Fracking and the Environment: Exploration licenses granted to search for shale gas in Lough Allen area

[Count Bobulescu]

Here’s a recent posting from the Rocky Mountain Institute RMI on the issue of NG as a bridge fuel. Related material at the linked RMI blog.

Recent articles have posited that natural gas is so cheap and plentiful that it not only challenges coal as our dominant source of electricity in the short term, but will also threaten the development of renewables in the long-term.
Have we really shifted to a “new normal” of low, stable gas prices? It seems bit naïve to think so. Natural gas promises an immediate economic boost, and is a near-term solution to reduction carbon emissions compared to coal.
To be sure, there are positive near-term wins, as evidenced by the recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Agency that U.S. emissions have fallen to the lowest levels in 20 years. Existing natural gas turbines provide 40 percent of U.S. power generation capacity but traditionally have only been utilized to produce 23 percent of power generation because of the lower relative fuel cost of coal. With current low natural gas fuel prices, utilities can maximize their gas-fired generation, reducing emissions compared to coal by at least 35 percent.

But, in spite of these benefits, rushing straight to natural gas as the principal solution to our energy problems over the long-term is imprudent. Here’s why:

1. Natural Gas is Not as “Cheap” as It Seems 
Natural gas is one of the riskiest commodities around, historically bearing twice the volatility price risk of oil. While this is common knowledge among industry professionals and commodity traders, the long-term risk often goes ignored, despite previous attempts to put a price tag on volatility. Learn more

2. Renewables ARE Competitive 
Even against the current natural gas futures pricing curve—much lower than just a few months ago—utility-scale renewables can compete unsubsidized within a few years. In good wind locations, wind power can already compete unsubsidized with natural gas selling for more than $6 per million BTU. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, wind turbine pricing has averaged 14 percent per-year declines since the mid-1980s. If that continues, by 2016 wind power should compete head-on in a growing number of locations with wholesale natural gas, which by then is expected to sell above the mid-$4s per million BTU. Learn more

3. Natural Gas Offers Flexible Options 
Natural gas will be most valuable when recalibrated to serve as a transition fuel and as a source of electricity system flexibility. Experts both inside and outside the industry increasingly agree that energy efficiency has the potential to cost-effectively eliminate growth in electricity demand. Extensive modeling suggests that we can capture and integrate the renewable energy needed to meet 80 percent or more of our electricity demand by 2050, after efficiency. With these strategies in place, the U.S. can transition off oil and coal, all while cutting natural gas consumption by 25 percent. Learn more

4. Natural Gas Cuts Carbon, But Not Enough to Mitigate Climate Change 
While gas can dramatically reduce carbon emissions (compared to coal) and help transition the country to an electric system based on renewables, its ability to reduce emissions does not meet the target set by the of International Panel on Climate Change for 80 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2050. Natural gas is primarily methane, which has a global warming potential up to 18 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

That’s not to say that natural gas doesn’t have a critical role in the transition to a low fossil fuel energy system—it does. But that role is pretty different from making a bet on natural gas being a dominant primary source of energy.




Managing Natural Gas Volatility: The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind



Natural Gas Boom Won’t Stall U.S. Renewables




Booms and Busts, Tulips and Gas




How should the U.S. recalibrate itself to take advantage of natural gas reserves?



http://blog.rmi.org/blog_Good_Natura...About_Tomorrow

A recent WaPo piece.

Can natural gas help tackle global warming? “At a glance, the country appears to be making major progress in tackling climate change. And many analysts give credit to the recent flood of cheap natural gas, which is shoving aside coal as America's top source of electricity. Yet some environmentalists have argued that the accolades for natural gas are premature…It's still uncertain how big an improvement natural gas is over coal, because of those methane leaks. The good news is that those leaks can be plugged. The bad news is that even if the leaks are plugged, a flood of cheap natural gas isn't, by itself, enough to prevent the planet from heating up significantly. There's only so much more carbon the world can emit if it wants to avoid a 2?C rise in global temperatures. Natural gas can help avert drastic global warming, but only if paired with a broader set of efforts to curtail emissions.” Brad Plumer in The Washington Post.

Some of the points made include:

1) Producing electricity from natural gas is less carbon-intensive than producing it from coal.

2) But the production of natural gas also emits heat-trapping methane.

3) If these methane leaks are high enough, the climate benefit from switching to natural gas dwindles.

4) Judging from existing research, natural gas appears to be an improvement over coal, though it’s still not clear how much.

5) It’s possible to plug those methane leaks and clean up natural gas further.

6) Natural gas is still a fossil fuel and can’t, on its own, avert significant global warming.

7) At the moment, cheap natural gas appears to be hindering the development of even lower-carbon energy sources.

8) Overall, natural gas can help tackle climate change if it’s part of a larger, more comprehensive climate policy.

Read more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wpisrc=nl_wonk

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg has an editorial today in favor of strongly regulated fracking.

