television really understand what they’re demanding we all give up.
The ones from SoCal took buses.
I’m a lot more optimistic about solar fueling electric vehicles than you are. Municipal success stories — 5 cents per kilowatt in Texas! — seem to be all over the place.
But the need to get away from fracking depends largely on one’s thoughts about the harm done from fracking — which in turn depends on what scientific sources one is prepared to credit.
There is almost certainly a name for that particular kind of fallacious argument, but I cannot be bothered to look it up.
You can eat fish and still be opposed to using non-dolphin-friendly nets or allowing fleets to continue with catastrophic amounts of by-catch.
You can use petro-products and still be opposed to increasingly ‘malevolent’ ways of extracting them, particularly when the potential risk is to water which is something one can’t choose to live without.
Is the objection that acting with extreme caution has a cost? Yeah, and? People are being asked to give up the assumption that we don’t have to pay the piper, one way or another.
Nipsy– I’m not making the argument that these folks should be disqualified from their opinion because they use energy.
I’m questioning if they understand the impact of what they’re asking for. In my experience, I encounter too many people who oppose “fracking” as a reflex without understanding the consequence of their objection. That doesn’t make their objection wrong or even reckless in comparison to unrestricted hydrocarbon production, but it doesn’t exactly make it righteous either.
Also, the argument re: water isn’t as solid as it’s being represented. For one, it lends the reader to believe that all water used in hydraulic fracturing displaces an equivalent gallon of potable water– which isn’t true.
Finally, natural gas isn’t something we can live without. No gas, no electricity, which means no water. While it’s catchy to claim that we can live without gas and we can’t without water, it’s simply an oversimplification of reality– thus, ultimately, a lie.
I don’t think you or I have had that conversation, Greg.
But, supposing we did, you still need to solve that little dilemma about the sun not being available at night when just about everyone would need to charge their car.
We do get closer every day: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-03/ford-s-new-solar-car-is-a-supercool-fantasy.html
In the mean time, the cleanest thing you can drive is a vehicle powered by CNG, fracked or not.
Capacitors. We’re headed there, the question is how quickly.
Passively daylight-charged batteries that can be switched out, for one. Very inefficient, but if they’re just lying around next to panels, soaking up sunlight and trickle-charging, efficiency matters much less.
I don’t expect that we’re going off of fossil fuels immediately — but we can reduce them enough so that we can supply energy needs through standard methods without having to use the most destructive forms of them.
(In any event, much of the concern with power plants is with peak demand — and overnight charging doesn’t raise peak demand. But, as you’ll rightly say, that’s a separate issue.)
Again, a lot of the tradeoff depends on what science you accept — which is another long discussion. If gas prices went to $6, you’d see more carpooling, telecommuting, motorcycling, and informal taxi sidecars. It would be unpleasant — but much of the rest of the world endures it. So that’s the cost of less fracking; now the question is: what is the cost of more? And, again — that means looking at the science (and perhaps controlling the pace of innovation so that warning signs can be heeded.)
Right– but it’s not just the science, Greg: It’s the dollars.
If you ban it, you’re eliminating perhaps what is the last remaining natural competitive advantage in our country: Cheap energy. While the science may be compelling, that’s not the real debate that people are going to base decisions on.
(And, as an aside– not only are you limited by technology, you’re limited by manufacturing capability for the tools you list. 12+ years, at least.)
I don’t think labeling “fracking” as an alternative to less destructive fossil fuels is accurate. It’s a convenient label used to minimize other risks that we’d rather not talk about, but which clearly have as severe or greater consequences.
Like buying our oil from regimes that support female genital mutilation. While in reality a false choice– for the sake of argument– which is really more destructive, Greg? Banning hydrocarbon production through methods that have **reasonable risks endorsed by natural scientists for over 50 years** with a minority who oppose it or lending economic support to regimes that promote policies universally condemned by social scientists?
