Going by the metrics, John Chiang may be the strongest candidate to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018 or U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer in 2016.

You’d never know it by the way the media have zeroed in on Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Kamala Harris — even before the Nov. 4 election in which both were re-elected. Chiang, the outgoing state controller, was elected as state treasurer. All are Democrats.

As far back as 2011, reporters have been setting the stage for the inevitable “Kamala vs. Gavin” showdown.

“Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris: the California Democratic Party’s future?” the L.A. Times asked in 2011. “The party’s top officeholders — Gov. Jerry Brown and U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer — are all in their 70s. Newsom and Harris top the list of up-and-comers.”

The Friday following this month’s election, the San Francisco Chronicle asked, “Newsom vs. Harris: Who got bigger bang for the buck?” In his recent speculation on the next round of Democratic name brands, Los Angeles Times columnist George Skelton mentioned Chiang as an afterthought. That was better than his colleague Cathleen Decker, who didn’t bother to include Chiang in her list of Democrats in waiting.

Consultants, too, are billing the Kamala vs. Gavin show.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that they’re on a collision course for running for governor in 2018,” Democratic consultant Garry South told the Times earlier this year.

Yet, when you look at every available metric, Chiang has outperformed both Newsom and Harris: 2014 margin of victory, lifetime votes, number of successful campaigns, cash on hand and party support.

2014 Margin of victory: Chiang closest to Brown’s vote total

There are still roughly half-a-million late absentee and provisional ballots left to count, but Chiang is on pace to deliver the best performance of any statewide candidate after Brown.

Despite being further down the ballot than Newsom, Chiang earned the most votes after Brown and had the widest margin of victory after Brown. He’ll be the second candidate in the state to hit 4 million votes in Nov. 2014.

Chiang performed 2.8 percentage points better than Harris, and 3.4 percentage points better than Newsom. His margin of victory – 17.2 percentage points – was closer to Brown’s 19.4 percentage points than it was to Harris’ or Newsom’s figures.

If you were to classify winning Democrats, you’d put Brown and Chiang in Tier 1 and Harris and Newsom in Tier 2.

Lifetime votes & number of successful campaigns

In the past 16 years, Chiang has appeared on the ballot 10 times, winning every race. That’s one better than Newsom and three more campaigns than Harris. He also has run for seats with more voters than Newsom or Harris. His lifetime vote total, 21.3 million, is nearly double that for Harris.

Every time that Chiang, Harris and Newsom have appeared on the same ballot, Chiang has been the top vote-getter. Of the bunch, Chiang is the only one who has exceeded 5 million votes in an election.

Money: Chiang raised most in 2014, most cash on hand

Statewide campaigns don’t come cheap, and Chiang steadily has improved his fundraising. In 2014, Chiang raised more money than either Harris or Newsom. And not by small margins either. According to the state campaign finance records as of October 18, Chiang’s $1.9 million raised in 2014 was $800,384 more than Harris and $382,510.54 more than Newsom.

Chiang has more available cash on hand, $3.19 million, compared to $2.8 million for Newsom and $2.39 million for Harris. One note on this figure: It’s possible Harris spent down her state campaign account because she can’t directly transfer those funds to an account for a potential federal campaign. But that should be dismissed.

State candidates can get creative with how to spend, transfer and shift resources between state and federal accounts. She could, for example, refund checks to donors, and then solicit those donors to support her new federal campaign account. 

And remember, Chiang outperformed Harris on Election Night 2014, meaning she spent extra money to boost her name ID, but still couldn’t match Chiang’s result. Chiang spent less, has more in the bank and performed better.

Sharing the Wealth: Chiang’s given more to Democrats

Who shares their wealth and is a team player? Again, on paper, it’s Chiang, who outperforms both Harris and Newsom. In 2014, Chiang donated $55,000 from his campaign committee to Democratic Party committees. That’s substantially more than the $11,500 donated by Harris or $3,790 by Newsom.

All three politicians pledged to raise or give the same amount to the Democratic Party this cycle.

