Denton Drilling: A Blog by Adam Briggle
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Denton Chamber Should Support the Ban
The Denton Chamber of Commerce's decision
to oppose the proposed ban on hydraulic fracturing contradicts its vision of
promoting “the general welfare and prosperity” of Denton. I respect the Chamber and admire all the good they do for Denton. But they have made a mistake here and I urge them to reconsider their position.
Had they taken an
objective look at fracking, they would find that it is a drag on our economy
and an obstacle to future development. Fracking poses severe safety and health
risks to the Denton community in order to extract mineral wealth that is
primarily exported to non-local businesses and absentee mineral owners. Only 2%
of the appraised mineral value is owned by Denton
residents. Gas wells rapidly deplete in value – 90% in five
years. Denton will be stuck for the long haul stewarding hundreds of blighted
industrial sites of diminished value.
Shockingly, the Chamber based its decision solely on an
industry-funded report by a group with a known record
of extreme hyperbole when it comes to estimating the economic impacts of the
oil and gas industry. Yet even if we accept the industry’s numbers, they actually
confirm the economic case against fracking. They show that it is a
miniscule part of our economy: it accounts for 0.2% of our gross revenue, 0.25%
of our labor force, and 0.5% of our tax revenues. Fracking accounts for 0.17%
of DISD’s budget, while dozens of gas wells right next to our schools emit
thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals.
How is any of this good for our welfare and prosperity?
City Council member Kevin Roden rightly notes that a ban on fracking
will have “no perceivable impact on our local economy.” Indeed, the ban will
bring about an economic boom. It will add value to properties that would
otherwise be devalued
by nearby fracking operations. It will bring the economic benefits of cleaner
air and water and safer neighborhoods. Most importantly, the ban will make
Denton more attractive to the skilled workforce we need to support
higher-paying jobs and drive our economy forward. A city that allows a
poisonous industry less than 200 feet from homes is not an attractive place to
move. Without the ban, the workforce we need will find jobs, and spend their
money, elsewhere.
It’s disappointing that the Chamber failed to consider the
full picture. Like the industry they only thought about the costs of a ban and
didn’t see how that flea is dwarfed by the elephant of economic benefits that a
ban will bring.
The Chamber advocates “reasonable regulations,” but this too
is just a restatement of an industry talking-point. The fact is that the City
of Denton worked for three years attempting to craft regulations that would
both permit fracking and protect the health, safety, and welfare of her
citizens. Yet at every turn, the industry failed to compromise. They insist on
fracking as many wells as they want closer than 200 feet from homes and schools
on the 30% of our city’s land area already permitted for fracking. We actually
have a reasonable ordinance on the books. The problem is that it doesn’t apply
to anything, because fracking is vested under older laws. We were just closing
the barn doors after the cows got out. Further calls for working on regulations
can only shut the door tighter but not corral the herd.
Finally, the Chamber incorrectly claims that state law “guarantees”
that property owners can access their minerals. Like most rights, mineral
ownership is qualified, not absolute. Besides, the proposed ban is actually
less restrictive than other valid ordinances in Texas, because it is only a ban
on hydraulic fracturing, not drilling. An independent law firm has concluded
that the proposed ban is legal.
The ban is the only reasonable option available to us.
Without it, we will see the wholesale industrialization of Denton’s
neighborhoods by an activity that pumps all the benefits out of town and dumps
all the costs on us. On November 4th, we need to pass the ban on
fracking in the name of promoting Denton’s welfare and prosperity.
The Denton Chamber of Commerce's decision
to oppose the proposed ban on hydraulic fracturing contradicts its vision of
promoting “the general welfare and prosperity” of Denton. I respect the Chamber and admire all the good they do for Denton. But they have made a mistake here and I urge them to reconsider their position.
Had they taken an objective look at fracking, they would find that it is a drag on our economy and an obstacle to future development. Fracking poses severe safety and health risks to the Denton community in order to extract mineral wealth that is primarily exported to non-local businesses and absentee mineral owners. Only 2% of the appraised mineral value is owned by Denton residents. Gas wells rapidly deplete in value – 90% in five years. Denton will be stuck for the long haul stewarding hundreds of blighted industrial sites of diminished value.
Had they taken an objective look at fracking, they would find that it is a drag on our economy and an obstacle to future development. Fracking poses severe safety and health risks to the Denton community in order to extract mineral wealth that is primarily exported to non-local businesses and absentee mineral owners. Only 2% of the appraised mineral value is owned by Denton residents. Gas wells rapidly deplete in value – 90% in five years. Denton will be stuck for the long haul stewarding hundreds of blighted industrial sites of diminished value.