That’s the proper case to make, Ryan — but as with elsewhere we can’t make a decent decision without knowing the costs and the benefits. (And in this case, one problem with current fracking now is that these aren’t renewable resources — depleting them now, especially when the technology and science are not as good as it will be later on, may put us in a worse position later, and leave us in an even worse bargaining position with Nigeria (to which you nod), Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
I don’t know where the scientific and policy arguments will end up. I know that right now, the power and resources to push things through seem to be concentrated on the side of “do this now and deal with consequences later” — which is a particular problem when the consequences (due to political power or bankruptcy) aren’t likely to fall on the backs of those who benefit from selling and consuming relatively cheap energy now.
I urge you and others in the energy industry to take these criticisms posed by those in Sacramento seriously and work with such critics towards the great libertarian ideal of “harm reduction.” Sadly, we do keep finding out that many promises end up without the benefits being delivered — and with some getting rich and others getting screwed. Sure, fracking could turn out to be an exception — but money spent on efforts to put realistic (even when anecdotal) fears to rest, if that’s possible, will impress me far more than money spend on public relations.
Sadly (or not?), that’s all I’ll have time to say on this until after 5!
Believe me, others (and I) do take the concerns seriously.
That’s why energy providers are running away from the state to put their investments elsewhere. North Dakota, Utah, Texas– and you guessed it, Russia.
Ryan there are a lot of things I like about you, including your efficiency, such as including both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy in one convenient, easy to use package.
I did not say we can live without natural gas, though of course we could, and ‘not having natural gas’ was never the issue. It’s not binary.
Greg keeps talking about one’s stance depending on the science you buy into, but what is there to buy into? The water concerns aren’t just with the amounts required for fracturing, but of the aquifers that could be contaminated by the process.
Contaminated by what? Good question, we don’t know. The extraction industry doesn’t have to tell us what chemicals they use. At what concentrations does ‘Proprietary’ cause cancer? What is the life of ‘Proprietary’ in the ground?
Extractors can inject virtually anything they want into the ground except diesel fuel (I know, wtf?) while avoiding regulation, which (amusingly?) means diesel fuel is the only thing you can be absolutely, positively sure is not being used. One can’t say it’s safe, or the risks are acceptable, if one does not know what the hell it is.
I already pay about eight bucks a gallon, you adapt.
Well played, Nipsey. Well played.
Typically, the geology makes aquifer contamination highly improbable, near impossible. In many cases, you’re talking about football fields of solid rock between the fracking zone and potable water.
For the record, I’m all for regulations promoting transparency, accountability, safety, and stewardship. A good regulatory model encourages investment from those who can actually address potential risks with adequate resources. With the uncertainty of what we have and the atmosphere of fear, all we get left are the little guys who aren’t able to pack up and move to a better climate . . .and those aren’t the folks you want sticking drill bits in the ground.
What I’m not for is an outright ban rooted in fear. By and large, I’d suggest we’re on the same page.
“…typically the geology makes aquifer contamination highly improbable, near impossible. In many cases, you’re talking about football fields of solid rock between the fracking zone and potable water.”
Ryan, what about faults, those great conductors of water seepage?
We’ll have to defer to OJ’s resident geologist.
Speaking of, we’re accepting applications for a geologist/anthropologist/numerologist.
Yes, we know it’s rare, but we have many uses for someone with that specific skill set.
There’s a resident geologist? I’m impressed.
Actually I do have a go-to geologist, a NASA guy in Texas that I went to high school with. I’ll go get him. What was the question again?
Oh, first I’d better listen to the music tracks he sent me a couple weeks ago…
I thought that the Rock Doctor was our resident geologist!
Oh! Him too! I’m-a go get TWO respected geologists! What was the question again?
I’ll hold out on the anthropologist/numerologist.
I believe the question is: What role, if any, do California’s numerous faults play in the potential migration of fracking fluids between hydrocarbon reservoirs and various aquifers.