That may be true, but Chiang’s financial support is easier to quantify, which will come in handy for persuading Democratic activists and delegates to support him in a tough primary fight.

Newspaper Endorsements: Chiang’s Clean Sweep

Scott Lay, the publisher of The Nooner and AroundtheCapitol.com, kept tabs on newspaper endorsements in the Nov. 2014 general election. Of the three Democrats, Chiang was the only one to achieve a clean sweep of newspaper endorsements throughout the state. The Orange County Register declined to endorse in 扑克王粤语在线 both the lieutenant governor’s and attorney general’s race. The UT San Diego backed Republican Ron Nehring over Newsom and declined to endorse in the attorney general’s race.

Both of those newspapers lean to the right, which makes Chiang’s endorsements all the more impressive and useful in a Top 2 primary. The only other candidate to achieve the feat was reformer Marshall Tuck’s bid for state superintendent of schools.

Other factors

Two final things. Chiang has a potential geographic edge as the lone Southern Californian. Both Harris and Newsom hail from San Francisco.

And when it comes to picking governors, sometimes voters have a funny habit of ignoring the early favorites. Just ask Gov. Al Checchi.

By Chris Reed

The 13th chapter of fracking watch will be the last installment for a while until some more nations around the world take up the issue of whether hydraulic fracturing is a bad or good thing. For this installment — instead of focusing on a government that has figured out fracking is just another heavy industry — I will focus on a First World nation with a strong green movement that seemed to be in the same stalled situation as California. Until last week, that is.

It’s Great Britain. Like California, Britain has a history as an oil producer. Like California, it has ardent environmentalists who depict fracking as a new and evil technology, not an old technology that has gotten radically better because of information technology breakthroughs that make it far more efficient. But after a heated debate in Parliament and the media, the realization that fracking only become a green evil when it killed the “peak oil” assessment of world energy needs seems to have sunken in. In California, we still have lame media coverage that never acknowledges that the Obama administration sees fracking as just another heavy industry, not the devil. In Great Britain, reality is being acknowledged.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 13: Great Britain

This is from a May 3 story on CNN’s website:

“LONDON — Britain’s government lifted its ban on a controversial mining process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, Thursday, allowing companies to continue their exploration of shale gas reserves.

“Energy Secretary Edward Davey said the decision was subject to new controls to limit the risks of seismic activity.

“A halt was called to fracking last year after two small earthquakes in Lancashire, northwestern England, where Cuadrilla Resources was exploring for shale gas.

“The process involves pumping millions of gallons of water and chemicals into shale formations deep beneath the Earth’s surface, causing the fracturing of the rock and the release of natural gas.”

The CNN report says that Britain’s greens seem more worried about fracking causing earthquakes that tainting drinking water. (For the record, the U.S. EPA thinks that’s a crock.)

“The new controls imposed by the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change include a requirement to carry out a seismic survey before work starts.

“Firms involved must also draw up a plan showing how the seismic risks will be limited, and monitor seismic activity before, during and after the exploration.”

A ‘turning point’ for Britain’s energy future

But in the end, common sense appears to have prevailed.

“Cuadrilla Resources said Thursday’s decision to allow fracking to resume marked a significant step for Britain’s future onshore gas industry.

“‘Today’s news is a turning point for the country’s energy future. Shale gas has the potential to create jobs, generate tax revenues, reduce our reliance on imported gas, and improve our balance of payments,’ chief executive Francis Egan said in a statement.

“In an interview with CNN, Egan insisted that fracking could be done ‘safely and sensibly’ in Britain and that there are huge reserves to be exploited.

“The company believes there is about 200 trillion cubic feet of gas under the ground just within its license area in Lancashire. To put that figure into context, the United Kingdom uses about 3 trillion cubic feet of gas a year, Egan said.”

So after an intense two-year debate, reason has won out in Britain. If only we could hope for such a logical process in California.