Shockingly, the Chamber based its decision solely on an
industry-funded report by a group with a known record
of extreme hyperbole when it comes to estimating the economic impacts of the
oil and gas industry. Yet even if we accept the industry’s numbers, they actually
confirm the economic case against fracking. They show that it is a
miniscule part of our economy: it accounts for 0.2% of our gross revenue, 0.25%
of our labor force, and 0.5% of our tax revenues. Fracking accounts for 0.17%
of DISD’s budget, while dozens of gas wells right next to our schools emit
thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals.
How is any of this good for our welfare and prosperity?
City Council member Kevin Roden rightly notes that a ban on fracking
will have “no perceivable impact on our local economy.” Indeed, the ban will
bring about an economic boom. It will add value to properties that would
otherwise be devalued
by nearby fracking operations. It will bring the economic benefits of cleaner
air and water and safer neighborhoods. Most importantly, the ban will make
Denton more attractive to the skilled workforce we need to support
higher-paying jobs and drive our economy forward. A city that allows a
poisonous industry less than 200 feet from homes is not an attractive place to
move. Without the ban, the workforce we need will find jobs, and spend their
money, elsewhere.
It’s disappointing that the Chamber failed to consider the
full picture. Like the industry they only thought about the costs of a ban and
didn’t see how that flea is dwarfed by the elephant of economic benefits that a
ban will bring.
The Chamber advocates “reasonable regulations,” but this too
is just a restatement of an industry talking-point. The fact is that the City
of Denton worked for three years attempting to craft regulations that would
both permit fracking and protect the health, safety, and welfare of her
citizens. Yet at every turn, the industry failed to compromise. They insist on
fracking as many wells as they want closer than 200 feet from homes and schools
on the 30% of our city’s land area already permitted for fracking. We actually
have a reasonable ordinance on the books. The problem is that it doesn’t apply
to anything, because fracking is vested under older laws. We were just closing
the barn doors after the cows got out. Further calls for working on regulations
can only shut the door tighter but not corral the herd.
Finally, the Chamber incorrectly claims that state law “guarantees”
that property owners can access their minerals. Like most rights, mineral
ownership is qualified, not absolute. Besides, the proposed ban is actually
less restrictive than other valid ordinances in Texas, because it is only a ban
on hydraulic fracturing, not drilling. An independent law firm has concluded
that the proposed ban is legal.
The ban is the only reasonable option available to us.
Without it, we will see the wholesale industrialization of Denton’s
neighborhoods by an activity that pumps all the benefits out of town and dumps
all the costs on us. On November 4th, we need to pass the ban on
fracking in the name of promoting Denton’s welfare and prosperity.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
They are still trying to fool us
At the City Council public hearing on July 15th,
the industry representatives chose the following rhetorical strategy: “We
recognize that fracking is a problem in Denton. But we don’t need to ban it. We
promise to work with you to draft better regulations.” They are now
saying the same thing in their national op-eds about the Denton fracking
ban.
City Council members reminded them that we have worked for
years on local policy to no avail – there is still fracking less than 200 feet
from homes. Then City Council asked the industry representatives what ideas
they had for improving our bad situation. They were silent. They just promised
to help us come up with…something.
Now it is over a month later, and I’ve just heard from
several city leaders that no one from the industry has lifted a finger to
follow through on their promise. I know…it came as a shock to me too. You mean
they were only blowing smoke?! They don’t care about us?! But they said…wow.
Actually, they are not just passively neglecting their
promise; they are actively undermining it. The city has a moratorium in effect
on new drilling permits while they revise the gas well ordinance. But that puts
a crimp in the plans of Vantage Energy to get frackin’ now. So, rather than
work with us (as they promised to
do), they are going to work around us:
on August 25th, Vantage is going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment
to get an exemption from the moratorium.
So, they say they recognize the problem; they respect us and
want to help us to revise our regulations. But when the rubber hits the road
(and actual money is at stake), they have no patience for our processes and no
respect for our rules.
That’s the story of fracking in Denton. It’s an old story. I
don’t know who they think they are fooling anymore.
Saturday, July 19, 2014
Fracked on their own Petard: Depantsing the Perryman Report about Denton’s Fracking Ban
On November 4th, Denton could ban
fracking, forever ridding its neighborhoods of a poisonous specter. Ever since
we got the signatures to put the ban on the ballot, support has been growing
like a tidal wave.
