In honor of Earth Day, here is a roundup of the latest developments pertaining to fracking and oil/gas production:
Despite claims from anti-fossil fuel activists that California fruit is being irrigated with “toxic fracking water,” Lois Henry, columnist for the Bakersfield Californian, reported last Saturday that “Initial testing of grapes and nuts that have been irrigated for the past 20 years with water produced from nearby oilfields shows (drum roll) a…big…fat…nothing.” The sentence that must have ruined the weekend of activists, “All testing so far shows Cawelo water is safe, with lower levels of some chemicals than are allowed in drinking water.”
Amid soundbites being thrown around at presidential debates about the pros and cons of fracking, USA Today and the Washington Post editorialized in favor of fracking.
“The idea that fracking is too dangerous ignores science and the experience of tens of thousands of fracked wells. A landmark Environmental Protection Agency study last year found some cases of groundwater contamination from fracking, but no evidence of widespread problems — proof that fracking can be done safely.”
The Washington Post threw cold water on claims that fracking causes earthquakes:
“Is fracking causing earthquakes across large swaths of the country? “As best as scientists can figure, only in an indirect way. Small earthquakes are possible when drillers inject fluid into rock formations to fracture them and let oil and gas escape. A study released this week attributed many tremors detected on the surface in Western Canada to this process.
“Is fracking causing earthquakes across large swaths of the country? As best as scientists can figure, only in an indirect way. Small earthquakes are possible when drillers inject fluid into rock formations to fracture them and let oil and gas escape. A study released this week attributed many tremors detected on the surface in Western Canada to this process.
But fracking per se does not seem to be the big problem in the United States. Rather, scientists point to how drillers dispose of the wastewater that flows out of their wells.”
…
“These findings lead to a very different conclusion than the one the ban-fracking crowd prefers.”
…
“Policymakers should neither ignore fracking’s risks nor give in to the overheated criticisms of some environmental groups. The goal must be to fully account for fracking’s risks to the ambient environment and the atmosphere in regulation, then let the country reap the economic and environmental benefits of low-cost and cleaner-burning natural gas.”
Ms. Hanretty, Communications Director, Californians for Energy Independence, may be contacted at
http://energyindependenceca.com/produce-local-think-global
In case it wasn’t evident by the content of the piece, “Californians for Energy Independence” is an oil industry front group funded by the Western States Petroleum Association (whose members include Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips & BP), the California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA), and the Independent Oil Producers’ Agency.
“In honor of Earth Day” indeed.
One other tidbit: Californians for Energy Independence receives 96 percent of its funding from four energy companies, and more than 75% of its money happens to come from one single company: Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which is owned by T. Boone Pickens.
The “editorial” above– purportedly written on behalf of a grassroots organization of Californians– was in fact a commercial funded by an Oklahoma oil and gas billionaire.
Just gross.
But happy Earth Day, everyone.
Are you saying that the EPA is also an industry supported organization? That agency concluded the same results as the so-called “Industry supported organization”.
Janet, the EPA merely declared that there’s no “widespread, systemic” threat to hydraulic fracking… a conclusion that has been attacked and challenged by the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-01/epa-fracking-study-faulted-by-science-panel-citing-failed-wells
And the Aministrator of the EPA appoints them. Does that make the board independent? With the anti-industry bias, the appointees will to the party line, too. There is a vested interest there and the appointees are paid.
I don’t understand your point, Janet. The appointees of the Science Advisory Board– on the whole– have much less of a personal, vested interested in the outcome of fracking debate than do the oil and gas conglomerates who wrote the originally-posted advertorial behind the phony baloney name “Californians for Energy Independence.” I say “on the whole” because a few members of the SAB are, themselves, representatives of oil, gas and chemical companies.
Here’s my points: The members of the SAB are appointed by the EPA administrator. Who is appointed by the President and would follow the party line. Yes, Congress does confirm… Until recently no member could be involved the the oil and gas industry and none were. And still may not be….
They are not balanced any more than any study by the so-called industry sponsored study. There are special interests on every side of the issue and lots of money to back them up! I don’t take any of them at the word of press releases.
“Until recently no member could be involved the the oil and gas industry and none were. And still may not be…”
Janet, the EPA’s SAB includes a representative from the Dow Chemical Company (Mary Sue Marty), and also a representative from ExxonMobil (Thomas F. Parkerton).
“They are not balanced any more than any study by the so-called industry sponsored study.”
First of all, “Californians for Energy Independence” is not “so-called industry sponsored”. They are, in fact, industry sponsored. No “so-called” about it. By definition, it’s exactly what they are: a p.r. front, sponsored directly (and solely) by the oil and gas industry. No qualifier necessary.
As to whether “Californians for Energy Independence” is somehow equivalently balanced to the EPA, I suppose I’ll believe that the day that T. Boone Pickens adds representatives from the NRDC and Greenpeace to his board.
No member could be involved in the oil and gas industry?
Walter Hufford has served as the lead lobbyist at Talisman Energy since December 2010, a company acquired in November 2015 by REPSOL, a worldwide fracking leader. Hufford spent 10 years at BP managing environmental compliance for offshore operations at BP.4 During the BP Deepwater Horizon spill, Mr. Hufford was a manager at BP on construction and decommission of offshore wells, and he claims to have served BP as an expert witness in numerous court cases.
Dr. Stephen Almond (fracking pioneer Halliburton), Mr. John Fontana (Vista GeoScience) and Professor Shari Dunn-Norman (petroleum engineer at Missouri University of Science and Technology) are all are deeply invested in continued drilling and fracking for oil and gas.
Hufford, Almond, Fontana, Dinn-Norman are not currently members of the SAB at the EPA.
In checking the bios of Marty and Parkerton they work at companies with the names Dow and Exxon, but their areas of expertise are biomedical and toxicology and reproductive research.
The charter for the SAB was revised in 2015, so that more experts under the panels purview could be included. Wouldn’t all of us want the best?
Industry shills, all.