Fracking and climate change: What the reflexive critics ignore

And if only we could see California greens note that the fracking revolution’s success in accessing natural gas reserves is a tremendously positive development on the climate-change front. Some fossil fuels are way, way better than others.

Fred Pearce, a columnist for the lefty Guardian of London, goes where California’s rigid, hidebound greens won’t in an essay headlined “Fracking: the monster we greens must embrace.” His key point:

“The thing is, fossil fuels differ. Coal is uniquely nasty. But burning natural gas produces only half as much carbon dioxide as burning coal. So shale gas could be part of the solution to climate change, rather than part of the problem.

“Take the US. From a standing start a decade ago, it now gets more than a quarter of its natural gas from shale. Production is so cheap there that shale gas is replacing coal in power stations; and as a result its carbon dioxide emissions are the lowest since 1992. Low energy prices are even encouraging the manufacturing of some goods to return from China, where they were mostly made using coal-fired energy. What’s not to like?”

Have you ever heard anything remotely as pragmatic from a California green?

Nope. They belong to a religion that encourages people to feel morally superior to those who disagree with them on anything — and to see fossil fuels as evil no matter what. They aren’t part of a movement with a sophisticated worldview. If they were, a lot more would sound like Fred Pearce.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

No. 6: Canada

No. 7: Argentina

No. 8: Mexico

No. 9: South Africa

No. 10: Poland

No. 11: Algeria

No. 12: Indonesia

By Chris Reed

Nations that are energy giants without being particularly affluent are the least likely places for environmental alarmism to drive public policy. They’re used to aggressively developing natural resources, and they don’t have the large cadres of affluent urban elites for whom environmentalism is a secular religion where faith trumps facts.

That definition very much fits Indonesia, the far-flung archipelago of islands in the southwest Pacific and the northeast Indian oceans. What most people know about Indonesia is limited to recalling that the president lived there as a child and what they remember about the 1965 Sukarno coup attempt from watching “The Year of Living Dangerously.” But besides being the fourth most populous country in the world (251 million people), Indonesia is the world’s largest exporter of coal by weight, the third-biggest exporter of liquefied natural gas and the eighth-biggest exporter of natural gas.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 12: Indonesia

And so, of course, Indonesia and the international energy exploration firms it often partners with are moving aggressively into hydraulic fracturing, eager to join the fracking revolution. Huge shale reserves have been found on both Borneo (shown at right in a map from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists) and Sumatra, Indonesia’s two largest islands.

This is from an April 6 article on The Energy Collective website:

“A study by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, estimated that Indonesia has geologically attractive shale gas resources in the Barito and Kutei basins of Kalimantan [shown above] … .

“Edy Hermantoro, an upstream oil and gas director at the energy and mineral resources ministry of Indonesia said ‘Bandung Technology University estimates that Indonesia holds 1,000 tcf [trillion cubic feet] of shale gas reserves’.”

Trillions and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas

This is from a May 1 story on Upstream, an online trade publication of the oil and gas industry:

“Australia-listed NuEnergy Gas has started hydraulic fracturing operations at its Muara Enim production sharing contract in Indonesia, in a step to advance first gas sales by the end of this year.

“The company said on Wednesday that a fracking programme using radial jetting techniques had begun in five new untested coalbeds covering about 29 metres of gross pay.

“The programme is aiming to improve the production potential of the Suban coal seams, provide information for resource auditors to calculate reserves, and confirm the water and gas production characteristics across the full spread of coals underlying the PSC in Sumatra, Indonesia. …

“NuEnergy’s exploration programme is progressively proving and de-risking the South Sumatra CBM (coalbed methane) resource which is estimated by the Indonesian Government to be in excess of 180 Tcf (trillion cubic feet),’ [said NuEnergy chief executive Chris Newport].”

The straightforward, mature Indonesian approach — study and confirm resources; evaluate opportunities and risks; establish relationships with firms with fracking expertise; start small but think big — boy, could we use that in California.