This has the oil and gas industry scared. They are
getting desperate.
They’ve taken out full page color ads in the local
paper accusing us of being unpatriotic. The head of the Texas Railroad
Commission, a man whose campaigns are 80% funded by the very industry he
supposedly oversees, insinuated that Russia
is behind the ban (I’m still waiting for my check from the Kremlin, but
when it arrives, the first round of vodka is on me).
The industry even spent an estimated $50,000 on a
counter-petition campaign in support of fracking. For two weeks, out-of-state
petitioners, being paid $4/signature (plus hotel and travel expenses), flooded
the city. It was a shamelessly dishonest stunt. I was stopped by one petitioner
(from St. Louis) in the Kroger parking lot who actually told me that his petition was for a fracking ban. Texas
Sharon Wilson caught another petitioner lying
on video and several others attested to their annoying and mendacious
tactics.
The industry also did what they do best: fund a
report about how great they are. They hired the Perryman Group to write a
report about how much the proposed fracking ban would cost Denton. Of course,
what they ‘found’ were some big scary numbers. A ban would cripple the city!
They timed the release of the report to coincide
with last week’s epic City Council meeting about the ban that brought in 600
people (sitting in three overflow rooms) and stretched on until 3 a.m. To
parrot the findings of the report at that meeting, several industry
representatives drove in to Denton, including the former Chief Justice of the
Texas Supreme Court (surprisingly, he now works for the oil and gas industry).
Their strategy worked. Media coverage cited
the report’s figures, making it sound like the people of Denton would be
committing economic suicide if they adopted the fracking ban. And the industry
trolls keep shouting the report’s conclusions into their echo chambers.
Now, usually, I find it best to ignore this kind of
overt bias. But the stakes are too high. Someone has to call bulls**t. So, here
goes:
1. The
report is completely one-sided. It
is not a cost-benefit analysis of the fracking ban. It is only a cost analysis.
The benefits of taking the oh-so-radical move to ban a toxic industry from
neighborhoods are not even considered. Yet City Councilmember Kevin Roden is right that a fracking ban will create a local economic boom. More on this later.
2. It
is a black box that does not include
the data or the model used. Their model relies heavily on economic multipliers,
which are easy to abuse to
get the findings you want.
3. The
Perryman Group is notorious for
exaggerating figures to fit their clients’ preferred reality. When
TransCanada hired them, the Perryman Group said that the Keystone XL Pipeline
would create as many as 550,000 jobs. Even analysts who support the pipeline called
their figures “dead wrong” and ‘meaningless.’ An independent
analysis by Cornell University found that the pipeline would create only
500 to 1,400 jobs (gosh, Perryman was only off by three orders of magnitude).
4. Don’t
forget the rule of the one percent (or less). We
know that fracking is a miniscule part of Denton’s economy. Mineral values are
just 1.1% of total property values in the city. Minerals contribute just 1% of
total property tax revenues, meaning fracking accounts for 0.5% of the city’s
General Fund. The mining sector accounts for just 0.27% of the local workforce.
The only exception to this rule is that Denton families actually rake in a whole 2% of the total mineral wealth generated in Denton (companies and absentee mineral owners claim roughly 90%).
5. OK,
set aside the report’s one-sidedness and hidden assumptions. Set aside the
Perryman Group’s track record of hyperbolic industry cheerleading. Let’s take
the giant leap to assume the report is not a gross exaggeration. Even then, the
report actually confirms the rule of the
one percent (or less). To start, it concludes that the ban will cost the city about
$501,000 in tax revenues annually. The total annual resources of the City are $826 million, so that's 0.06%. If we compare their figure just to the City's General Fund (representing the bulk of tax revenues) it's still just 0.5%.
But this is letting them off the hook, because the Perryman Report's numbers ar projections over the next ten years. Everything about Denton's economy is projected to grow over the next ten years, which means annual tax revenues will grow. Indeed, in just the two years from 2011-2013, Denton's General Fund increased by 12% from $87 million to $99 million.
So let's conservatively estimate a 5% annual growth rate in the General Fund, which in ten years would mean it will be at $155 million. Now let's take the halfway point at five years as a conservative average total General Fund level over the projected time frame. That's about $121 million, so we'd need to adjust their estimated cost in terms of tax revenues down to 0.4%.
