But this rapid growth is slowing as Hawaiian Electric Co., Hawaii’s sole power utility, increasingly objects to policies that require it to buy excess power from these homes at rates it sees as overly generous. This report is from last month:

In a filing with the state Public Utilities Commission last month, HECO argued that solar system owners can end up paying nothing to the utility, yet still rely on its grid daily, drawing electricity at night and when clouds pass. That means grid operation and maintenance costs are “increasingly being shifted from those who have solar to those who don’t,” wrote HECO in the filing.

This foreshadows a big battle that lies ahead in California: whether and/or how much residential solar installations should be encouraged with de facto or direct subsidies. So far, according to the utilitydive.com website tracking utility news around the U.S., California’s regulators appear wary of a commitment to any subsidies, not just long-term ones.

‘Costs should be borne by participants’

Last week, the website took an in-depth look at the latest version of the California Public Utilities Commission’s community solar rule, which has been crafted in response to a state law committing California to establishing 600 megawatts of community solar power generation. The first principle of the regulations is sure to spur criticism from politicians and advocacy groups who want California to shift even more quickly than it is away from fossil fuels:

Careful rate design and procurement can create ratepayer indifference and prevent program costs from being shifted to non-participating utility customers. …

The first finding was central for the IOUs [investor-owned utilities]. “Our program adheres to a principle that program costs should be borne by participants,” noted PG&E Community Solar Program Manager Molly Hoyt. “There is no cross-subsidy paid by non-participating customers.”

But in accepting the utilities’ proposals for rates and contract terms, said VoteSolar Western Region Director Susannah Churchill, it is possible the commission compromised affordability.

“I am worried that affordability is going to be a problem and the limitation that customers can only subscribe to the program for a maximum of one year means that they can’t lock in their credits and charges long term,” Churchill explained. “That is going to create uncertainty and may be a big barrier for program uptake.”

While mid-size solar projects remain more expensive than conventional generation, a small premium for renewables makes sense, she said. Many customers will be willing to pay more for 50 percent or 100 percent renewables-generated electricity.

Friendly to solar homeowners — or to state economy?

As state lawmakers gear up for successor laws to 2006’s landmark AB32 energy-regulation law, and as solar panels come down in price, this debate will grow ever more heated. It can be framed as whether alternative-energy policies and laws should be friendly to homeowners doing the right thing for the environment or whether they should be assessed in a cold, bottom-line fashion about their overall impact on energy costs and the economy.

Germany’s experience with its national Energiewende policy, adopted in 2011, holds lessons for California regulators and politicians. This is from a 2013 Reuters story:

Angela Merkel’s “green revolution” risks becoming a victim of its own success.

Seduced by generous subsidies, Germans are embracing the ambitious project with such fervor — installing solar panels on church roofs and converting sewage into heat — that instead of benefiting from a rise in green energy, they are straining under the subsidies’ cost and from surcharges. …

“Germany’s dilemma is how to keep industry’s energy prices low enough to remain competitive and meet ambitious (green) targets while also maintaining a balanced budget,” said Will Pearson, head of global energy at the Eurasia Group in London. “Addressing these will pose a political challenge.”

So attractive are the incentives, or feed-in tariffs, that the rapid expansion of renewable power has driven up the surcharges which fund them and are paid for by consumers. The charge rose by 47 percent this year alone.

Both households and industry are feeling the pain and exporters complain that the energy shift has driven up power prices so much that their competitiveness is being eroded.

This may portend what awaits California in coming years as environmentalists ramp up their push for renewable energy. If the effort leads to broadly higher prices, a reprise of 2010’s Proposition 23 fight is likely. That ballot measure attempted to suspend AB32 until state unemployment was at 5.5 percent of below for 12 consecutive months. It lost 61.5 percent to 38.5 percent after being depicted as an attack on air pollution laws.

The odds of a successor measure passing would seem likely to be much higher if California residents and businesses faced a Germany-sized green-energy price shock. Supporters of the 2010 initiative didn’t only include oil companies and voters who thought California shouldn’t go it alone in trying to reduce the emissions believed to cause global warming. The State Building & Construction Trades Council backed Prop. 23 on the grounds that AB32 would be harmful to the state’s economy.

“[Germany moved] to boost renewable energy sources, almost 15 years ago and concedes now that it made a serious mistake. At the turn of the millennium, the German government pointed with pride as it implemented an ‘energy transformation’ plan that would speed the nation’s conversion to politically correct energy sources. The costs of wind and solar were astronomical, since the sun sets in the evening and the wind, unlike a politician, doesn’t always blow. Nevertheless, the government deemed the cause worthy of great subsidy.