Instead, an Assembly committee rushes to pass legislation that bans fracking based largely on the lie that it pollutes groundwater. Hydraulic fracturing occurs thousands of feet below the groundwater table. That is one of many reasons that the Obama administration has concluded it’s just another heavy industry that needs strong regulation, not the devil.

This lack of clear thinking is why I’ve undertaken my tour of fracking around the planet for CalWatchdog. My point: If California doesn’t exploit its huge energy reserves, that won’t stop the rest of the world from joining the brown energy revolution, leaving the Golden State at a huge competitive disadvantage and killing manufacturing as a noticeable source of jobs. The whining from greens in California and Europe can grow so loud that if deafens people, but it’s not going to derail the appeal of fracking in the places where people are geologically and economically literate and sensible.

It’s not just the Halliburton in-house newsletter that is speculating fossil fuels will be around forever because of fracking and other unconventional developments. It’s extremely respected journalists like The Atlantic’s Charles C. Mann.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

No. 6: Canada

No. 7: Argentina

No. 8: Mexico

No. 9: South Africa

No. 10: Poland

No. 11: Algeria

By Chris Reed

Hydraulic fracturing — the use of underground water cannons to blast open access to energy reserves — has been around since the 1940s in the United States and Canada and for nearly as long in Russia. In no country anywhere in the world did enviros depict fracking as hell on Earth until the past few years, when hyrdraulic fracturing got much more efficient and suddenly began a threat to greens’ all-out push for costly renewable energy.

Last week, alas, the geniuses in the Legislature took initial steps to block fracking in California when AB 1301 and two other anti-fracking bills passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Green-sycophant lawmakers simply don’t care that the Obama administration sees fracking as just another heavy industry that is dirty but can be made OK with strong regulation.

This pandering and the media’s pathetic acceptance of the NRDC narratives about fracking are why I have blogging each morning since April 27 about the nations around the world that embrace fracking and thus common sense. Duh — cheap energy is good. Duh — having as low energy costs as your economic rivals is good. Duh duh duh.

So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Mexico, South Africa.and Poland. Now it’s Algeria’s turn. What’s my point? As I have written here before, it’s that the fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the Golden State and Europe want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 11: Algeria

The fracking debate in Algeria reflects the debate in so many countries. The greens complain, the experts weigh in, and then fracking is embraced. Driving the debate to an odd degree: U.S. government estimates of shale reserves, which are considered honest and unbiased by local politics. This is from a January report in The Economist (trn stands for trillion):

“North Africa is known for its conventional gas production, but attention is now beginning to turn to unconventional resources, especially shale gas. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania and Western Sahara hold 557trn cu ft of technically recoverable shale-gas resources. Libya and Algeria top the pile, with 290trn cu ft and 231trn cu ft each, although Algeria’s energy minister, Youcef Yousfi, has put his country’s reserves as high as 1,000trn cu ft. This seems optimistic, but is an accurate indicator of the level of enthusiasm for shale gas in Algeria.

“Among aspiring North African exploiters of shale gas, Algeria has come furthest …. negotiations with ExxonMobil are in progress, while agreements have been struck with Royal Dutch Shell, Italy’s Eni and Canada’s Talisman. Eni has drilled a first test well in south-west Algeria, although the results are not yet public. Meanwhile, in Libya Talisman has held talks and the Polish Oil and Gas Company (PGNiG) says it is keen to explore for unconventional resources in the Sirte Basin. In Tunisia, which has an estimated 18trn cu ft of shale gas, Shell is discussing a potential exploration and production contract. Any gas produced would be sold in the domestic market, though no memorandum of understanding has yet been signed.”

‘No alternative’ but to develop shale gas

This is from a November report in Agence France-Presse:

“Algeria, the world’s fourth-largest gas exporter, has decided to develop its shale gas potential as well … . Officials say the country’s shale gas reserves are 17 trillion cubic metres, or around four times greater than its current known gas reserves.