I

n Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York and even Texas, there is a fundamental debate over “fracking” — the hydraulic fracturing of shale rock that, together with horizontal drilling, unleashes abundant natural gas. Mostly, it’s the loud voices at the extremes who are dominating the debate: those who want either no fracking or no additional regulation of it. As usual, the voices in the sensible center are getting drowned out — with serio us repercussions for our country’s future.

To jump-start this effort, each of our foundations will support organizations that seek to work with states and industries to develop common-sense regulations that will protect the environment — and ensure that the industry can thrive.
We will encourage better state regulation of fracking around five key principles:

1: Disclosing all chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process;

2: Optimizing rules for well construction and operation;

3: Minimizing water consumption, protecting groundwater and ensuring proper disposal of wastewater;

4: Improving air pollution controls, including capturing leaking methane, a potent greenhouse gas; and

5: Reducing the impact on roads, ecosystems and communities.

The latest research, including peer-reviewed studies out of Carnegie Mellon University and Argonne National Laboratory, suggests that if properly extracted and distributed, the impact of natural gas on the climate is significantly less than that of coal. Safely fracking natural gas can mean healthier communities, a cleaner environment and a reliable domestic energy supply right now.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...eadlines_local

[Matilda]

Check out the new Dallas - of JR fame

I swear unconventional gas was mentioned in the fight to regain control of SouthFork

in the first 5 minutes

[New Vision]

Jesus wept!

These bastards have no shame at all. Whatever about the probable economic farce this will turn into, it promises to be an ecological nightmare.

Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) is an obscene methodology that will destroy health, water and the country generally.

Anyone watched Josh Fox's "Gasland" yet?

Here's a clip: YouTube - GASLAND Trailer 2010

Sheesh...

Full documentary here => https://sites.google.com/site/fracki...an-on-fracking

Also watch The Sky is Pink from Josh Fox

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWJwcuQK_Dg"]THE SKY IS PINK - YouTube[/ame]

[New Vision]

Call for stricter 'fracking' rules (IT)

[New Vision]

Group Calls for Fracking Ban in Europe

EcoWatch, 9 September 2012

Food & Water Europe



Commission studies, released last Friday, find the risks associated with large-scale shale gas development and fracking to be high and in some cases very high. The studies draw special attention to the cumulative environmental impacts of multiple shale gas wells. Eight key pieces of the European Union (EU) environmental acquis are identified as being ill-equipped to deal with the water, waste, liability, air quality and other issues of large-scale use of hydraulic fracturing.

The findings in these studies roundly debunk European Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger’s view that current EU law adequately deals with the risks of fracking. Given the manifold risks identified in this report, Food & Water Europe calls on the Environment Commissioner Potočnik to ban fracking or—at the very least—address these shortcomings by adapting the EU’s environmental regulatory framework to the ugly reality of large-scale shale gas extraction.

“These studies reviewed a lot of the evidence about the negative environmental impacts of large-scale shale gas extraction and acknowledge the water, air and land-related risks associated with shale gas to be high,” said Wenonah Hauter. “We particularly welcome the studies’ focus on the cumulative environmental impacts of hundreds of wells in Europe’s shale plays.”

This focus is particularly valued, as the draft report about the environmental impacts of shale gas, drafted by MEP Boguslaw Sonik, does not even mention this key fact: Shale gas development requires a lot of wells to be drilled. For example, a mature shale play like the Barnett shale in Texas has 15,000 wells. In other words, unconventional gas is profoundly different from previous European experiences with onshore, conventional gas exploitation.

In sharp contrast to Commissioner Oettinger’s earlier claim that existing European environmental regulation for shale gas activities would be adequate, the report clearly identifies gaps in eight cornerstones of the EU’s environmental acquis, such as the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, Water Framework Directive, Environmental Liability Directive, Industrial Emissions Directive, Mining Waste Directive, etc. For example, the DG Environment study (pp. 108-109) finds that the Groundwater Directive, particularly Article 6 requiring Member States to develop measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants into groundwater, “could in principle involve the prevention of hydraulic fracturing operations, should the latter involve the injection underground of pollutants”. Given this obligation, Member States open themselves to major liabilities in case of environmental damage linked to less than adequate regulation of this risky industry.

Major gaps were also identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. “The upcoming review of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive during the fall of 2012 must include fracking in its list of activities, which require a mandatory impact assessment,” said Hauter. Impact assessments are crucial, as they help to establish sound baseline data about e.g. groundwater and air quality, identify seismic risks and help secure a meaningful involvement of local communities before drilling commences.

To avoid a situation, as occurred in the U.S., where policy-makers are engaged in a regulatory catch-up exercise with the shale gas industry, European Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik must now start leading the EU’s effort to—in the absence of unanimous support among EU Member States for a ban on fracking—demand the highest environmental standards of fracking operations to avoid that EU Member States treat environmental and human health impacts differently.

[New Vision]

EU study sparks regulation debate over ‘high-risk’ shale gas
EurActiv, 7 September 2012

Tough new regulations could be slapped on the shale gas industry if the EU acts upon legislative and environmental failings identified in its most comprehensive analysis yet of the sector, due to be released today [7 September].

