WUWT readers may recall that I wrote an analysis in 2014 that was provided to the Butte County Board of Supervisors: A report on the hyperbole behind the politicized issue of ‘fracking’. In it, I wrote:
The process is safe, and continues to be proven as such.
For example, on May 13th 2011, the New York Times reported:
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” got a clean bill of health this week in the first scientific look at the safety of the oil and production practice.
And also:
The British also aren’t worried about it:
The British government’s health agency is the latest body to give fracking a clean bill of health, in a move that should galvanize the country to act on its considerable reserves of shale gas. Reuters reports:
Public Health England (PHE) said in a review that any health impacts were likely to be minimal from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which involves the pumping of water and chemicals into dense shale formations deep underground….
“The currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to emissions associated with the shale gas extraction process are low if operations are properly run and regulated,” said John Harrison, director of PHE’s center for radiation, chemical and environmental hazards.
Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/31/us-britain-health-fracking-idUSBRE99U0KX20131031
RELEVANCE: The EPA sees no threat to drinking water in studies they have conducted. Neither do the British.
There is a huge financial incentive by drilling companies to manage fracking water properly or face fines. Newer formulations of fracking fluid are safe enough to actually drink.
Scientific studies show the process is safe.
And…
EPA itself grudgingly confirmed in 2015 that fracking does not contaminate groundwater, barring mishap or poor practice.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/hf_es_erd_jun2015.pdf
About a year later, in January 21, 2016, the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board endorsed the agency’s findings and recommended its conclusions be stated less ambiguously. I think the agency is still trying to get out of that.
The study had further corroborated a study by the U.S. Department of Energy in which the researchers injected tracers into the hydraulic fracturing fluid, with no observable groundwater contamination after twelve months’ monitoring. It also confirmed reports by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Government Accountability Office, Duke University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University, the University of Colorado, and the Groundwater Protection Council – to name just a few.
I concluded with:
A ban probably won’t matter much in the scheme of production, but if passed it will be used as a political bandwagon tool.
A fracking ban will be just about as useless as the infamous “nuclear weapons ban” in Chico, but it will make some emotional folks feel good about themselves.
If I were to be in your position, I’d put it up to a vote of the people of Butte County, rather than approve a ban outright. I think you’ll find it has about as much support in the citizenry as the ill-fated attempt to ban Genetically Modified Food (GMO’s) a few years back.
Don’t believe the absurdity of a nuclear weapons ban? Here is the language:
No person shall produce, test, maintain, or store within the city a nuclear weapon, component of a nuclear weapon, nuclear weapon delivery system, or component of a nuclear weapon delivery system under penalty of Chapter 9.60.030 of the Chico Municipal Code
Well, surprise. Emotion trumps science once again. Both newspapers in town endorsed the idea of banning fracking, both saying essentially “protect our water, just in case”. The alternative weekly would have endorsed it anyway, since it is a liberal cause. They did a story on Gasland producer Josh Fox visiting town, who outright lied to produce some scenes in the film Gasland.
He’s stopping in Chico because he considers it a “hot spot”—mostly because of Measure E, which, if approved by voters on June 7, would ban fracking in Butte County.
“We’re doing the tour to energize the movement against fossil fuels,” Fox said. “We’re going places that are in the thick of the fight, whether it’s a fight against oil pipelines, bomb trains, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, fracking or mountaintop removal for coal.”
Right, it’s not about saving the water table in Butte County, it’s about the “the movement against fossil fuels”.
The alternative weekly, that bastion of “medical marijuna” advertising, the Chico News and Review, had this to say about Measure E:
Measure E: Yes. This is an easy one. Whether or not the local geography is conducive to hydraulic fracturing, the latest research concludes that fracking can, indeed, contaminate groundwater. Let’s also remember that there’s a fracked well in Glenn County. Simply put, we cannot allow the Tuscan Aquifer—the source of our drinking and ag water—to be jeopardized now or ever by fracking.
Source: https://www.newsreview.com/chico/endorsements/content?oid=21070584
But the newspaper of record, The Chico Enterprise Record, where they actually have trained journalists who should have been able to sniff out that this is nothing more than an emotional movement in response to a trumped up movie, fell for it too.
