Do you drink water? Do you use it for any of the activities in your life?
I ask because I serve on a water district board, and to me, water is pretty important. I thought it might be important to you, too.
I’ve read commentaries recently that say we shouldn’t worry about water when we consider the possibility of a massive increase in high intensity petroleum operations in our county. I beg to differ.
Three techniques: hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” high temperature cyclic steam injection, and acidization, done individually and in combination, are the oil extraction processes causing the most damage nationwide, through spills, leaks, “mishaps,” and just normal operations. Contamination to above-ground and below-ground water supplies has happened in every part of the country where these operations take place. Lakes, rivers, creeks, reservoirs, private water wells, and community groundwater basins have all been fouled. And by fouled I mean seriously, significantly and irreparably contaminated. You may have seen news stories about people who discovered to their horror that they could light their tap water on fire because of methane gas escaping from nearby fracking operations. As others have noted, when the safety of your drinking water becomes, literally, a burning question, it changes everything, for everyone.
I do not want to see anything like that happen here. In the area I serve, the Goleta Valley, our water district will rely on the groundwater basin to supply upward of 40 percent of the water we deliver to our customers in the coming year. Throughout Santa Barbara County, from Santa Maria to Carpinteria, groundwater basins are precious local resources. We all rely upon them and will rely on them much more heavily if the drought doesn’t ease.
The oil industry proposes thousands of new wells, countywide, that would use enormous amounts of water and then throw that water away, in disposal wells that would remove it from use forever. I don’t know of any water district in the county that has that kind of water “to spare.”
In my opinion, anything that adds risk to our water supply is not our friend. When a single industry — whatever that industry might be — proposes bringing into Santa Barbara County a massive amount of activity that has time and again contaminated and used up water supplies elsewhere, it is time for extreme caution and, yes, common sense. It makes no sense to allow that risk.
Despite what oil industry spokespeople say, state regulations will not provide necessary protections. The state agency charged with monitoring oil and gas activities is not staffed to deal with a massive increase in high intensity oil activity, and it operates on a complaint-driven basis. That means that when something bad is brought to its attention, that “something bad” has already happened. That’s not protection; it’s too late at that point.
So let me ask you again: Do you drink water? Or take showers? Or grow tomato plants on your lanai? Are you a farmer, or rancher, or someone involved with the thousands of local businesses that rely on safe, clean water every day? Are you willing to sacrifice the security of your water supply for the benefit of one industry and the international companies telling you to just go ahead and risk everything for them?
This is the moment when the citizens of Santa Barbara County can do something truly meaningful to protect our shared water supply. And that is to vote “yes” on Measure P.
Lauren Hanson is a member of the Goleta Water District Board of Directors and serves as president of the Cachuma Operation & Maintenance Board.
Comments
I did not know that people in Goleta have lanai's. I only have an old fashioned porch. Tres chic!
nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 6:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lauren, we have been cyclic steaming for 60 years, why can't you give us a list of all the freshwater aquifers, that we have contaminated in SBC.
You keep dodging the question? Why would an expert keep dodging?
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This woman is just a flat liar, or she doesn't have a clue. "The oil industry propose thousands of new wells countywide." Baloney. Where does she get this stuff? Ms. Hansen, if you want any credibility, try giving us some documented facts about the local oil industry instead of Katie's talking points.
solvangman (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 6:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
My inclination is that she is merely clueless. At a minimum, the lapses in her knowledge and weird conclusions imply she needs to spend more time on the actual issue and less time on the politics. But, she apparently has a lanai...
nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Want to save water? Let's start with the Steelhead.
Botany (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I have a great idea. Let's take one of the globe's most important agricultural regions, one with severe water constraints and a fast-dropping water table. And let's set up shop there with a highly water-intensive form of fossil fuel extraction, one that throws off copious amounts of toxic wastewater. Nothing could possibly go wrong ... right? Well...
Almost 3 billion gallons of oil industry wastewater have been illegally dumped into central California aquifers that supply drinking water and farming irrigation, according to state documents obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity. The wastewater entered the aquifers through at least nine injection disposal wells used by the oil industry to dispose of waste contaminated with fracking fluids and other pollutants.