6. The
report confirms the rule of the one
percent (or less) again. It claims that the ban will cost 2,077 person
years of employment over ten years. Yet ‘person-years’ is a flow that accumulates
over the ten year period, so the figure actually amounts to 207 jobs. The total
workforce for Denton is 67,316, so the impact of the ban is 0.3%. Surprise! That’s about the same
number posted
by the city, which we have been using, of 0.27%.
But again this is letting them off the hook, because they are projecting over ten years and Denton's work force is projected to grow significantly in that time frame. Indeed, Denton County's employment grew by over 5% in just one fear from 2012-2013. If we project that into the future and do the same conservative estimates as above (for tax revenues but this time for the work force), then we'd need to revise their figure down to just 0.25%.
7. And again…
The report estimates a loss of roughly $25 million per year in the city’s gross
product. Now, as far as I know, no one bothers to count the total gross product
for cities – only nations and states. So, we will have to use a proxy to
estimate Denton’s gross product. One way to do this is to divide Texas’ $1.5 trillion
gross product by 215 (as Denton’s population is 1/215th of the
state’s population). That yields a gross product for Denton of $6.98 billion,
which means Perryman’s estimated cost of the ban is a whopping 0.36% of Denton’s gross product.
Again, though, Denton's gross product will grow over the next decade. If we peg this to population growth, we can get a decent estimate in how Denton's economy will balloon. The expected population of Denton in 2020 is 147,825, an incredible 24% increase from the present population. The same growth in our gross product would mean we revise Perryman's figure down to 0.2%.
In case the pattern isn't obvious yet, we can say the exact same things about their own figures for impacts of a ban on the Denton Independent School District. Even using today's annual operating revenues for DISD, their figure is just 0.2%. But DISD's budget is growing at a rate of 6%. If we project that and do the same conservative calculations as above with taxes and employment, then their figure drops to 0.17%.
8. To
conclude, let’s return to the benefits
of a fracking ban (the costs of not banning
fracking). Many of these benefits are hard to measure, but very real. Indeed,
they may not be easy to count but in the end they are what really counts: health, quality of life, and your
right to feel safe in your home and peacefully enjoy your property:
A
ban will reduce health care costs (and lost worker productivity) by cutting
fracking’s outsized contribution to smog-forming
ozone in an area with alarmingly
high rates of childhood asthma.
A
ban will eliminate the waste of hundreds of millions of gallons of city water,
in a drought-prone area, and the risks posed to our groundwater resources.
A
ban will reduce the costs of development. A fracking ban means dozens or
hundreds fewer gas well pad sites, thus fewer impediments to development and
lower taxes to finance it.
A
ban will open up more land for more profitable land uses. Gas well sites (often
more than an acre in size) chew into residential and commercial development,
which produce larger and more sustained revenues.
A
ban will protect home values. Fracking reduces
nearby residential property values, thus depleting tax revenues.
A
ban will protect quality of life. Fracking brings with it: overwhelming truck
traffic (it takes more than 1,000
diesel trucks to bring a single well into production), noise and light
pollution, and fumes and odors. It takes away your right and ability to enjoy
your home.
A
ban will attract the workforce of the future. Fracking is a deterrent for the
people Denton needs to recruit to fill the high-tech, high-paying jobs that can
propel its economy forward. The millenials
who are hitting the workforce now want cities with a high quality of life.
Poisonous fracking 200 feet from homes doesn’t quite fit that bill. They’ll
find jobs, and take their dollars, elsewhere.
A
ban will provide peace of mind. Parents won’t have to worry – like Denton
resident Maile Bush worries – about the health of their children. How much
of a benefit is it to not have a carcinogen-emitting
industrial site outside your child’s or your grandchild’s bedroom window?
The industry wants to frame the vote on the ban in
terms of a cost-benefit calculation. But they just shot themselves in the foot
with this report. When we really look at the numbers (which they doubtlessly
exaggerated in their black box) in the context of the local economy, we find
that they are miniscule. They are far outweighed by the benefits of
safeguarding property rights, water, air, home values, and the health,
livability, and safety of our community.
3. The Perryman Group is notorious for exaggerating figures to fit their clients’ preferred reality. When TransCanada hired them, the Perryman Group said that the Keystone XL Pipeline would create as many as 550,000 jobs. Even analysts who support the pipeline called their figures “dead wrong” and ‘meaningless.’ An independent analysis by Cornell University found that the pipeline would create only 500 to 1,400 jobs (gosh, Perryman was only off by three orders of magnitude).
