Simon Lomax writes at Energy Indepth:
Local officials in Erie, Colo., are pushing back hard against a national environmental group for misrepresenting the outcome of a failed “ban fracking” campaign in their town. The officials say the Massachusetts-based group has “ignored or misstated” the facts, including a number of scientific analyses posted on the town’s website, and they are demanding to know: “Why did you ignore this information?”
The Union of Concern Scientists in Cambridge, Mass., profiled the Town of Erie in a “toolkit” for anti-energy activists called Science, Democracy and Fracking: A Guide for Community Residents and Policy Makers Facing Decisions over Hydraulic Fracturing. Regular readers of Energy In Depth may recall we have closely tracked events in Erie ourselves (some examples here, here, here, and here).
Among other things, the UCS publication falsely claims that a group of “ban fracking” activists were responsible for negotiating agreements with oil and natural gas companies in 2012 that have been hailed as a “statewide model” and a “thoughtful step forward” in the debate over energy development in Colorado. In reality, the activist group Erie Rising fought those agreements tooth and nail with help from the national “ban fracking” group Food & Water Watch.
Washington, D.C.-based Food & Water Watch even declared Erie “ground zero” of the “national movement” to ban hydraulic fracturing, which is really a ban on domestic oil and gas development, because this technology is essential for developing more than 90 percent of oil and gas wells in Colorado and across the nation. Food & Water Watch opposes negotiated agreements with the energy industry and even tougher regulations. Instead, this group just wants to ban energy development across Colorado and nationwide for ideological reasons.
But in Erie, the “ban fracking” campaign fell flat when Erie town officials investigated the alarmist claims of the activists and found them to be false. Former Erie Mayor Joe Wilson later wrote in a Denver Post column that town officials “sorted fact from fiction, and helped our Board of Trustees drive a hard bargain with oil and gas operators to get the best possible environmental controls” while the activists “mindlessly opposed them.”
Erie Town Administrator A.J. Krieger corrected the record in a scathing July 10 letter to UCS. Krieger and his staff also shared the letter with local officials, environmental advocates, industry representatives, academics and other stakeholders to promote the idea that “factual information serve as the cornerstone of any public discussion of oil and gas activities – including fracking.” Here are some highlights from Krieger’s letter to the UCS Center for Science and Democracy:
“It came as no surprise to us that the Town of Erie was mentioned in your publication. … But what did surprise us is just how much inaccurate information you could squeeze into a mere 128 word article.
We are not sure if you ignored or misstated information readily available to the public. However, what is clear to us is this article does not even meet the most basic criteria including on your “Checklist for Determining Reliable Information” (see page 9 of your publication). …
We have taken the time to set the record straight for you and your readers because the Town of Erie values a balanced approach to oil and gas development – one that is protective of human health and the environment while taking into consideration private property rights. …
The Town of Erie has a great story to tell. We are at a loss for why you chose not to dedicate the time to share it accurately with your readers.”
The full text of the letter can be found here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a subject that interests me very much, both as a Colorado resident whose state may make a lot of money from fracking, and as someone dedicated to the increase and enhancement of life.
But finding out accurate information is bloody murder, as both sides are extremely biased.
Communists do what communists do, lie.
We’ve had fracking in western Colorado for 45 years without a single incident of ground water contamination. If contamination did occur it wouldn’t be from fracking but rather failure of the borehole pipe near the surface.
Typo in the headline: Conerned should be Concerned
[Thanks, fixed. ~ mod.]
Fracking is safe. It goes on in Alberta without incident. It is also our best bet on securing our energy future. There’s hardly a province or state that does not have shale gas to be developed.
Call a lie a lie. If it weren’t for the deaf ears and refusal of mainstream media to do a better job of researching these lies the general public wouldn’t be so misinformed. I’d like to believe though that the public is catching on.
Typo in the headline: Conerned should be Cornered.
These fruitcakes are in my back yard. Let me just say that they have evolved into a distinct species of being of a lower sort. The Longfellow Meeting in Cambridge stopped being a Quaker meeting a long time ago and is now only populated by aliens. Shame, Geo. Fox had many good things to say.
ONe would hope that they learned their lesson. But life teaches us they have not. I doubt they will even tell the truth about Erie, and most assuredly will lie again in the future.
My biggest giggle on the “scientific” phonies, next to AGW is, light a cigarette near them and they go spastic but it is OK to smoke marijuana around them even though the same human organs are endangered by the smoke. Go figure.
So what does this have to do with Climate Change (TM)? Or have I misunderstood the raison d’etre for this website? Is this about demonizing environmentalists just for the sake of demonizing environmentalists? Or more broadly, it this about demonizing enemies of fossil fuels in general? Well, what’s up with that???
Fracking may be safe as milk. But it does seem to correlate with increased seismic activity.
@Pathway: my dad was fracking wells back in the ’60s. You are right. It’s nothing new. However, what is new is the composition of the fracking liquids that are used now. In the old days, I believe, fracking was done with the brine water brought up in the wells plus CO2 under pressure. Nowadays, the stuff includes various lubricants, some of which you definitely don’t want in your drinking water. The question is, has the technology reached such a state of perfection that the frackers can be certain it won’t migrate up into the water table many thousands of feet above the injection point? Particularly in light of the aforementioned seismic activity, which may open new fissures leading toward the surface? Beats me. I only know that when chingas of money are involved, niceties like safety and the public welfare take a back seat. The guys who sit atop the corporations that profit from this work, I would be willing to bet, live well away from the oil fields.
