Re “Vice Mayor in Quest of Proof That Fracking Is Harmful”
Vice Mayor Meghan Sahli-Wells has made some pretty alarming claims about hydraulic fracturing in recent days, but readers of thefrontpageonline.com should know that – as is the case with many extreme activists' allegations – reality tells a different story.
“I am talking about information scientifically based, not from activists.” That is how Ms. Sahli-Wells describes the research she cites as “proof” of harm from hydraulic fracturing. A closer examination shows that this is not the case.
For example, Ms. Sahli-Wells cites a 2011 study from Duke University linking shale gas development with methane in private water wells. But here’s a line from that very study that she either overlooked or deliberately refused to discuss:
“We found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids.”
The authors of the study stressed that finding in the media, too.
In other words, the researchers confirmed that the fracking process was not contaminating groundwater, but Ms. Sahli-Wells claimed the opposite.
Even worse, Ms. Sahli-Wells did not disclose that the “scientifically based” study from Duke was directly funded by the Park Foundation, which has funneled millions of dollars to anti-fracking causes across the country. Here’s what its president said recently:
“In our work to oppose fracking, the Park Foundation has simply helped to fuel an army of courageous individuals and NGOs(non-governmental organizations).”
In fact, with few exceptions, many of the studies and activist groups that have alleged harm from shale development and fueled inflammatory headlines have received money from the Park Foundation.
The research she’s citing is “not from activists?” Please.
If you want proof that hydraulic fracturing is fundamentally safe, you don’t need to take the industry’s word for it. In addition to repeated assurances from state regulators across the country that the process is fundamentally safe, does not pollute groundwater, and can be adequately regulated, here’s what officials from the Obama administration have said:
Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the U.S. EPA: “There’s nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices can’t accomplish.”
Sally Jewell, Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Interior: “Fracking has been done safely for many, many years.”
Ernest Moniz, Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Energy: “I think the issues in terms of the environmental footprint of hydraulic fracturing are manageable.”
President Obama’s former Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu – a Nobel laureate in physics, now a distinguished professor at Stanford University – said of fracking: “This is something you can do in a safe way.” He also called it a “false choice” to say we can either have hydraulic fracturing or protect the environment; we have done both for many years.
Ken Salazar, President Obama’s former Secretary of Interior, said, “I would say to everybody that hydraulic fracking is safe.”
The list goes on. These officials have access to the same “studies” that Ms. Sahli-Wells and other opponents of hydraulic fracturing do. Yet somehow they have determined that the weight of credible evidence in favor of responsible development is greater than the validity of claims suggesting hydraulic fracturing is an inherent threat that must be banned.
Whom should we trust: Political activists whose “work to oppose fracking” yields millions of dollars in grant money every time an allegation of harm is made? Or regulators and scientists whose job is to protect the environment and public health?
Let’s not forget that the aforementioned officials and regulators represent an administration that repeatedly has threatened higher taxes on the oil and natural gas industry, restricted development on federal lands, and even banned new drilling in offshore waters for periods of time. If even they can determine that hydraulic fracturing is not causing a public health or environmental crisis, it is pretty clear the activists alleging otherwise have marginalized themselves to the fringe.
Californians are currently engaged in a conversation over our energy future. None of us should shy away from a robust debate about how we improve our economy with affordable energy. That’s what the state Legislature did last year when it considered (and overwhelmingly rejected) measures to place a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. Ultimately, the Legislature settled on SB4, an incredibly restrictive (and arguably operationally prohibitive) bill that established, without a doubt, the strictest regulatory regime for fracking in the entire country.
We are not solving any problems by blaming “fracking” for a variety of societal ills, merely because it’s convenient to do so. Additionally, what does that message send to the thousands of hard-working men and women in California who work in or alongside our state’s oil and natural gas industry? Suggesting, as Ms. Sahli-Wells did, that these Californians are “spreading poison” in the communities where they live, to the children with whom their own kids play and attend school, is inexcusable – especially because the charge is demonstrably untrue.
Mr. Quast, California director of Energy in Depth, may be contacted at energyindepth.org/california