4. Don’t forget the rule of the one percent (or less). We know that fracking is a miniscule part of Denton’s economy. Mineral values are just 1.1% of total property values in the city. Minerals contribute just 1% of total property tax revenues, meaning fracking accounts for 0.5% of the city’s General Fund. The mining sector accounts for just 0.27% of the local workforce. The only exception to this rule is that Denton families actually rake in a whole 2% of the total mineral wealth generated in Denton (companies and absentee mineral owners claim roughly 90%).
5. OK, set aside the report’s one-sidedness and hidden assumptions. Set aside the Perryman Group’s track record of hyperbolic industry cheerleading. Let’s take the giant leap to assume the report is not a gross exaggeration. Even then, the report actually confirms the rule of the one percent (or less). To start, it concludes that the ban will cost the city about $501,000 in tax revenues annually. The total annual resources of the City are $826 million, so that's 0.06%. If we compare their figure just to the City's General Fund (representing the bulk of tax revenues) it's still just 0.5%.
6. The report confirms the rule of the one percent (or less) again. It claims that the ban will cost 2,077 person years of employment over ten years. Yet ‘person-years’ is a flow that accumulates over the ten year period, so the figure actually amounts to 207 jobs. The total workforce for Denton is 67,316, so the impact of the ban is 0.3%. Surprise! That’s about the same number posted by the city, which we have been using, of 0.27%.
Again, though, Denton's gross product will grow over the next decade. If we peg this to population growth, we can get a decent estimate in how Denton's economy will balloon. The expected population of Denton in 2020 is 147,825, an incredible 24% increase from the present population. The same growth in our gross product would mean we revise Perryman's figure down to 0.2%.
A
ban will reduce health care costs (and lost worker productivity) by cutting
fracking’s outsized contribution to smog-forming
ozone in an area with alarmingly
high rates of childhood asthma.
A
ban will eliminate the waste of hundreds of millions of gallons of city water,
in a drought-prone area, and the risks posed to our groundwater resources.
A
ban will reduce the costs of development. A fracking ban means dozens or
hundreds fewer gas well pad sites, thus fewer impediments to development and
lower taxes to finance it.
A
ban will open up more land for more profitable land uses. Gas well sites (often
more than an acre in size) chew into residential and commercial development,
which produce larger and more sustained revenues.
A
ban will protect home values. Fracking reduces
nearby residential property values, thus depleting tax revenues.
A
ban will protect quality of life. Fracking brings with it: overwhelming truck
traffic (it takes more than 1,000
diesel trucks to bring a single well into production), noise and light
pollution, and fumes and odors. It takes away your right and ability to enjoy
your home.
A
ban will attract the workforce of the future. Fracking is a deterrent for the
people Denton needs to recruit to fill the high-tech, high-paying jobs that can
propel its economy forward. The millenials
who are hitting the workforce now want cities with a high quality of life.
Poisonous fracking 200 feet from homes doesn’t quite fit that bill. They’ll
find jobs, and take their dollars, elsewhere.
A
ban will provide peace of mind. Parents won’t have to worry – like Denton
resident Maile Bush worries – about the health of their children. How much
of a benefit is it to not have a carcinogen-emitting
industrial site outside your child’s or your grandchild’s bedroom window?
The industry wants to frame the vote on the ban in
terms of a cost-benefit calculation. But they just shot themselves in the foot
with this report. When we really look at the numbers (which they doubtlessly
exaggerated in their black box) in the context of the local economy, we find
that they are miniscule. They are far outweighed by the benefits of
safeguarding property rights, water, air, home values, and the health,
livability, and safety of our community.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Yes, We Can Say No
The industry-sponsored “North Texans for Natural Gas” thinks that because we use natural gas we should
not be concerned about the negative impacts of fracking in Denton.
Here’s their logic: if you use plastics and
electricity or grill steaks, then you must accept the cancer-causing air
emissions, waste of clean water, and noise of fracking in your neighborhood.
Frack
Free Denton is not a movement against natural gas.
Rather, it is against the permitting of toxic industrial activities near homes,
schools, and parks. It is a movement for safe
and healthy communities and people’s rights to peacefully enjoy their property.
With the ban on fracking, the citizens of Denton are
taking a stand for safe and healthy neighborhoods. And the frackers’ response
is to tell us that we have to accept their poisonous activities because natural
gas is used to make lacrosse
sticks!?