What stops the oil and gas from contaminating the ground water before fracking?
But it does seem to correlate with increased seismic activity.
I know it correlates with better seismic sensors.
As a scientist who works in the oil business I am concerned that we are called biased (ladylifegrows),,,First of all I am a scientist which means I look at all the data and make my own decisions and not what I am told. Oil companies have be hydraulic fracture stimulating wells for 62 years.We don’t put in chemicals that can’t be found in any kitchen. There is not one case in over a million wells where surface waters have been contaminated by as a result of frac’ing. The reason are economy is not going down is the result of cheap energy which is directly a result of Hydraulic fracture stimulation of low permeable rock….shales.
I discovered this blog site over five years ago and ready it daily because of the scientific approach used by most the contributors.
We are not biased but scientists that actually research the data.
George Bedway says:
July 24, 2014 at 5:22 pm
It may be that they know marijuana cures cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12052046
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165955/
The question is, has the technology reached such a state of perfection that the frackers can be certain it won’t migrate up into the water table many thousands of feet above the injection point?
Since no technology is perfect we need to ban all of it. From water purification to agriculture. People die because technology is not perfect. /sarc – just in case you were wondering.
Bully for Erie. Facts are so irritating to the enviroscammers.
Robert G., I think you are correct re: the economic impact of “cheap energy.” Without it, we might have been in the greater depression now, and only the alarmists cannot appreciate it, despite the fact that shale gas has lowered CO2 emissions.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
They have no legitimate case so deceit and lying are all they have …
Pathway has it right. “Environmentalists” are nothing but the radical left, dressed in new clothes. Watermelons is really the best term for them, green on the outside, red on the inside.
Fracing in Colorado started in the 50’s in the giant Rangely field. Those first fracs used crude oil as the carrier and walnut hulls as the proppant. Later, fresh water was thickened using a plant extract called guar so higher concentrations of sand could be carried into the formation. As the formations got deeper and tighter, the fracs got bigger and more sand was carried into the formation.
There is no way a frac can get to a fresh water formation at the depths we are producing from currently. And, as I have mentioned on this site before; oil companies do not want to frac into water zones for the simple fact they don’t produce any return on their investment. Fracs are expensive.
Almost all of the chemicals used in a frac can be found in your home and a woman applying makeup one time is exposing herself to more toxins and carcinogens then she will receive from fracing in her lifetime; which is NONE!
The entire movement to ban fracing is based on a movie produced to generate hysteria. Not a shred of truth in the movie can be found. No one can point to one frac, out of the millions that have been undertaken, that contaminated a fresh water zone. It is just impossible to contaminate a fresh water formation through the many sheaths of pipe and cement that are found in a well.
I agree with the above that in effect said, both sides are extremely biased. But, I do agree with the thought that fracking should not be done where it affects/effects other peoples property. Otherwise one should be compensated for the resultant loss of “whatever was there”. Oil and gas are commodities, If you are a landowner, they are now removing from your property what is yours. I believe that there is a term for unlawful removal of property. Asides from that the removal of that “whatever” can create land shifts, ie:earthquakes. Which may damage foundations, etc. .. Because of the fowling or removal, In places where there are basements, it may be most noticeable, surely their is some kind of remedy for the owners, but I haven’t seen one yet. Yes they could let the old fashioned squeese push the oil out, but the faster they remove it, the better the price from china.
Richie D says:
July 24, 2014 at 5:28 pm
So what does this have to do with Climate Change (TM)? Or have I misunderstood the raison d’etre for this website?
Perhaps you failed to read the words in the banner at the top of any page on the site:
“Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news”
Richie D says:
July 24, 2014 at 5:28 pm
So what does this have to do with Climate Change (TM)? Or have I misunderstood the raison d’etre for this website? Is this about demonizing environmentalists just for the sake of demonizing environmentalists? Or more broadly, it this about demonizing enemies of fossil fuels in general? Well, what’s up with that???
What it’s about is telling the truth, Richie D. The town of Erie knows the truth about what happened in the negotiations with the oil and gas company, and the UCS was not telling it accurately. This site is about data and presenting/interpreting it as accurately as possible in an open manner. If the oil/gas company was telling “untruths,” (we called that lying in my day), they should be called on it. Unfortunately, UCS has a long history of supporting causes without really looking at the data, so they are easy prey for criticism. UCS was trying to pump up their position in opposition to fracking, so they wanted to appear as “tough negotiators” in the Erie case to increase their credibility. Unfortunately, it was not true. The truth is that they and their allies are ideological obstructionists.
Anthony, as a member of the UCS, what does Kenji have to say about this article? Is he going to renounce his membership?
No, I have a better idea. He should bite the ankles, and then the a$$es of the clowns at the UCS who were trying to push these lies ! ! ! ! ! ::-) 🙂 🙂
They have an agenda and there is no truth for them to tell — so to advance that agenda they must lie. Nothing complicated about their behavior.
Eugene WR Gallun