Darian
09-08-2012, 10:10 PM
Two very interesting articles appeared in the SacBee this week. The first speaks to the issue of restoring the public trust doctrine in California water law:
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/19/4736609/restore-public-trust-to-water.html
The second article (in the NATION Section of the SacBee 8/19/12) addresses the issue of energy companies expanding their acquisition of water and water rights to feed their need to use it in production of natural gas/oil from shale formations. I was unable to find a link to the article but the gist of it is that energy companies are competing with all other users of water throughout the country and, having more money, are out bidding and paying more than the other users. Thus setting up competition between traditional, agricultural users and energy producers.
The water is used for the practice of fracking. Energy companies use potable or treated, re-cycled water for this purpose. This hasn't quite become a major issue in the west, yet, but certainly will. Energy companies see this as a profit gold mine. Environmentalists view all of it with trepidation. There's almost no regulation of this practice in California and elsewhere, although several states have begun the process.
On the pro side, fracking could enable energy independence for the US within a few short years. That would be huge.
On the con side, According to the writer, this country lacks adequate infrastructure to deliver increased volumes of gas/oil to refineries or users. That means an increase in costs to develop required infrastructure. The author also points out that most of these wells produce high volumes initially. Then taper off to a plateaued volume. Of course, that presents its own set of problems.
Fracking poses the danger of pollution of surface water sources and ground water aquifers. Increased demand could create a further scarcity in potable water supplies for all other users. There may be worker safety problems involved with working around the undermined area and from chemicals used in the fracking/injection process.
The article is too lengthy to include everything here. 8)
**edited to reflect correct date of article.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/19/4736609/restore-public-trust-to-water.html
The second article (in the NATION Section of the SacBee 8/19/12) addresses the issue of energy companies expanding their acquisition of water and water rights to feed their need to use it in production of natural gas/oil from shale formations. I was unable to find a link to the article but the gist of it is that energy companies are competing with all other users of water throughout the country and, having more money, are out bidding and paying more than the other users. Thus setting up competition between traditional, agricultural users and energy producers.
The water is used for the practice of fracking. Energy companies use potable or treated, re-cycled water for this purpose. This hasn't quite become a major issue in the west, yet, but certainly will. Energy companies see this as a profit gold mine. Environmentalists view all of it with trepidation. There's almost no regulation of this practice in California and elsewhere, although several states have begun the process.
On the pro side, fracking could enable energy independence for the US within a few short years. That would be huge.
On the con side, According to the writer, this country lacks adequate infrastructure to deliver increased volumes of gas/oil to refineries or users. That means an increase in costs to develop required infrastructure. The author also points out that most of these wells produce high volumes initially. Then taper off to a plateaued volume. Of course, that presents its own set of problems.
Fracking poses the danger of pollution of surface water sources and ground water aquifers. Increased demand could create a further scarcity in potable water supplies for all other users. There may be worker safety problems involved with working around the undermined area and from chemicals used in the fracking/injection process.
The article is too lengthy to include everything here. 8)
**edited to reflect correct date of article.