I’m terribly disappointed in the ChicoER editorial board, who usually has the intelligence to see through such emotionally based measures, like they did some years ago when a bunch of the same liberal cabal got together and tried to ban GMO foods. The ER had some sense then, sense enough to recommend against passage, and that this was an unnecessary law. But in the matter of fracking, I’m particularly disappointed with ER Editor David Little, who allowed what I consider to be a flippant and self-contradictory editorial to be published on the issue, saying:
Editorial: Fracking ban makes more sense than the alternative
We’re not sure a ban on hydraulic fracturing is necessary in Butte County. A lot of political capital could be spent trying to outlaw every boogeyman that’s out there.
That said, a citizen initiative has resulted in the question going to county voters on June 7, so we all have to answer a straightforward question: Should fracking be banned in Butte County?
We think it should, and recommend a “yes” vote on Measure E.
Source: http://www.chicoer.com/opinion/20160531/editorial-fracking-ban-makes-more-sense-than-the-alternative
Really? Recommending something you aren’t sure of, something your admit is akin to a “boogeyman”? Once again, stupidity trumps science. Einstein said it best.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.- Albert Einstein
Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins100015.html
The result: it passed. Here’s the story from this morning’s paper:
Despite zero oil or natural gas companies seeking to use hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” in Butte County, the practice is no longer allowed in the county thanks to Measure E.
With 129 of 140 precincts reporting, Measure E was passing with 71.46 percent in favor and 28.54 percent opposed.
“We’re really thrilled that it’s going to pass and we’re really glad that the residents of Butte County are concerned about their water,” said Dave Garcia, spokesperson for the advocacy group Frack-Free Butte County.
The group held an election-night party at Round Table Pizza on Pillsbury Road in Chico, where Garcia said people were excited when early results were published online.
“Yeah, it was really wild and crazy there, especially when we found out we were almost ahead at 71 percent or so,” he said from the pizza parlor.
Source: http://www.chicoer.com/government-and-politics/20160607/marijuana-restrictions-fracking-ban-pass
As I’ve said before, I have no financial interest in the outcome, but that didn’t stop the leader of this movement (Dave Garcia) from publicly accusing me of being in the pay of “big oil” on a local Facebook forum simply because I hold an informed opinion, even though I’ve never taken a dime from oil or gas interests. It’s typical for the left to attack the person with emotional poison, rather than the person’s arguments, when they know they can’t win the argument on facts alone.
So now, two things will happen:
- The Butte fracking ban will be used to try to get it passed in other counties citing “see, Butte County did it and they don’t even have fracking going on there!”.
- Butte County will be held up as a place that has not one, but TWO incomprehensibly stupid laws.
Way to go, emotionalists.
Note: within 15 minutes of publication, this story was edited for a few punctuation, spelling, and grammar errors. The scope of the content remained unchanged.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think these sorts of bans are the only sort that should be allowed. Next I want to restrict bans on ocean drilling to mountain ranges of greater than 2000 feet elevation.
Chico means ‘boy,’ as in ‘Oh boy is that stupid.’
I think this new book probably sums it up pretty well – “Moral narcissism” – all I need is the appearance of doing good. That’s all. No facts matter. I read the free pages on Amazon. Sounds like Portland banning educational materials which “mislead” on AGW arguments. Some kid should print out one of Anthony’s articles and bring it in and post it on the BB. See if he gets arrested. I may be stoopid, but these people are STUPID.
Butte stupid. Snicker.
Mr Richard Fedder from Farlane NJ once asked if i ever had some Moosehead..my response was “No, but I have had some Grizzly Butte’.”
So, it just goes to show you…..there ain’t nothing like frackin’ Roseannadanna
Anthony, as added ammo, fracking was invented in 1865 by a Civil War vet for enhancing production from water well. It has been used continuously since the beginning of the oil industry, known as torpedoing a well. They started with gunpowder and then switched to nitroglycerine, the latter used around the world by the industry in millions of wells – some 60% of wells globally have been fractured using torpedoing. The explosives were far more dangerous, having killed several oil drillers and done damage, too.
