This is unacceptable to greens in California, who broadly reject the Obama administration’s conclusion that fracking is safe. Instead, they depict it as ruinous to the environment, as causing earthquakes and as using up enormous amounts of water that could be put to much better use.

The latter argument — because of its specific implications for drought-wracked California — is a constant presence on state message boards, letters to the editor and talk radio.

But some crucial research is rarely if ever cited. In a 2010 report, Harvard scientists concluded that energy produced by fracking appeared to use less water than the same amount of energy produced by conventional fossil-fuel extraction. “The increased role of shale gas in the U.S. energy sector could result in reduced water consumption,” wrote authors Erik Mielke, Laura Diaz Anadon and Venkatesh Narayanamurti. According to the energy industry, that’s just what has happened in the five years since.

Some big drillers no longer use freshwater

One reason is that technological advances have made it easier for drillers to recycle water than ever. This is from a 2013 Reuters story:

MERTZON, Texas, Nov 21 (Reuters) – At a dusty Texas oilfield, Apache Corp has eliminated its reliance on what arguably could be the biggest long-term constraint for fracking wells in the arid western United States: scarce freshwater.

For only one well, millions of gallons of water are used for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the process that has helped reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil over the past five years by cracking rock deep underground to release oil and gas.

In Irion County, where Apache is drilling dozens of Wolfcamp shale wells in the Permian Basin, the company is meeting its water needs for hydraulic fracturing by using brackish water from the Santa Rosa aquifer and recycling water from wells and fracking using chemicals.

The company’s approach could have broader significance for areas prone to drought. Apache, which has the most rigs running in the Permian, the oil-rich region that spans 59 Texas counties, says the model can cut costs and truck traffic rattling small towns stretched by the country’s drilling boom.

“We’re not using freshwater out here,” Lucian Wray, production manager for Apache’s South Permian region, said of the company’s Barnhart operating area, which is run out of a former hunting lodge. “We are recycling 100 percent of our produced water. We don’t dispose of any of it.”

“Produced water” is a byproduct of oil and natural gas drilling. “Flowback” water is the fluid pushed out of a well during fracking. Apache is recycling both types, which are typically trucked away and put into underground disposal wells.

Some drillers frack without water entirely

And some drillers have stopped using water entirely. This is from a 2013 Houston Chronicle story:

The use of one precious fluid — water — to recover another — oil — chafes in dry country. Rivers and groundwater are receding in Texas for lack of rain and over-pumping just when the demand for water in new oil and gas fields is growing.

Now one exploration and production company in San Antonio is fracturing its wells mostly without water, using gas liquids instead, in a practice that’s beginning to spread. …

BlackBrush Oil & Gas LP is using a butane-rich mix for fracking after being confounded by many of the same obstacles other energy companies face in buying, moving and disposing of large amounts of water.

“Ranchers don’t want to give up their water,” said Jasen Walshak, production manager at BlackBrush.

The term gas liquids refers here to three fluids – propane, butane and pentane – that occur together with natural gas. They’re extracted from natural gas and sold, mostly as fuels.

Switching to gas liquids also seems to reduce controversy for BlackBrush.

“People don’t see water transfer lines all over the place,” Walshak said, referring to the yards and miles of pipe that move water from rural wells to oilfield tanks and rig trucks.

Environmentalists concerned about fossil fuels and global warming are certain to see a downside to these new approaches to fracturing even if they lead to far less water use.

But at the least, these developments show that energy exploration firms are listening to their critics. They realize that it’s in their interest to counteract the gripes about water use that are a staple of much fracking criticism.

Occidental has long been upbeat about fracking’s potential on lands it already owns or controls in California. This is from a piece I wrote in 2012:

Oxy estimates the shale reserves on California land it already controls to have over 20 billion barrels of potential oil –- a claim that the company says is made in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule that only “economically producible” reserves can be cited in SEC filings.

So where have professional investors and energy speculators come down? So far, as the stock chart at right shows, they’re skeptics.

But it appears to be due to market conditions — the plunging cost of oil — not because California Resources is considered poorly managed or to be facing political opposition.

In The Street’s Real Money Pro column of Nov. 14, analyst David Katz predicted CRC’s early plunge — and said it would then be an attractive investment:

At the end of November, Occidental Petroleum (OXY) will distribute the majority (at least 80.1%) of its stake in California Resources (CRC) to OXY shareholders. It’s not uncommon for a new spinoff’s share price to decline in the weeks after distribution as the company’s ownership base changes. And unless the price of oil rallies in the next month, CRC shares are likely to be under even more than the usual selling pressure. However, we think California Resources is an interesting energy production growth story and if you have a 12-18 month time horizon, you may be richly rewarded for picking up the shares from distressed sellers.