The documents also reveal that Central Valley Water Board testing found high levels of arsenic, thallium and nitrates—contaminants sometimes found in oil industry wastewater—in water-supply wells near these waste-disposal operations."
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpo...
Here are the relevant documents (found at last, thanks to other reports that have been published since the first reference):
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ca...
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ca...
Factors to consider
a) These violations were unknown and not declared, until an investigation was started. The investigation is ongoing.
b) There were no oil spills before there was an oil spill.
Recommended book - very scary stuff.
http://www.amazon.com/When-Rivers-Run...
Read page x or more, a sample page that can be read by using the "Look inside" option on the Amazon page.
tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tabatha and GEO are obvious trolls for the CBD.
key word SOMETIMES
"Central Valley Water Board testing found high levels of arsenic, thallium and nitrates—contaminants sometimes found in oil industry wastewater—in water-supply wells near these waste-disposal operations."
The actual report is below
September 15, 2014
Jared Blumenfeld
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
Dear Regional Administrator Blumenfeld:
DOGGR has provided the State Water Board with information for WD wells fitting the Category 1
description that are located in the east side of Kern County, within the Central Valley Regional Water
Quality Control Board’s (Central Valley Water Board’s) jurisdiction. To date, no additional Category 1
WD wells located in other areas of the State have been provided to State Water Board staff. Initially,
information for eleven WD wells injecting into clearly non-exempt aquifers was forwarded to State
Water Board staff (referred to in the attached table as Category 1A). Staff identified 108 water supply
wells located within a one-mile radius of seven of the injection wells. Water supply wells were not
identified within a one-mile radius of four of the injection wells. The Central Valley Water Board issued
13267 Orders to the well operators for all eleven of these injection wells, but withdrew the 13267
Orders as to two of those injection wells once it was determined by DOGGR that they were injecting into
exempt aquifers. The Central Valley Water Board also conducted sampling of eight water supply wells in
the vicinity of some of these Category 1 injection wells. Nitrate, arsenic, and thallium exceeded the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in four of the water samples. The Central Valley Water Board
provided the results of these samples to the owners of the supply wells and notified the Kern County
Environmental Health Department. TDS exceeded the secondary MCL (SMCL) in 3 samples collected,
with maximum concentrations detected at 1,800 ppm.
Information for an additional 88 Category 1 WD wells injecting into aquifers with uncertain exemption
status was subsequently forwarded by DOGGR to State Water Board staff (referred to in the attached
table as Category 1B). Using the criteria above, State Water Board staff identified 19 injection wells of
concern, and 37 water supply wells of potential concern located within one-mile from at least one of the
19 identified WD wells. The Central Valley Water Board issued 13267 Orders to the well operators for
all 19 injection wells. The Central Valley Water Board also collected one sample from a water supply
well. Laboratory results are still under review, however, initial review indicates that the MCL was not
exceeded for any analyte, and TDS was detected at concentrations below its SMCL.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bishop
Chief Deputy Director
Attachments (3)
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
tabatha, it is time to move on to the next spin. The desperation of the WG's increases daily.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 10:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on P! thank you, tabatha, for this important information.
DrDan (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Initial groundwater testing ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no evidence Kern County water wells were contaminated by nearby oil field waste injection activity" the truth.
None of the wells had Frac waste either.
next SPIN please...
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I had a GREAT thing told to me over the weekend. I was at a function of teachers, educators, administrators. When Measure P came up in the discussion, one present said "My son is a graduated of UCSB with a degree in Environmental Science". She went on to say her son works in THAT field in Santa Barbara. His wording was this, "I graduated from UCSB earning a degree in Environmental Science. I am voting NO on Measure P along with my colleagues because even though we are educated, WE ARE NOT STUPID!" Wow, I about fell over. So folks, there are people out there, even those with environmental decrees that are not brainwashed.
Don't cause your taxes to be increased. Vote NO on Measure P. Thanks.
sensiblemolly (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Comedy: 'My son is a graduated of UCSB...'
Comedy pt.2: 'I am voting NO on Measure P along with my colleagues because even though we are educated, WE ARE NOT STUPID!'
sensiblemolly makes no sense at all.