“Algeria may be the world’s eighth-largest natural gas producer in 2011, according to the BP Statistical Review of Energy, but domestic consumption is surging. Official forecasts say that, from 2019, local demand will eat up all the country’s production.

“At present, 50 years after it gained independence, the country remains almost totally dependent on hydrocarbons, which account for 90% of its exports.

“So as long as it fails to diversify its export base, it has no alternative than to develop shale gas, an unconventional fossil fuel, to secure its energy future, experts say.

“A new hydrocarbons bill, to be introduced in parliament in the coming weeks, encourages the exploration of unconventional gas and oil resources.”

Cheap energy? Bah, humbug

This is the new world we live in. But is it the world that California lawmakers and green cultists live in? Nope. So unless Gov. Jerry Brown finally lives up to his self-hype as the smartest man in the Golden State, look for manufacturing jobs to disappear — and that’s just for starters.

There are few things more important to economic competitiveness that the cost of energy. Between AB 32 and a moratorium on fracking, state elected officials could hardly do more to damage the state’s economy.

But, hey, what do they care? They’ve got jobs.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

No. 6: Canada

No. 7: Argentina

No. 8: Mexico

No. 9: South Africa

No. 10: Poland

By Chris Reed

Last week, the state Legislature took a first step toward blocking fracking in California. An Assembly committee passed three anti-fracking measuers. The first coverage of the Assembly votes by the Ventura County Star did not note that the Obama administration’s first secretary of energy and his replacement consider fracking just another heavy industry, or that the president used fracking’s success in triggering a natural gas boom as a 2012 campaign applause line.

But what’s new? The California media using the preferred narrative of the Sierra Club on environmental issues is the norm. It wasn’t until this year, for example, that the Los Angeles Times acknowledged how risky AB 32 is for the state’s economy.

To counter this pathetic groupthink, since April 27, I’ve blogged every morning about the nations around the world that are embracing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in oil and natural gas exploration on economic competitiveness grounds. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada, Argentina, Mexico and South Africa. Now it’s Poland’s turn. What’s my point? As I’ve written here before, it’s that the fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the Golden State and Europe want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 10: Poland

The fracking debate in Poland has taken odd twists not seen in the nine other nations I’ve written about. Here’s where it stood in fall 2011, per the London Independent:

“At an economic forum in Poland … the hottest topic … was of the potential for shale gas, a resource that has quietly altered the balance of energy provision in the United States and helped bring prices there down by a fifth in the past five years.

“Initial surveys indicate Poland has enormous reserves of shale gas. One from the US Department of Energy, suggestsPoland could have as much as 5.3 trillion cubic metres — equivalent to 300 years’ domestic consumption.

“But drilling for shale gas is controversial, especially among environmentalists. Although the technique — which involves extracting the gas by blasting the shale rock layers with high pressure sand, water and chemicals – has been known for a century, it is only in the past decade that it has become economically and technologically viable. But many fear that such “fracking” causes subsidence and contaminates ground water, and it has been banned in France, Switzerland and some US states …

“The Green movement also fears that new, and exploitable, supplies of gas could reduce prices to the point where investment in alternative energy sources, such as wind and wave power does not make economic sense.”

Backing fracking as a ‘national mission’

Wow. The London Independent makes a point that the California media pretend isn’t true or relevant. All hail the Independent. Back to its 2011 Poland coverage:

“In Poland … exploitation of shale gas is well on the way to becoming something of a national mission. Poland’s Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, has described shale gas as his country’s’great chance’ to turn Poland from an energy importer to a major exporter within a generation. And the subtext for Warsaw is that shale gas could not only make Poland into an exporter, but also end its age-old energy dependence on Russia.”

So how has this angle driven the politics of fracking in Poland? To this result, which may seem absurd to any American but maybe not to Poles with a sense of history, especially those aware of rumors that Russia is behind anti-fracking campaigns much as the Soviet Union was the muscle behind the nuclear freeze movement of the early 1980s. This is from an April account in priceofoil.org:

“The Polish government is proposing new [fracking] legislation which campaigners argue would ‘effectively eliminate the possibility of organised opposition.’ This is happening in a country where campaigners say they are already operating in a ‘climate of fear’.