That’s how out of touch they are. They just want us
to be meek and compliant consumers, not active citizens protecting our
children, our property, and the future of our town.
According to their absurd logic, as long as we use natural
gas we cannot reject any part of its development (even one process in one town)
no matter how dangerous it is. If that was the way we did things, we’d still be
insulating our schools with asbestos.
Frack Free Denton is all about local
self-determination: the people bearing the negative impacts of hydraulic
fracturing should be the ones to decide. We get to choose what Denton will be. And
we’ve chosen to cultivate the nation’s largest
community garden and to get a nation-leading 40%
of our energy portfolio from renewable, wind-generated
electricity.
Denton has long been shaped by thoughtful citizens. Thanks to their leadership, we are already walking down a path toward
independence from the industry’s unsustainable and harmful products.
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Mineral Ownership
Folks should know that only 2% of profits from fracking belongs to Denton families, while they get 100% of the pollution.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Why do Denton residents have to spend thousands to detect benzene in their backyards?
There are two things I want to address in this blog.
First,
I have asked Dalton Gregory to remove my endorsement statement for his election from his blog and he
will do so on
Sunday when he returns from a trip. It was inappropriate for
me to issue political endorsements like that when I am working as a member of a
non-profit educational group.
Second,
air quality tests that Denton DAG recently released show benzene at dangerous levels in a Denton neighborhood
near gas wells.
Air
monitoring is so important because in the backwards Texas regulatory system, fracking is treated
as innocent until proven guilty. Even though we know the industry is using
carcinogenic and toxic chemicals, the burden of proof falls on the residents to establish that those
chemicals are trespassing into their
neighborhoods and their bloodstreams.
Who can monitor our air to keep it safe and healthy? State agencies don’t have the funding, personnel, or equipment to even come close to an adequate monitoring program. There are 18,000 gas wells on the Barnett Shale and TCEQ has six air monitors! And when TCEQ responds to complaints, they are going to be taking measurements long after the emissions event and after the industry knows they are coming.
That
means it is up to local communities to monitor the industry. Southlake, Grand
Prairie, and Hurst all have monitoring programs as part of their drilling
ordinances.
For
two years, DAG repeatedly recommended a program
be built into Denton’s ordinance.
When
it came time for the final vote in January, 2013, Denton City Council, including Councilman Gregory, did
not include a monitoring program in the ordinance. BUT they promised
to make an air monitoring program as a stand-alone requirement. This, they
said, would be even better, because it would avoid the vested rights issue so
that monitoring would apply to all gas well sites – old and new.
I
expected City Council would get to work on this right away. But they didn’t. In
fact, in the fifteen months since they made that promise, they have had one
meeting about air monitoring. Our
elected officials have done nothing to monitor the air and not enough to
protect the health and safety of the people who elected them.
I
know lots of people pushed the issue, but I’ll just speak for myself. I wrote
e-mails and made phone calls. I met with city officials to see how we could
start a program. I wrote blogs trying to spur action. DAG brought Jay Olaguer,
one of Texas’ leading air quality scientists, to Denton to give a presentation
on monitoring. Jay and I tried to work with Denton and other cities to build a
regional consortium for monitoring.
There
was little cooperation and no action.
The
city could have required in the
ordinance that operators pay
the expense of monitoring. Instead,
citizens have to pass the hat to collect the thousands of dollars it takes to
get Summa canister samples. They have to wait for months on end to get a few
hours with one of the only FLIR cameras in the region (these cameras can cost
$40,000 or more).
And
when citizen test results confirm the
presence of toxic chemicals, industry
spouts lies about how the cameras are only seeing heat waves when in
fact those cameras are designed
to detect and make visible only
toxic chemicals, not heat waves.
This is the same old stuff out of the tobacco industry’s playbook.
The city’s failure to implement its own monitoring
system has given industry the ability to say there is no danger, placing the
time and expense and responsibility of proving that there is danger on the
backs of the citizens instead of the city.
This is exactly why the citizens have taken the job of writing an adequate fracking ordinance into their own hands.
All of this once again goes to show why we need to ban fracking in Denton. We really, really tried to make it compatible with our city. We tried to internalize costs. We tried to provide safety and monitoring assurances. But at every turn, we met with obstacles.
We
need to flip this backwards system. Ban fracking until we have proof that it
can be done safely – that it can be done without sending benzene into the homes
where our kids are sleeping, into the schools that they attend and
playgrounds and parks where they
play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)