Comedy pt.3: 'even those with environmental decrees'
Get thee to a university! Or at least a high school.
"WE ARE NOT STUPID!" Wow, I about fell over.
we get what we deserve by what we value, so what's it gonna be SB? $ for oil people, or attempt to keep the water clean? Hard enough now to keep it clean because they already P'ing, dumping, fouling up the water already.
spacey (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Spacey, my tap water is just fine. You must be drinking that Lake Cachuma stuff.
Got my Yes on P dirty water flier. Looks like something you pay 5 bucks for at Starbucks.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry Lauren while you're well meaning you're misguided.
The real polluters of our water is the Ag industry.
They pump unfettered amounts of highly toxic chemicals into the ground to protect their profits. Profits which are made from cheap and often free water... water they have no incentive to save or protect from their massive dump of petrol chemicals and fertilizers.
Sure oil is bad but its got nothing on the ag industry.
If you really cared about clean water, you'd be focused on the #1 cause of fresh water contamination. Farms and Ag.
Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The funny thing is that the price of oil is dropping so fast, it may make Measure P irrelevant. If prices keep dropping, any drilling techniques that are not cost-effective, will be curtailed.
We're now below $3.50 a gallon here and the price is likely to drop further. Of course when prices are rising, many will say that it's all the fault of oil companies and speculators. Those whiners are now quiet because the price is going in the direction they want. Of course, at some point prices will rise again and the whiners will come out of the woodwork to complain about evil oil companies and speculators. Supply and demand dictate price, but there will always be some that see conspiracy when there is none. But we can thank tracking and other intensive extraction techniques for contributing to the current abundance of oil and the price drops that have gone with it. If you vote yes on P, drilling in the county will gradually disappear. If you vote no, nothing will change here.
Botany (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think our drinking water would be ruined by high-intensity extraction.
However, Hanson is right on target when she says: ``Despite what oil industry spokespeople say, state regulations will not provide necessary protections.''
The oil industry itself argued that inadequate regulation lead to the blowout at Platform A that caused the oil spill in the Santa Barbara Channel in 1969.
So, give the oil industry the regulation it needs, Yes on Measure A.
sevendolphins (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yep, nativegeo - that is the text. Did you read it?
"The Central Valley Water Board issued 13267 Orders to the well operators for all eleven of these injection wells, but withdrew the 13267 Orders as to two of those injection wells once it was determined by DOGGR that they were injecting into exempt aquifers."
The eleven - minus - two = nine injection wells were injecting into non-exempt aquifers. That is, non-exempt aquifers that are used for drinking water and for agriculture, and cannot be used for fluid injection. Only exempt aquifers could be used, and two of them were using exempt aquifers, hence they did not receive 13267 orders (they were rescinded).
Why oh why, is it so hard for you to get there? Really. I feel as though I have been banging my head against a brick wall.
tabatha (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not highly educated but I don't believe that Lauren Hanson is with any water district and if she is she may need to pay better attention. For her to be a proponent of measure p is injustice to her district since the measure is against acidizing. Surely being with the water district she understands the amount of acidizing that goes into fresh water wells that this measure opposes? Doesn't she? This measure also opposes waste water injection, so my other question is what do we do with Laguna sanitation? You want to be against fracking that's one thing but to wrap up all of these other proven methods that have been happening in this county for nearly a century is another. Be open minded and understand what you are voting for and think about the thousands of people and their family's your trying to put out of a job because you think you know about how we produce oil and gas in this county.
A loud and educated no on p!
Jayse (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Energy in Depth: “The Center for Biological Diversity Blatantly Misrepresents Results of Groundwater Study”
Californians for Energy Independence
By Dave Quast
October 13, 2014
A report from California water officials completely contradicts the alarmist water contamination claims of a fringe environmental group called the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).
In a recent press release, Tucson, Ariz.-based CBD claimed that a recent study conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) said that “billions of gallons of oil industry wastewater” has contaminated the water table in Central California. But the SWRCB itself says exactly the opposite: “[T]est results indicate that the injection wells have not degraded groundwater quality.”