“Conventional energy sources were heavily taxed, and $33 billion in wealth was transferred from the consumers of affordable energy sources to the owners of wind and solar projects in the past year.

“Private residencies last year paid $9.6 billion in additional fees to subsidize renewables. Electricity prices are three times higher in Germany than in the United States. More than 800,000 Germans have had their electricity cut off because they couldn’t pay the light bill.

“Germany’s industrial sector, a quarter of the economy, paid $10 billion in taxes last year to finance green energy. The Federation of German Industries is worried that manufacturers will lose a competitive edge internationally as a result.”

Fracking has hidden impact of costly green policies

As Cal Watchdog’s Wayne Lusvardi has pointed out in dozens of articles in recent years, something similar is unfolding in California. Government edicts are forcing a shift to much costlier sources of power, some of which aren’t even particularly clean. But these edicts are not being accompanied by honesty about the long-term impacts on consumers.

What’s the main reason California consumers haven’t been squawking over a forced shift to costlier power in recent years? A utility executive told me last year that a key factor was cheap and plentiful natural gas — because of fracking — keeping overall energy costs in check.

How perverse is that? The green devil of fracking is making the green mania less painful in California.

But eventually, we’ll have a German-style epiphany and realize that alternative energy simply costs way more than the sort we’re used to using. Eventually as in 2020. More from the Washington Times:

“California has implemented a state cap-and-trade scheme to cool the planet, and drivers are feeling the result at the pump. Californians pay the nation’s highest gasoline prices, an average of 55 cents more for every gallon … .

“The Boston Consulting Group found that after factoring in the state’s low carbon-dioxide fuel standard, gasoline prices could jump an additional $1.83 per gallon by 2020.”

$6-a-gallon gas? We’ll be in full German regret mode then.

By John Seiler

In 1938, Hitler imposed an anti-home schooling law on German families. All children were required to attend Third Reich-approved schools, receiving indoctrination in Nazism and anti-Semitism, and to join the Hitlerjugend — the Hitler Youth.

American G.I.’s including my father, two uncles and a cousin, invaded and defeated Der Fuehrer. Then he committed suicide in his Berlin bunker in 1945. The G.I.’s then stuck around a while and de-Nazified Germany.

But they missed something. They never got rid of Hitler’s 1938 anti-home-schooling law.

To escape the Hitlerite law, in 2008 the Romeike family fled to America, where they sought freedom and asylum. They just wanted to teach their children at home, in their own family beliefs, including anti-Hitlerism.

Fortunately, at least for now home schooling is not too regulated by the American governments. California‘s homeschooling laws actually are pretty good. You have to set up an independent school and keep regular records of student achievement. An attempt to squeeze out homeschoolers a decade ago by then-Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin was roundly defeated. Even her usual liberal Democratic allies saw it as a power grab and backed the families.

Court decision

For the Romeike family, the Obama administration denied their asylum request, insisting that they return to the Fatherland to be repressed by the Hitlerite law. With the assistance of the Home School Legal Defense Fund, the Romeike family has been appealing the Obama decision through the court system. The latest, from the HSLD:

“The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals today [May 14] upheld the Obama Administration’s denial of asylum granted to the Romeike family.

“The Romeikes fled Germany in 2008 when they were subjected to criminal prosecution for homeschooling. They were granted asylum in 2010 by Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman, but that grant was overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals in 2012. A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit heard the Romeikes’ appeal on April 23 in Cincinnati, and issued today’s unanimous decision against the family.

“’We believe the Sixth Circuit is wrong, and we will appeal their decision,’ said Michael Farris, HSLDA founder and chairman. “America has room for this family, and we will do everything we can to help them.”

The court said that the Romeikes had not made a sufficient case, and that the United States has not opened its doors to every victim of unfair treatment. Although the court acknowledged that the U.S. Constitution recognizes the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children, it refused to concede that the harsh treatment of religiously and philosophically motivated homeschoolers in Germany amounts to persecution within our laws on asylum.

“’Germany continues to persecute homeschoolers,’ said Mike Donnelly, HSLDA director of international affairs. ‘The court ignored mountains of evidence that homeschoolers are harshly fined and that custody of their children is gravely threatened—something most people would call persecution. This is what the Romeikes will suffer if they are sent back to Germany.’

“HSLDA will appeal the Sixth Circuit’s ruling. Please continue to keep the Romeike family and HSLDA’s litigation team in your thoughts and prayers.”

