Nationally, this was most conspicuous with the furloughs of air-traffic controllers. But in California, there was also some specific obnoxiousness in Port Hueneme. I wrote about it here in August. The short version: the Army Corps of Engineers said its budget was so starved by sequestration that it couldn't afford to do dredging and coastal maintenance that are needed to prevent water damage to coastal neighborhoods.

Ventura County Star columnist Timm Herdt accepted this premise uncritically and wrote a piece about how evil House Republicans were to blame. Nice legwork, Timm. Great insight.

As I wrote at the time …

“The Transportation Department, parent to the FAA, has a $73 billion annual budget. Of course Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood could find another way to make his department’s share of budget cuts required by the March 1 sequestration of funds.

“Another word for this is ridiculous. The same Transportation Department has sent $3.5 billion to California for our bullet-train boondoggle.”

Soon after, Congress figured this out and ordered transportation officials to prioritize.

Uncritical regurgitation of Obama talking points

Now along comes a California example of the Obama administration’s attempt to make the sequester as bad as possible — and it finds an accomplice in Ventura County Star columnist Timm Herdt, who in a 700 words doesn’t even raise the possibility that the White House may be to blame for failing to prioritize federal spending or demand smarter decision-making from Army engineers:

“If there is any place in America where one can take a photograph of the obtuse federal process known as sequestration, it is in a small coastal community in Southern California.

“In the city of Port Hueneme, a beach that is typically as wide as a football field has disappeared. The Pacific Ocean is encroaching. It has already wiped out an outdoor shower used by beachgoers and undermined a sidewalk. It is threatening to breach a city street called Surfside Drive. Beyond that are homes, condominiums and public facilities. …

“‘We’re not a beach-resort community,’ says Mayor Ellis Green. ‘We are a humble town.’

“The winter is approaching, which will bring with it storms and higher tides. The seawater is creeping toward what Green calls a ‘catastrophe’ that could cause tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

“If this happens, it will not be a natural disaster. It will be a super storm brought about by federal budget paralysis.”

Later on, Herdt more specifically blames “leadership in the House” for refusing to ride to the rescue of the Army Corps of Engineers and fund needed work.

Never mentioned: Army Corps’ budget has gone up

Does he mention that the Army Corps of Engineers multibillion-dollar civil works’ budget is higher this year than last year, which certainly suggests what we’re seeing in Port Hueneme is sequester theater?

No.

Does Herdt mention that the sequester was the White House’s idea?

No.

Does Herdt mention the reports that lots of agencies that feared doom and gloom quietly prioritized spending and felt few effects from sequestration, as the Washington Post, Reason and many other publications have repeatedly reported?

No. Hey, Timm, even the Canadians  have figured out sequestration isn’t what it was billed. And note that an L.A. Times report insinuates this is all theater as well.

But in California, if you’re an opinion columnist, your default position is usually to find a way to blame everything on evil conservatives.

And so you conclude that the federal government — which had a $3.5 trillion budget last year and a $3.5 trillion budget this year — can’t handle its customary Port Hueneme protection responsibilities because of House Republicans.

Feel free to groan. And groan. And groan some more.

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

The coming battle over fracking in California is going to be a doozy. There’s too much money to be made in the “brown energy” revolution for monied interests to not pursue the reserves in the Monterey Shale.

Soon to be the face of evil in California: Occidental Petroleum. As I wrote about last year, the company is already poised to pounce in the Central Valley:

“Even if California’s media haven’t caught on to the state’s potential for a Bakken-style economic boom, the oil industry has. By far the BLM’s biggest 2011 lease [for use of federal land for oil and gas exploration in California] was the $180,000 paid for a 200-acre parcel by Vintage Production California, a Bakersfield-based subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, the third-largest U.S. oil and gas producer. On Oxy’s website, it 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.”

Now the Ventura County Star reports that Oxy, as it is known, is busy in the coastal county as well:

“Anticipating that new drilling techniques will make it possible to tap vast oil reserves thought to be unrecoverable, a Los Angeles-based oil company has been aggressively securing mineral rights beneath thousands of acres of Ventura County land.

“Documents filed with the Ventura County Recorder’s Office show that Vintage Petroleum, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, has entered into 192 lease agreements over the past six months in deals involving at least 9,000 acres.

“Most of the leases, largely on rural land in the Santa Paula-Fillmore area, were recorded during the last week of March.

“’They’re making a big play,’ said attorney Stuart Nielson, whose A to Z law firm in Oxnard has represented several of the lessors.

“Nielson said the pace of oil-leasing activity is unlike anything Ventura County — once a more prolific oil-producing area — has seen in decades. Most of the oil rights involved have long been dormant.”