The Bakersfield Californian accurately reported on the new groundwater test results as follows:
Well tests find no contamination from waste injections
Initial groundwater testing ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found no evidence Kern County water wells were contaminated by nearby oil field waste injection activity.
That conclusion is very clear, and it is, of course, good news for Californians concerned with water quality. It is not at all good news for the fringe of the environmental movement that wants to ban all oil and gas activity in our state and the billions of dollars of economic activity and the nearly 500,000 jobs the industry supports.
The CBD has exposed its true colors with its false press release and analysis: It will say anything, even untruths that can be easily verified, in pursuit of its anti-energy agenda
http://energyindepth.org/california/t...
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nativegeo started posting in August of this year and has posted 303 times in the Indy alone. He has at least that many posts on Noozhawk. He is a bought and paid for blogger troll. Ditto for the various "molly" identities and a few others. They are paid by the oil industry.
Tabatha has been posting here for much longer. She is real. they are not.
Measure P only serves to ban the use of extraction techniques now known to threaten groundwater quality. None of the banned techniques have been applied in SB Co thus far, according to oil industry trolls like nativegeo. According to nativegeo, these techniques cannot be used here due to geological impracticality.
Ergo, no current business or future business is threatened by Measure P, and Measure P only serves to make sure nobody does the wrong thing and accidentally contaminates our groundwater aquifers.
Vote YES on Measure P. Protect your water.
rambler (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rambler, I got lots of time on my hands because of your Measure P. The oil industry is on hold until November. Your desperation shows...
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tabatha, the 9 wells you mention. The water was injected in to the same zones the production came from. In other words recycled. NO aquifer contamination occurred.
"The EPA defines a formation as being federally protected water if its salinity is less than 10000 ppm. It does not matter that this happens to be the water leg of an oilfield. Nobody would want to use such water for irrigation but it still gets called an aquifer by the EPA's definition. The oil companies were guilty of injecting their produced water back into the "aquifer" where it came from. Their only fault was they did not get an aquifer exemption determination from the EPA beforehand. It's not that they were contaminating a resource that anyone proposed to use for agricultural purposes."
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
rambler, if you want to get rid of me, start telling the truth. I'll get lost.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Natgeo, I have only told the truth. Why don't you get a real job? Don't get lost, just start validating your existence. Do something worthwhile.
You mentioned two posts up that the water contaminated by fracking fluid was "recycled" because it was pumped back into the aquifers from which it came?
Those aquifers are now poisonous. Permanently unusable for drinking or irrigation. How many acre-feet do you think the frackers destroyed?
You had better pray there is no Karma.
rambler (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 9:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Natty-G, so you are unemployed now? And you are unemployed because maybe an initiative MIGHT pass ? I smell a rat.
geeber (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 5:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ditto rambler that tabatha is a sincere poster whose comments, whether one agrees or not, reflect an actual human free agent thinker. Natty G, nativegeo, you've been called out with your 303 posts paid for by Chevron or whoever: shill.
YES on P!
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 6:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
When I hear nativegeo and all the other no on p cronies and ads I can't help but think back to high school.
I had a friend with a coke addiction and one day I go over to his house and he's down on his hands and knees combing through the carpet trying to find a fix.
I sense the same desperation when I hear you guys talk. You would obviously say or do anything for one more fix of your dwindling precious drug.
Shall I call you Gollum? Btw nativegeo are you paid by the word or the hour?
billd (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 6:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rambler, if you want to get rid of me, start telling the truth. I'll get lost.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 13, 2014 at 8:56 p.m.
The truth can only be found from within.
dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 6:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
rambler, the aquifers are not poisoned or contaminated. I guess you can't read, but you can get petitions signed.
You'll get your Karma on Nov 4th. Then you guys can start your next spin. Measure C for Cannabis
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
no, Natty G, then will come Measure Q, then R, the S, then T[-erminus] for the fossilized petroleum fuel industry...you and your fellow shills shameless lies have managed to piss off plenty of voters who DID NOT CARE BEFORE.
Actually, it will be close on Measure P, but with youse guys' genius for shooting yourselves in the foot, P will get in. YES on P!