The worst two examples of this conscious decision to leave out perhaps the strongest argument that pro-fracking forces can offer were in the Sacramento Bee and the L.A. Times.

In 2013, the Bee’s Pulizer-winning environmental reporter, Tom Knudson, wrote a voluminous, harshly critical look at fracking and California. He never mentioned that the Obama administration believes it to be just like another heavy industry that can be made safe enough with proper regulation.

Also in 2013, U.S. Interior Secretary Sally Jewell held a news conference announcing rules for fracking on federal land. The New York Times noted that Jewell’s remarks included pointed criticism of those who depicted fracking as unsafe. The Los Angeles Times covered the same press conference. Rather incredibly, it ignored Jewell’s remarks and instead quoted an oil industry figure as saying fracking was safe.

Cabinet member hits fracking ‘misinformation’

Now Jewell may have made it close to impossible for the California media to continue ignoring the Obama administration’s view by weighing in with KQED on what she sees as the poor logic behind local fracking bans.

President Obama’s chief custodian of federal lands says local and regional bans on fracking are taking regulation of oil and gas recovery in the wrong direction.

“I would say that is the wrong way to go,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell told KQED in an exclusive interview. “I think it’s going to be very difficult for industry to figure out what the rules are if different counties have different rules.”

In November, two California counties added themselves to a growing list of local bans on hydraulic fracturing. Voters approved measures in San Benito and Mendocino Counties by wide margins.

“There are a lot of fears out there in the general public and that manifests itself with local laws or regional laws,” Jewell said.

The recent move by New York to extend a statewide ban does not sit especially well with Jewell, who, as a former petroleum engineer, has hands-on experience with fracking.

“There is a lot of misinformation about fracking,” Jewell said. “I think that localized efforts or statewide efforts in many cases don’t understand the science behind it and I think there needs to be more science.”

Will the Bee, the Times and other California newspapers ignore this latest affirmation of the Obama administration’s view that fracking is not the devil?

I don’t see how they can — even though it will remind people how long they’ve covered up the views of Jewell, Obama and the administration in general.

By Chris Reed

As I have noted many times in recent months, the Obama administration dismisses claims that hydraulic fracturing — the use of underground water cannons to free up oil and natural gas reserves — is an environmental nightmare. This has been true since the president’s first year in office. This is incredibly relevant to California, given that we could benefit enormously from “fracking” were it allowed to proceed and release the energy in the Monterey Shale.

But it took four years for this truth to finally appear in the pages of The Los Angeles Times — and even then it was in an op-ed, not in the news pages, which would rather not share with LAT readers the Obama administration’s gung-ho support of fracking’s safety.

Now it is time to start calling out California journalists by name for their refusal to provide the key context that the administration of the greenest president in history says fracking is just another heavy industry that can be made safe with proper regulation.

He writes about fracking safety, never mentions Obama stand

Meet Timm Herdt of the Ventura County Star. He’s written many times about fracking, which could soon be big in eastern Ventura County if state regulators don’t get in the way. His latest piece — the link is from the Contra Costa Times, which doesn’t have a paywall, unlike the Star — is about how fracking scare tactics have fared in California.

“There is evidence to suggest that Californians are not so different from New Yorkers in their apprehension over fracking. In fact, a USC poll of Californians last month and a Siena College poll of New Yorkers this month revealed nearly identical public sentiment: 45 percent opposition here, 44 percent opposition in New York, and 37 percent support in both states.

“‘In New York, we are winning,’ Mark Schlosberg of Food and Water Watch told the crowd in San Jose last week. He said activists there have made it clear to lawmakers that there are political consequences to supporting fracking and that they’ve also dogged Gov. Mario Cuomo to keep up the pressure to maintain the moratorium.

“‘In California, fracking is virtually unregulated,’ he said. ‘Gov. Jerry Brown could really make a big difference.’

“Except there’s this: When asked publicly last month about his thoughts on fracking, Brown’s response was that while there are issues to examine, it ‘could be a fabulous economic opportunity.'”

Context? Not from Timm. Federal views of fracking disregarded

But did Herdt mention the Obama administration’s upbeat depictions of fracking’s safety? Did he make the obvious point that this might be why Gov. Brown is sounding positive about fracking? Did he cite the stands of the president’s energy secretary, interior secretary and EPA chief, all of whom deride fracking alarmism?

Nah.

Timm Herdt, for whatever reason, has decided that’s just not relevant to his coverage of fracking in California.

Incredible.