In 1947, at the Hugoton gas field in Kansas, hydraulic fracturing got its first test. It took a few decades to improve it but by 1980s they were using it successfully in Texas hydrocarbon shales. By 2000, it had opened up large reservoirs of formerly unproducible tight sandstone oil formations and with development of horizontal drilling, which gives long well exposure of the formation to the borehole rather than just the punch through thickness, it took off. In the past decade it has boomed in exploitation of the oil shales. It also continues to be used to enhance conventional production, too. So it has been used for 150 years and few seemed to know it until the recent boom. Suddenly you have activist promoted “problems” arise because they thought peak oil was going to be the end of oil and gas anyway – just that pesky coal…and then their marxbrothers plans were fracked.
Also, you get rural people with old failing water wells that they haven’t wanted to outlay $100,000 or so to be redrilled and the law suits start. I was an engineer on the construction of the Greater Winnipeg floodway in the early 1960s. Before the excavations began, we went to every farmer’s well within a few miles of the right of way measured the levels and gave free advice to farmers who needed a new well. Naturally the records were kept in case of problems or complaints. We drilled observation wells across and beyond the planned excavation and installed piezometers in them to monitor water levels before and after the excavation and (I believe) they continue to monitor these outwards from the “ditch” (at the time, only the Panama Canal was a bigger excavation). The oil industry in Pennsylvania (I believe it was) didn’t take this precaution and that’s where some issues arose.
Thanks, good stuff to know.
Nuclear devices were used in fracking tests to liberate natural gas from 1967 to 1973; ‘Operation Plowshare’ detonated 2 devices in Colorado and 1 in New Mexico. While a technical success, no commercial production ensued and the technique was superseded by hydraulic fracturing.
Who is going to be the first to propose that Butte County should ban all fossil fuels?
Go on, you know it makes sense.
At the same time they should vote on eliminating the “e” at the end of Butte.
They’re practicing to become a liberal county, something slightly at odds with the majority of residents.
That county should acquire the derogatory moniker: ‘The Butte of all jokes.’
Most of the resistance to any kind of ‘development’, such as fracking or drilling is ultimately based on an ideology concerning ‘disturbing the environment’. So no dams, no ports, no fracking, no mines, no gas hubs, and so on. The argument is always the same, it’s not about the protecting the environment as such, but about protecting control of the environment, and protecting the institutions which protect the environment.
Trouble is, this ideology against ‘disturbing the environment’ in all instances is a fantasy, societies require these things to function. Some of these above, like most metal mines, are often then done mostly away from where people live, like in the desert, however there is actually no need for this, people ideologically just don’t like the disturbance they can create, even if there is very little, such as 10km outside a small town.
However coal mines for example, are different to metal mines; they generally need to be close to markets because of high transport costs. This partly why England and Europe had the Industrial Revolution and SE Asia didn’t, coal was close to markets in the UK and they allowed development, in China the coal was not close to markets and moreover they did not encourage middle class innovation and development.
I don’t know why this particular ideological fantasy is so prevalent in today’s world, especially the west, nor do I know how to reduce it, but the world needs such things in order to function.
thingadonta,
“You’re missing the overall.” (“Deep Throat” in “All The President’s Men”) The planet savers realize perfectly well that societies require these tings to function. So now Sierra Club and others are starting to shift narrative to “Humans are the problem!” in the sense that, to save the planet, man himself must be “deselected.” Except they can’t come right and say that, they couch it in terms like “population control” and “downsizing man’s footprint” etc. To which I respond “Well, charity starts at home. Why don’t all you planet huggers start by deselecting yourselves? There’s a cliff over there, you can hold hands and step right off. Keep the line moving, folks!”
Perhaps they could be chased off a cliff by athletic young women like in Monty Python’s “The meaning of life”.
Don’t worry about any backups at the cliff, they’re already preparing for their own extinction:
Actually there was plenty of coal mining done in China long before the west began large scale mining.The worlds first know coal mine was operating in Fushan around 1000 BC. Moreover the use of Coke in iron smelting happened in China at least 500 years BEFORE the process was used in England. The problems afflicting the Chinese Industrial base were primarily political. The 19th century expansion of the Chinese coal industry was blocked as it was considered disruptive to traditional Chinese society.
