The Monterey Shale could create 2.3 million new jobs & Boost the state's GDP by as much as 14% (Los Angeles: to buy, costs)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Or the millions of unemployed people in the Central Valley might actually be able to find work

Or millions of unemployed people might actually have to move away to find more sustainable futures for themselves and for the health of California. Any kind of work at any cost is not particularly intelligent for any kind of sane reason.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Or millions of unemployed people might actually have to move away to find more sustainable futures for themselves and for the health of California. Any kind of work at any cost is not particularly intelligent for any kind of sane reason.

Si. But some of those people could be put to work building a more sustainable mode of transportation that would become an integral part of the state's infrastructure.

Nahh. Lets shoot fire out our toilets.

[nslander]

New study finds that not only do we not know enough about this BS being sold by corporate special interests, but we don't have the proper tools to measure or regulate it. I'm sure the good people in the CV would welcome the addition of new air pollutants to their already frothy mix.

Our study has several findings. First, current protocols used for assessing compliance with ambient air standards do not adequately determine the intensity, frequency or durations of the actual human exposures to the mixtures of toxic materials released regularly at UNGD sites. Second, the typically used periodic 24-h average measures can underestimate actual exposures by an order of magnitude. Third, reference standards are set in a form that inaccurately determines health risk because they do not fully consider the potential synergistic combinations of toxic air emissions. Finally, air dispersion modeling shows that local weather conditions are strong determinates of individual exposures.

Understanding exposure from natural gas drilling puts current air standards to the test : Reviews on Environmental Health

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by nslander

Si. But some of those people could be put to work building a more sustainable mode of transportation that would become an integral part of the state's infrastructure.

Nahh. Lets shoot fire out our toilets.

Ok. I'm down with that. As we used to say in the military "Fire in the hole!"

(And then duck and cover.)

[JimBaker488]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Or millions of unemployed people might actually have to move away to find more sustainable futures for themselves and for the health of California. Any kind of work at any cost is not particularly intelligent for any kind of sane reason.

Or maybe they have roots and history in California and want to remain with their families and raise their children in the place where they care about as much as other residents of the state ?

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by cb73

I have no problems with it, but the environmentalists that seem to run California will never allow it.

You haven't paid much attention lately, I see. Gov. Brown recently signed a series of regulations wrt fracking which legalized it in the state and provided standards for water quality which were pretty reasonable. It was pretty darn even handed though some arrogant out of state oil companies (mostly from Texas) have refused to comply with the requirement that they disclose all chemicals injected into the ground so that if they do migrate into aquifers then the guilty parties can be on the hook for the pollution they caused. Even that liability was limited though in the law.

[cephalopede]

I like that they always frame these things in terms of the benefits, and never the cost.

What's the cost of rehabbing the damaged habitat once the shale's been bled dry?

What's the cost of repairing damaged property from increased seismic activity?

What's the cost of clean water?

What's the cost of the potential lawsuits from nearby landowners once their water becomes undrinkable?

What's the cost of the loss of species in the area? The Monterey Shale is home to a few endangered species, after all.

If you add up the real cost of this, it will far outweigh the potential benefit. But because the cost is intangible (no one involved cares what it would cost to replace the San Joaquin kit fox, because it can't be done) and the benefits come in hard cash, they'll probably do it anyway.

We need to start charging the real value of the land and the value of the natural services we destroy.

[Natural510]

Hitman is a job, so is drug dealer. Always be skeptical of something being sold as "jobs" first, with the details of making those jobs happen in the fine print.

[Think4Yourself]

Originally Posted by cephalopede

I like that they always frame these things in terms of the benefits, and never the cost.

What's the cost of rehabbing the damaged habitat once the shale's been bled dry?

What's the cost of repairing damaged property from increased seismic activity?

What's the cost of clean water?

What's the cost of the potential lawsuits from nearby landowners once their water becomes undrinkable?

What's the cost of the loss of species in the area? The Monterey Shale is home to a few endangered species, after all.

If you add up the real cost of this, it will far outweigh the potential benefit. But because the cost is intangible (no one involved cares what it would cost to replace the San Joaquin kit fox, because it can't be done) and the benefits come in hard cash, they'll probably do it anyway.

We need to start charging the real value of the land and the value of the natural services we destroy.

As a geologist, I'd like to point out that most of the injection sites are almost 1 mile under ground and so well below aquifers with many confining layers in the geology between the injection location and upper strata. This is provided that the casing is properly in place and the proper procedures are actually followed. Much of Gov. Brown's smart regulations approach to fracking has been to legally define which procedures must be followed, defining what the standards are, that there is legal liability for companies which don't follow the standards, but also defining limits to such liability so as to not kill any attempts to develop this resource. In short, it's a highly balanced approach which, as a moderate, I feel is a good one especially since it is based upon scientifically provable facts.

Now, many of the oil companies don't want to disclose their what is in their fracking solutions both because they claim it is a trade secret but also, and more likely in my mind, they don't want to ever be held responsible for any chemical migrations (and having to admit they were injecting X, Y, and Z means they could potentionally get sued for it in the future if it turns up in someone's well). The law Gov Brown signed would require them to do this so it is a good public health disclosure and the liability will help to insure oil companies do indeed only frack deeper formations and don't try to get shallower parts of the formation where fracking solutions might leak into aquifers. It really is the best approach I've seen in the country so far and the potentional profits are still so large companies WILL invest in shale production in this state even if the more arrogant companies make lots of noises about how unhappy they are. Frankly I think the Texans have a very bad attitude and they're going to miss out on money making opportunities because they feel so entitled with their "f' everyone else" mentality.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by JimBaker488

Or maybe they have roots and history in California and want to remain with their families and raise their children in the place where they care about as much as other residents of the state ?

And for this reason we should allow industry that has great potential danger to themselves, their families and everyone else in the state? Family Thanksgiving turkey together regardless of the cost.