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The volume and intensity of smugness on the Yes on P exceeds that of strident No on P crowd. Neither side appears to be overburdened by proof and the Yes crowd is now repeating that anyone that is against P is either paid by the oil companies or a shill to big oil. While some of her extrapolations were incorrect, at least Tabatha made her usual attempt to structure facts to make her point.
Lauren still sounds like a brain dead shill for the save the earth nitwits(how can anyone be against "ecology" and "saving the earth").
The vast majority of ground water contamination here and in the central valley comes from agricultural use; organic solvents and heavy metals etc. I used to run an FDA Super Fund Site in NorCal attached to the DoD so I have some experience here and can go beyond simply regurgitating information as though they are relevant facts.
nomoresanity (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
thanks for the info, nomore, and while I obviously agree that "The vast majority of ground water contamination here and in the central valley comes from agricultural use" I'd say that's especially true of the central valley and less so here. Further, my concern is about FUTURE contamination when the oil producers here inevitably turn to more extreme secondary recovery methods and jack various chemicals into the earth. I don't see that smugness on Yes on P that you assert. This election isn't at all settled.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
geeber, I am not unemployed, but NOCO is getting a nice preview of economic slow down, currently. Thanks P.
I am not surprised that you have rat issues.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 9:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ms. Hanson makes some astonishing statements but fails to cite any authority. She writes, “the oil industry proposes …new wells…. that would use enormous amounts of water…” Others would disagree.
The California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) writes that Hydraulic fracturing does not use enormous amounts of water. In a White Paper on Hydraulic Fracturing the CIPA wrote: “While other states may use millions of gallons of water for each fracture job, in California wells are typically 80,000 to 300,000 gallons of water for an individual well. Keep in mind this is a one-time occurrence. Once a well is fractured, it may produce for decades without an additional stimulation. To put this water usage in perspective, the average American golf course uses 312,000 gallons per day. In a place like Palm Springs, where there are 57 golf courses, each course uses up a million gallons a day. There are 1,200 golf courses in California while there are typically less than 700 wells that are hydraulically fractured each year. This means that all the wells in California that are fractured use about a half day’s worth of water in a year when compared to in-state golf courses.”
Perhaps Ms. Lauren might contact CIPA, let us know what she concludes and why she reached her conclusion.
MVatuone (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
nomoresanity - thank you for also pointing out the great fallacy of this measure. That its designed to protect our water from pollution.
Ag is the elephant in the elevator. They as an industry pollute far more than any other not too mention they use more water than any other... and while some do provide us with food, most are run with one intent. Maximize profits regardless of the outcome.
I find it sad that many of my fellow environmentalists fall for this kind of propaganda. But then again these are people who live in very large, expensive houses, drive expensive cars, wear expensive clothes, buy food from expensive purveyors and use expensive and environmentally disastrous electronic devices...
In other words: The vast majority of supporters of this measure are clueless sheep in Patagonia clothing voting with their emotions rather than their minds.
No on P.
Sam_Tababa (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 12:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes on P! Sam, I don't have a large or expensive house, drive a 16 year old Ford Ranger, shop at Albertsons, shun TV, iPod, iPad, laptop, and TV ... your ignorance is astounding, as it is about Measure P. Yes on P.
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Davy
Point by point - where are the No on P folks "lying"?
solvangman (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oil Stooges with their name calling and belittling and lies! Turn to denials and treachery. These Oil companies don't care about YOU! The "truth" or Your ground water or Your ocean water or any living creature on this planet. They don't care about people or "jobs". What they worship is MONEY and POWER!!! They will say and do anything to GET IT! In 1969 the Union Oil Company did not obey the law, they took short cuts and that blow-out lasted for over a year it spewed out 7000000 Barrels of Crude Oil into OUR Ocean! Not their Ocean! The OIL killed all the living things it came into contact with. With the exception of those few birds that were cleaned by loving volunteers. Ok, thirty four years later, we have seen time and time again spill after spill after spill. Millions of "accidents" and just plain criminal behavior all over the world by these Oil monsters. These Oil Companies cannot be trusted with OUR WATER. Aloha.