Might be nice to get a quick guide on how water moves around underground to start with. How/if different aquifers play together, which (I think) is very interesting stuff.
Ryan, the problem of water conductivity would not even pertain to major identified faults, but rather to innumerable localized faults that haven’t even been mapped. I’m not a geologist, but it would seem that any minor displacement in sedimentary stratigraphy could conceivably convey water in strata above or below.
Ehhh, I think that our history with contaminated aquifers and migration is a bit more confident than I’m getting from your take on it (we have major remediation projects all over the basin right now that aren’t migrating between aquifers), but I am barely an amateur in the study, so I’ll happily concede my ignorance here.
How’s this? Feel free to take your own shot.
R1: Given California’s unique geology, is it reasonable to attempt to predict potential contamination migration between aquifers, particularly focused on migration of potential contaminants from hydrocarbon bearing zones typically associated with “fracking”?
Yeah, maybe you could take some chances based on the particular stratigraphy and aquifer depths. But I wouldn’t want to be the expert who made the wrong assumptions about faults and porosity.
*NO Cook….they all arrived by Ox Cart……waving pitch forks…..we hope!
*Celebrating Early Bastille Day…….get it? Next week they will Occupy Las Vegas!
they rented buses
OK, I must misunderstand this fracking issue. I thought that natural gas was the energy of choice. Maybe a change to cheap high sulfur coal is the way to go.
A technical question you should ask T. Boone Pickens….who is the lead dog in Natural Gas. However, Fracking and Shale recovery are both very Dirty Angry Birds…….that require Regulaiton, Oversight and lots of water and clean up activities. Since we are in the middle of a 100 year drought…..maybe you should be pushing De-Sal for Huntington Beach first.
“should be pushing De-Sal for Huntington Beach first” Winship
I think that issue will self solve. The Gov has ordered / requested a 20 percent reduction in use, the will decrease water districts income by 40 present, and they will need to raise the retail price to us to make up the difference.
That should make de-sal water less expensive.
*And we thought the NCAA was criminal………MWD……whew!
Concerns about the correlation between fracking and increased earthquake risks has been raised by environmental organizations . One example is Oklahoma, not known for seismic activity.
http://www.shakyground.org/
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/was-los-angeles-earthquake-caused-fracking
I lived much of my life in a small town outside of Ft. Worth, Texas. Fracking is being blamed for a series of small earthquakes that have damaged roughly 1000 homes in the area. Fracking has serious consequences.
*We think this is called arbitrary drilling for ESSO ASSO SINK HOLES!
These comments are exactly why I stay away from humans…
a de-sal plant is NOT the option! How about we change our behavior????? HELLO!!!!
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
We need to STOP pissing all over the planet or we will be extinct. It’s happened 5 times already and we are well on our way to the next one. The earth’s temp need only go up another 4 degrees and we will not be able to turn it around. Methane gas that sits beneath the polar ice cap will be released, killing life on this planet as we know it.
BUT even before that happens what about the fires that will be a result of intense heat and winds? All Americans seem to worry about is how much will it cost? They are obsessed with money.
You sound like your trying to figure out where to put the lounge chairs while the Titanic is sinking.
That’s why this place is sooooooo f**ked up!
If I were a drinker, I’d have to get drunk every time I read the comment section.
Nice rant. Who are you talking to?
My NASA friend excused himself thusly:
“I have no fracking idea how any kind of petroleum extraction processes work, so I’m afraid I can be of no use to your blog discussion. My expertise is in the generation and evolution of magmas at far greater depths and by very different processes than those by which hydrocarbons form in the upper crust. Sorry!”
But i think we WILL be joined soon by “The Rock Doctor” – a geologist AND musician friend that Inge, Greg and I met at Occupy.
Funny. 🙂
“…very different processes than those by which hydrocarbons form in the upper crust. Sorry!”
I don’t think that’s a closed debate, either. You’ve got your biotic and abiotic schools.