Shale gas drilling poses a ‘high risk’ to human health and the environment that is worse than that posed by other fossil fuels, according to a 300-page report prepared by the EU's environment directorate. It is also currently unregulated. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/inte...ntional_en.htm

The study identifies eight areas of high-risk due to the cumulative effect of multiple shale wells, including the contamination and depletion of ground and surface water, and degradation of biodiversity, land, air quality and seismic conditions.

Water contamination is considered a high risk because of the industry's hydraulic fracturing – or ‘fracking’ – technique. It involves drilling horizontally to shale deposits at depths of up to 3km, and pumping in large amounts of water, sand and chemical lubricants at high pressure to shatter the brittle rocks.

The sand fills geological pores, preventing the well from collapsing, while the gas migrates upwards, along with some water contaminated by fracking chemicals and other pollutants, including low-levels of naturally radioactive material.

Because of the health and environmental risks, the study recommends that fracking should only be allowed under strict conditions, and not yet on an industrial scale. No fracking should be be allowed in areas where water is being used for drinking purposes.

[New Vision]

Calls to exclude fossil fuel industry from all fracking research (The Journal)

=> Rob Doyle Response to Aberdeen Report

=> Contaminated Inquiry

[New Vision]

Why Cheap Gas is Hot Air

[Count Bobulescu]

Why Cheap Gas is Hot Air

Stop spreading misinformation by implying that the authors are against Fracking, NG, or low priced NG. Here’s the final graph of the piece.

We hope lingering uncertainties about shale gas will be satisfactorily resolved over the coming decade. If they are, we’ll enjoy more and cheaper gas than the futures market now believes, gaining optionality that cuts other energy risks. But if not, we won’t be unduly disappointed, because in the long run, America may not need all that extra gas anyway. Our team’s new studyReinventing Fire shows how we can harness business for profit to run a 2.6-fold bigger U.S. economy in 2050 with one-third less natural gas, no oil or coal or nuclear energy, and $5 trillion cheaper.
Now that’s an energy portfolio worthy of investment.

Lovins is Chairman and Chief Scientist, and former McKinsey & Company partner Creyts is a Program Director, at the independent, nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute.

[New Vision]

Stop spreading misinformation by implying that the authors are against Fracking,

What???

NG, or low priced NG. Here’s the final graph of the piece.

Lovins is Chairman and Chief Scientist, and former McKinsey & Company partner Creyts is a Program Director, at the independent, nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute.

Here the whole article quoted at Climate Crocks.

Dunno what you wanna tell us. But the article is showing congruence with my article, Fracking - A Boom and Bust

[Count Bobulescu]

What???



Here the whole article quoted at Climate Crocks.

Dunno what you wanna tell us. But the article is showing congruence with my article, Fracking - A Boom and Bust

Any fool can see that the last graph of the RMI piece does not comport with the implications in the wording you assigned to your link to it. Sleazy tactics undermine your credibility.

[Count Bobulescu]

A Fracking Good Story

The cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45% less carbon per energy unit. The US used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20% from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: in April of this year, coal’s share in power generation plummeted to just 32%, on par with gas.

America’s rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.

For starters, fracking has caused gas prices to drop dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, gas has not been this cheap for the past 35 years, with the price this year 3-5 times lower than it was in the mid-2000’s. And, while a flagging economy may explain a small portion of the drop in US carbon emissions, the EIA emphasizes that the major explanation is natural gas.

The reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the US population over the past two decades. Indeed, US carbon emissions have dropped some 20% per capita, and are now at their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower left the White House in 1961.

David Victor, an energy expert at the University of California, San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced US emissions by 400-500 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.

Climate economists repeatedly have pointed out that such energy innovation is the most effective climate solution, because it is the surest way to drive the price of future green energy sources below that of fossil fuels. By contrast, subsidizing current, ineffective solar power or ethanol mostly wastes money while benefiting special interests.

Fracking is not a panacea, but it really is by far this decade’s best green-energy option.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/com...-bj-rn-lomborg

[fluffybiscuits]

Any fool can see that the last graph of the RMI piece does not comport with the implications in the wording you assigned to your link to it. Sleazy tactics undermine your credibility.

All I can say is you have not seen the evidence and again I think you should discuss with new vision the info that is out there. Their is a wealth of information that is coming out every day on fracking ...

If you have a subscription to the FT

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4c1f55ec-fe5...#axzz26lj0n0pd

Hollande has just rejected it in France..


Austrians are dispensing with it...

http://noe.orf.at/news/stories/2550375/



New Vision and Co are on the ball with this one and the county councils who have banned it...The evidence is on front of you CB/.

[New Vision]

Any fool can see that the last graph of the RMI piece does not comport with the implications in the wording you assigned to your link to it. Sleazy tactics undermine your credibility.

Jaysus, CB. Not only was your last comment the worst one of you in this discussion. Now you're really getting desperate.

Since when is it "misleading" just posting a link to an article?

And what graph would "not comport with the implications in the wording" I would have "assigned to"? Sounds like you're not sober...

Here your choice:

[New Vision]

Global Frackdown Day - 22 September 2012





Want to support the Global Frackdown?