Note that initially British coal mines were NOT very close to the main market which was London. The iron and steel industries of the North East, Coalbrookdale and Sheffield grew up because they were near the coal fields and ironstone mines. In 1807 the town of Middlesbrough consisted of 7 houses on an unhealthy swamp. The discovery of ironstone in North Yorkshire and coal in county Durham produced a boom town that for a while was producing a third of global iron.
British coal was being shipped all over Europe by the 18th century at low cost. The ships used by Captain Cook in his explorations were sail powered colliers which didn’t even need a port as they could sail onto a beach and unload their cargos at low tide. At its peak a quarter of all British coal was being exported.
I sent a letter to both the Chico N&R and the Chico ER quoting four sources proving water is not contaminated by fracking. The ChicoER said I’d already used up my one election-related letter, and the CNR sent me a nice note stating that the 2015 EPA study you cited (and the conclusion was one of the four statements I included in my letter) was not for public citation – thus clearly demonstrating a lack of knowledge on how science works. She said I could revise the letter, and publish it later. So I deleted the (offending) EPA report, and substituted the fact that left-wing Kamala Harris, who was endorsed by the Sierra Club in her quest for US Senate, had just refused to endorse a ban on fracking.
Nonetheless, despite her promise, my letter was not published. Her claim that “the latest research concludes that fracking can, indeed, contaminate groundwater.”
This is so absurd. It exposes her as a fraud as a journalist. There is NO latest research that shows contamination from fracking. There certainly are wishful thinkers who make easily-disproved allegations – but there is no credible science. Nor has there EVER been.
I agree that David Little disappointed on this issue. I expect better from the ER.
She called a friend.
That friend assured her that fracking can contaminate water.
Ergo, latest “research” proves …
I thought there was a minor amount of oil production at the Sutter Buttes themselves.
Yes, but the Sutter Buttes are not in Butte County.
We need sanctuary cities for those oppressed by populist ignorance and their pandering elected representatives.
I guess this will make them the Butte of our jokes.
Obviously the people of Butte County are as butt stupid as the hairy, wild-eyed, progressives along the coast. Let the puns begin.
I swear the World is now run by hormonal schoolgirls. With due deference to those girls. There’s nothing wrong with being a hormonal schoolgirl when you’re at school – and are in fact hormonal – but not when you’re holding public office.
It’s not just how well the borehole is lined – what happens at the surface matters, too. Everything has to be done carefully, not just parts of the process.
New study about spilled brine in the Bakken Shale area – “Brine Spills Associated with Unconventional Oil Development in North Dakota”
“The rapid rise of unconventional oil production during the past decade in the Bakken region of North Dakota raises concerns related to water contamination associated with the accidental release of oil and gas wastewater to the environment. […] We establish geochemical and isotopic tracers that can identify Bakken brine spills in the environment. In addition to elevated concentrations of dissolved salts (Na, Cl, Br), spill waters also consisted of elevated concentrations of other contaminants (Se, V, Pb, NH4) compared to background waters, and soil and sediment in spill sites had elevated total radium activities (228Ra + 226Ra) relative to background, indicating accumulation of Ra in impacted soil and sediment. We observed that inorganic contamination associated with brine spills in North Dakota is remarkably persistent, with elevated levels of contaminants observed in spills sites up to 4 years following the spill events.”
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2016, 50 (10), pp 5389–5397
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b06349
Publication Date (Web): April 27, 2016
Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b06349
Dakota Resource Council article about it, with link to the paper. http://drcinfo.org/2016/04/27/widespread-contamination-nd-linked-fracking-spills/
One problem is that you can’t trust industry or regulators:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Waste-Water-from-Oil-Fracking-Injected-into-Clean-Aquifers-282733051.html
Meanwhile, back in UK La-la land, anti-fracking zealots are trying to overturn an approved fracking planning application because the planners didn’t consider climate change!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-36496564
The only potential Fracking in Butte county would be some lieberal fracking San Fran Nan. ain’t no one gonna frack that dry well in my lifetime or yours …