“Under new laws being proposed, groups will only be able to participate in the legal debate over fracking if they have been in existence for over 12 months.

“According to an article in Natural Gas Europe: ‘This will mean that community groups and organisations which have only just formed” in response to the government’s new fracking plans ‘will be unable to participate in decision making processes that directly affect them.'”

Now this, of course, is awfully sketchy. But Russia does have a huge interest in maintaining the status quo — and a history of duplicity.

In California, of course, the choice about whether to pursue fracking is much more straightforward. At least in theory. One would think the Obama administration’s acceptance would be a key factor in this debate. One would think.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

No. 6: Canada

No. 7: Argentina

No. 8: Mexico

No. 9: South Africa

By Chris Reed

Hydraulic fracturing has been around for decades in our northern neighbor, just as it has been in the U.S. And what do you know? Canadian enviros only began complaining about fracking in recent years when its new IT-driven efficiency suddenly made it a threat to their push for a dreamy pure green energy future — just like with the enviros in the United States. Oh, what a strange coincidence.

Alas, the Legislature has taken initial steps to block fracking in California. On Monday, AB 1301 and two other anti-fracking bills passed the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Lawmakers simply don’t care that the Obama administration sees fracking as just another heavy industry.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 6: Canada

This indifference to reason is why starting last Saturday, every morning I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that are embracing fracking. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. Today it’s Canada’s turn.

My point: The fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the newsrooms of the L.A. Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind. This is from the Montreal Gazette:

“As Canadians expect a transition to a less carbon-intensive energy future, partnering becomes an essential piece of the renewable picture.

“Natural gas is the cleanest-burning hydrocarbons, making it an ideal partner to intermittent renewable options. It offers a reliable energy source during periods when intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, are unable to provide adequate capacity, and it can be used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a variety of ways, including transportation and electricity generation. …

“Canada is the world’s third-largest producer of natural gas, and natural gas provides almost one-third of the energy used by Canadians. …

“Natural gas trapped in unconventional formations is typically located two to three kilometres below the Earth’s surface and thousands of metres below drinking water aquifers. Drinking water aquifers are typically found less than 300 metres below the surface.

“Available technologies, including hydraulic fracturing, are continually adapted to safely and economically produce natural gas from these challenging geological formations. … Over the course of the past 60-years-plus, more than 175,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured in Canada, including in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec and New Brunswick.  ‘About 85% of current oil and gas activity in British Columbia, and 70% in Alberta, involves hydraulic fracturing. It is a common practice in the industry,’ Mr. Heffernan says.”

Fracking is evil! Proof? Picky, picky, picky!

And what is the Canadian consensus? That it’s just another manageable heavy industry, not the devil — the same conclusion as the Obama administration.

“The Canadian natural gas industry is one of the most regulated in the world. In addition to regulations specific to individual provinces, all have laws to minimize impact, protect freshwater aquifers and ensure responsible development.”

But none of this seemingly matters to Democrats in the Legislature. Fracking is new (no), a huge threat to groundwater (no), a huge causer of dangerous earthquakes (no).

If only the media addressed and then debunked these claims with one-millionth the effort they do with factually challenged claims on most high-profile issues.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

No. 5: Brazil

By Chris Reed

The passage of anti-fracking legislation by an Assembly committee Monday could lead to a showdown between green Dem lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown, who’s struck a measured tone so far on hyrdaulic fracturing, the radically improved energy extraction technology that’s touched off an economic boom in the Dakotas, Montana, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

But what’s really needed is a showdown between the U.S. environmental movement and reality. Fracking is not new. It occurs thousands of feet below the groundwater table and the Obama administration has concluded it’s just another heavy industry, not the devil. And if California doesn’t exploit its huge energy reserves, that won’t stop the rest of the world from joining the brown energy revolution, leaving the Golden State at a huge competitive disadvantage and killing manufacturing as a noticeable source of jobs.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 5: Brazil