GEO (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GEO, you left off the baby seals and the Klan meetings. LOL.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
tabatha is posting misleading information THAT IS NOT FROM SANTA BARBARA COUNTY, doesn't have anything to do with Measure , and that doesn't show contamination of well water caused by any oil extraction process; only naturally occurring elements that contaminate well water that's nowhere near oil drilling.
I started looking at the 4 corners methane hot spot because it was initially blamed on fracking, and found this:
Coal Oil Point natural seeps leak: 80 +/- 12 tons of methane/day
29200 +/- 144 tons/year
4 Corners methane leaks: 0.59 metric tons average/yr 2003-2009
0.001886 metric tons/day
0.00147 short tons/day
http://earthsky.org/earth/small-hot-s...
Natural methane seepage from Coal Oil Point is 19,863,945 times the volume of the Four Corners methane leak, but seepage is lower around Platform Holly.
"Seep locations are mostly unchanged from those documented in 1946, 1953, and 1973.
An exception is the seepage field that once existed near offshore oil platform Holly. A reduction in seepage within a 1 km radius around this offshore platform is correlated with reduced reservoir pressure beneath the natural seeps due to oil production. "
http://www.researchgate.net/publicati...
At first the Four Corners methane leak was attributed to fracking, and it's all over the web. It's 'almost 3.5 times the estimate for the same area in the European Union’s widely used Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research'.
Coal Oil Point natural methane seeps are 100 million times the volume.
It's amazing how much spin is needed to make a political case.
The research on coal Oil Point was published in 1999 by UCSB Professor Bruce M. Luyendyk, co-author of the 'Misguided Professor' article in the Indy.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/B...
http://www.researchgate.net/journal/0...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather...
14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 5:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Karma is kicking Natty-G and his brethren is the teeth right now as the price of oil is plummeting. He can always go back to his real job hawking Tupperware after P passes and his paychecks from Californians for Energy Independence stop coming.
geeber (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 6:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Karma is kicking Natty-G and his brethren is the teeth right now as the price of oil is plummeting. He can always go back to his real job hawking Tupperware "...
geeber (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 6:33 p.m
Zip it Geeber, or better yet, "lock it in".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNLZfb...
dolphinpod14 (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 7:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
great, now it's the Water Guardians against the Oil Stooges, or is it the Oil Guardians against the Water Stooges?
DavyBrown (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 7:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
nativegeo - if one of Al Gore's 20 Gulf oil rigs had a major blow-out, it'd be cool, and we wouldn't read about it in the Indy.
14noscams (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Environmentalists who are against measure P? Is that like vegetarians who eat nothing but meat?
I happen to like Earthquakes, so FRAC away!
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/enviro...
lemmy (anonymous profile)
October 14, 2014 at 8:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
geeber, Economic collapse is good for Carbon Footprints, ask any Water Guardian. Celebrate.
nativegeo (anonymous profile)
October 15, 2014 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ng brings up the klan again, laughs abound.
spacey (anonymous profile)
October 16, 2014 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the Water Guardians claim that steam injection is "injecting chemicals"
then they should change their name to the "Chemical Guardians"
catskinner (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2014 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lauren Hanson is off her rocker... And she's on a water board!
1. The water used would never be accessible or drinkable water and is pumped up from sources that are brackish and thousands of feet below the water table. None of this water comes from our lakes, reservoirs or water wells for drinking or agriculture.
Lauren Hanson either knows this and is lying to us or should be dismissed from her position for NOT knowing this.
2. There have been less than 0.0085% surface water issues vs all drilling and 97% of those were small man made ponds less than 20,000 gals of water. This is 7800x less than the contamination of water by street run off. Also known as a non issue.
Lauren Hanson either knows this and is lying to us or should be dismissed from her position for NOT knowing this.
3. Oil drilling is safe, isolated and provides huge benefits to the working poor via lower cost of energy while creating skilled, stable middle class jobs while also keeping us out of foreign wars. It's also a reliable source of tax dollars for schools and first responders.
Lauren Hanson either knows this and is lying to us or should be dismissed from her position for NOT knowing this.
realitycheck88 (anonymous profile)
October 20, 2014 at 11:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)