Along with the IRS attacks on conservative and libertarian groups, and the Justice Department’s pilfering of Associated Press phone records, this denial of asylum to a family persecuted by a Nazi law has shown the true nature of the Obama administration.

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

In much of Europe and in California, greens wield such power in politics and the media that the debate over whether a nation or state should pursue hydraulic fracturing of energy reserves seems like a fight over a new and unproven process. But in the rest of the world, there’s an acceptance that times have changed. that fracking’s nothing new, and that fossil fuels are still the big dog in town. Read this New York Times article from April 24. to get a sense of the real-world view of fracking and other energy developments. It is headlined “By 2023, a Changed World in Energy” and cites the “miraculous change” in the U.S. energy outlook because of fracking.

Yet in California, the real world does not intrude. And so the Ventura County Star, which offered the first coverage of measures blocking fracking being approved by a legislative committee, never offered this minor detail: The Obama administration sees fracking as just another heavy industry. Isn’t that, yunno, news? Duh!

Fracking sanity chapter No. 8: Mexico

This media sloth and ineptitude is why that every morning for a week I’ve been blogging about the nations around the world that think it’s a good thing to have cheap energy and have embraced fracking. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Canada and Argentina. Now it’s the turn of our neighbor to the south, which has the fourth largest shale reserves in the world, according to the U.S. government.

What’s my point? 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.

This is from an April 21 Inter Press Service report that lays out the determination of PEMEX, the government-owned oil giant, and Mexican leaders to get on the fracking bandwagon:

“Since 2011, PEMEX has drilled at least six wells for shale gas in the northern states of Nuevo León and Coahuila. And it is preparing for further exploration in the southeastern state of Veracruz, at a cost of 245 million dollars over the space of 18 months, in conjunction with the Mexican Petroleum Institute (IMP), a state institution. …

“In a 2011 report, ‘World Shale Gas Resources: An Initial Assessment of 14 Regions Outside the United States,’ the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) assessed 48 shale gas basins in 32 countries, including Mexico, and estimated that there were 6,622 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the United States and the other 32 countries studied. … For Mexico, it calculated 681 TCF — the fourth largest reserves in the world. ….

“The National Hydrocarbons Commission (CNH), in charge of technical permits for PEMEX projects, will analyse and approve regulations for fracking this year.

“Mexico’s oil giant plans to drill 20 wells by 2016, with a total investment of over two billion dollars. It projects operating 6,500 commercial wells over the next 50 years.”

Will CA media heed green or The New York Times? Character test time

Quite the contrast. Mexico will “analyze and approve” fracking regulations this year. In California, the Legislature will just ignore fracking’s long history and what the rest of the world is doing and ban it. And the state’s media and its corrupt environmental reporters will never point out this long history or what the New York Times — THE NEW YORK TIMES — says about the brown energy revolution.

Sheesh.

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

By Chris Reed

The “brown energy” revolution is under way and nothing is going to prevent it from transforming world energy markets — especially not childish denial and petulance by California greens. Fossil fuels will be the dominant source of energy around the planet for decades to come, and while renewable sources of energy will be part of the picture, even The New York Times regularly acknowledges the folly and stupidity of “peak oil” rhetoric — at least implicitly — with articles such as this April 24 piece.

Yet in California, this big-picture perspective is almost completely missing. Incredibly enough, the first coverage of the committee-level approval in the state Legislature of measures blocking hydraulic fracturing did not note that the Obama administration considers fracking just another heavy industry, not the devil incarnate.

Fracking sanity chapter No. 7: Argentina

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, as a way to create jobs and wealth and on economic competitiveness grounds. Shockingly enough, they think that it’s a good thing to have cheap energy. So far I’ve covered Germany, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and Canada. Today it’s the turn of Argentina, the eighth-largest nation by land mass in the world. As I have written on several occasions, the point of this series of blog posts is that the fracking/brown energy revolution is coming, regardless of what greens in the Golden State want, and that California can either join in the party or get left behind.

This is from an NPR report last year:

“As the wind whips across the scrub grass in southern Argentina, a crane unloads huge bags of artificial sand for oil workers preparing for the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of a well.

“Water mixed with chemicals and tiny ceramic beads are then blasted underground at high pressure. This mixture helps create fissures, allowing oil and natural gas to flow.

“Energy analysts believe there are billions of barrels of oil and gas buried in a desert-like patch in Patagonia.”

This is from UPI last month:

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