This is why that starting last Saturday, every morning I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that are embracing fracking. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia. Today I’m writing about Brazil, which is on track to be an economic superpower in coming decades because of its immense natural resources. My point: The fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in Brentwood, Santa Barbara and San Francisco think, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

“From the shale underlying Western Pennsylvania to the deep-sea oil off the coast of Brazil, emerging energy sources have policymakers and entrepreneurs from both hemispheres talking business. … oil fields off the coast here — and shale formations in the country’s south — have Brazilian companies keen on drilling, and Pennsylvania’s experiences exploring and extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale have been a central point of discussion since a trade delegation began meetings in Sao Paulo this week.

“‘They have a very similar balance of energy portfolio,’ [Pennsylvania] Gov. Tom Corbett said in an interview. … On a one-day visit here Wednesday, Mr. Corbett met with Sergio Cabral, governor of Rio de Janeiro state, in his office at the Palacio Guanabara, the seat of state government. In addition to discussing conditions for business and systems of education in their states, Mr. Corbett said, the governors signed an agreement to collaborate, particularly on issues related to oil and natural gas. … ‘He’s very interested in the shale gas because they do have shale gas.’

“Mr. Corbett said he discussed a similar agreement during an earlier meeting with the vice governor of Sao Paulo. …

“Braskem America has five U.S. plants, a research and development center in Pittsburgh and last year acquired a portion of the Sunoco refinery at Marcus Hook, outside of Philadelphia. …”

“‘We are all aware of the shale gas revolution in the United States since the start of this century,’ said Carlos Mariani, vice president of the Federation of Industries of the State of Rio de Janeiro.”

Who bragged about gains from U.S. fracking? His initials are BHO

That’s from an April 12 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story. Thirty-one fracking companies, many from the U.S., have set up shop in Brazil. That reflects an important point that doesn’t get brought up much. America’s fracking expertise means the rest of the world will have to rely on our firms for years to come — another direct boon for our economy besides the cheap energy resulting from fracking on U.S. land.

And I would like to once again point out that the White House is OK with fracking. Who bragged about the U.S. becoming the “Saudi Arabia of natural gas” — thanks entirely to fracking — on the campaign trail?

A fellow named Barack Obama. Here’s the video clip for green propagandists. Not that it will stop them.

Greenpeace hinted at the truth in a 2012 policy statement.

“Greenpeace opposes fracking because it diverts from real solutions (including energy efficiency and renewables), and the full effects on the environment and health has not been fully investigated or addressed.”

Reason no. 1 is what drives the myths. The greens were so close to having their worldview be the only accepted alternative going forward on energy issues. Then fracking changed the world.

Fracking watch: Previous posts

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

No. 4: Saudi Arabia

By Chris Reed

On Monday, an Assembly committee took up three bills intended to ban or limit fracking in California. All three passed. Incredibly and pathetically, the first coverage of this development — by the Ventura County Star’s Timm Herdt — did not note that the Obama administration considers fracking just another heavy industry, not the devil incarnate.

But this is the norm. And this is why that starting last Saturday, every morning I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that are embracing hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on economic competitiveness grounds. So far I’ve covered Germany, China and Russia. Today I’m writing about the nation that was was supplanted last year by the U.S. as the world leader in oil production because of fracking. My point: The fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in Santa Monica, Ventura County and Marin County think, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 4: Saudi Arabia

What does the world look like from Riyadh, as opposed to Sacramento? Like this:

“After much resistance and a mix of disdain and resentfulness, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries suddenly decided to embrace fracking … That means, of course, that it’s really Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s largest member and frequent dissenter among the organization’s ranks, that has done the embracing. Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi told reporters in Hong Kong the kingdom intends to remain an energy powerhouse, partly by adopting new technology.

“Naimi estimated Saudi Arabia has roughly 600 trillion cubic feet of unconventional shale gas. ‘The potential is very huge and we plan to exploit it,’ he told The Wall Street Journal on Monday.

“The Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration says Saudi Arabia’s proven natural-gas reserves are 288 trillion cubic feet as of the end of 2012. That’s the fifth largest behind Russia, Iran, Qatar and the U.S., the EIA said.”

That’s from a March article on marketwatch.com.

Who’s figured out fracking has changed world and who hasn’t

If one reads the professional journals on energy exploration, as opposed to newspapers and magazines with an incredibly superficial familiarity with the issue, you quickly notice the matter-of-fact acceptance of the idea that the world is way different than it was a decade ago, and it’s because of unconventional strategies pioneered by U.S. firms. Here’s a technical journal, for example, that provides an account of how the Saudis are adapting hydraulic fracturing to the conditions in their drilling areas.

If only the California media could sever its allegiance to the reflexive green agenda and stick to the facts. Fact 1: The Obama administration says it’s just another heavy industry. Fact 2: The rest of the world isn’t following California’s lead. AB 1301, which passed at the committee level Monday, might as well be titled “The California Manufacturing Ban Act of 2013.” Energy costs are crucial to manufacturing and to the economy in general.

But then why should state reporters show an appreciation for Econ 101? That would get them dirty looks at the water cooler and in the hallways of the Capitol.

Fracking watch

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China

No. 3: Russia

By Chris Reed

Today, AB 1301, which would halt in-state fracking, comes before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. As I noted this weekend, fracking has been scrutinized by the Obama administration, which concluded it was just another heavy industry. Groundwater contamination claims are goofy, given that fracking occurs thousands of feet under the water table. But it’s all green groups have to slow down the brown energy revolution.

Starting with Saturday’s post on Germany and continuing Sunday with China, I will blog each day about a nation that sees how fracking threatens to give the U.S. a huge economic advantage — cheaper energy — and wants a piece of the action. What is my point? That sane people making reasoned long-term decisions embrace fracking, whatever California’s Legislature does.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 3: Russia

Russia has used fracking for decades — as I noted Sunday, the technology has been around for more than 60 years but only drew enviro ire when it became far more efficient. Now Russia is gearing up fracking both to keep oil coming from old wells and to develop its immense shale reserves. This is from a Bloomberg News article last month:

“Fracking isn’t just for shale. In Russia, producers are importing techniques from the U.S. to squeeze billions of dollars of extra oil from Soviet-era fields.

TNK-BP, Russia’s third-largest producer, will use hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling in almost half the wells it sinks this year, a sixfold increase in just two years, the company said. OAO Rosneft (ROSN), OAO Lukoil (LKOH) and OAO Gazprom Neft have similar plans.

“So-called fracking, the process of blasting oil from rock by injecting a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into wells, has been used for years in Russia’s Siberian oil heartland to stimulate production. What’s new is allying it with horizontal drilling, turning the drill-bit 90 degrees to bore horizontally to reach more oil-bearing rock. The pairing was perfected in the U.S. to get economically viable flows out of shale deposits. Used in Russia, producers are recovering 15 percent more crude from aging deposits.”

And as with China, Russia is teaming in unusual ways with Western energy companies to develop its natural-gas reserves:

“The Bazhenov shale, a layer of rock the size of France that lies underneath Siberia’s producing fields, may hold more oil than Saudi Arabia, according to Russia’s subsoil agency. The geology is similar to North Dakota’s Bakken shale, where production has more than doubled in two years to 700,000 barrels a day, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

“Gazprom Neft (SIBN) and partner Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA) will spend $200 million over the next three years in the Salym area of the Bazhenov, according to the Russian company. Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and Rosneft also plan to explore the area.”

Wow — “a layer of rock the size of France.”

As I wrote this weekend, if the state branch of the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council get their way, California will see its last manufacturing job exit in less than a decade. Cheaper energy is an immense competitive advantage in the global economy. Nearly the entire world understands this, as my series is showing.

Fracking watch

No. 1: Germany

No. 2: China