.
“Canadian pipeline companies are considering requests from U.S. producers to reverse the flow of their export lines to bring natural gas from the prolific Marcellus shale into Ontario, displacing some Alberta suppliers who have dominated the Central Canadian market for half a century.” - U.S. Gas Producers Eye Ontario Market
Tags: export, market, natural gas
“Men have an indistinct notion that if they keep up this activity of joint stocks and spades long enough, all will at length ride somewhere in next to no time, and for nothing; but though a crowd rushes to the depot, and the conductor shouts ‘All aboard!’ when the smoke is blown away and the vapor condensed, it will be perceived that a few are riding, but the rest are run over—and it will be called, and will be, ‘A melancholy accident.’” – Thoreau
Tags: Thoreau
The editor of the O&G industry magazine World Oil was fired for defending a petroleum geologist’s columns indicating shale gas yields are overstated (that wells aren’t actually producing as industry advertised… not even close).
Below are 3 links to articles regarding this incident. The 1st reports on the firing; the 2nd is the editor’s explanation for his firing (posted on the columnist’s blog); and the 3rd is the column, which (due to pressure from industry to suppress the publication of a shale gas play production chart) was pulled from the November issue of World Oil.
http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/umbrage-in-the-gas-patch/
From Perry Fischer, former World Oil Editor:
http://petroleumtruthreport.blogspot.com/2009/11/letter-from-perry-fischer-former-editor.html
Facts are stubborn things: Arthur E. Berman November 2009
http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/facts-are-stubborn-things-arthur-e-berman-november-2009/
Now, why might large publicly traded drilling companies wish to suppress analysis indicating actual shall gas yields aren’t even close to what the prospective investors and leasors think they are?
Petrohawk has only $526 million in current assets, and $5.88 billion in non-current (not liquid) assets. Shareholder equity is $3.28 billion (6.2 times current assets and equal to 51% of total assets). Petrohawk desperately needs its shareholders to believe its tall tales.
- David J Cyr
Unnatural Gas: The Inflated Promise of a Not-So-Clean Fuel
Meanwhile, in competing with Big Coal for the affections of Congress, the newly formed America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) launched an $80 million advertising and lobbying campaign earlier this year to promote its “clean, abundant, American, reliable, and versatile” product. As climate bills work their way through Congress, ANGA’s efforts appear to be paying off.
Risking our water so we can burn more natural gas will not be the planet’s miracle climate cure. For the United States to achieve necessary reductions in greenhouse emissions – estimated at more than 80 percent – will require not more energy production, even if somewhat cleaner, but deep cuts in energy consumption.
Coal must be phased out as quickly as possible, but more gas won’t accomplish that. While electric utilities’ gas consumption doubled from 1996 to 2007, coal use continued its steady climb.
What if, with shale drilling, we could achieve another doubling of gas-fired electricity generation, but this time eliminate an equivalent amount of coal-fired generation? Even that steep escalation of gas drilling would cut the utility industry’s carbon emissions by only 12 percent and the nation’s total carbon emissions by just 5 percent, based on Energy Department figures.
Financier T. Boone Pickens recommends running our vehicles on natural gas. But substituting natural gas for gasoline in all vehicles would reduce the nation’s total carbon emissions by less than 9 percent. Converting all gasoline-powered vehicles would consume more natural gas than electric utilities, homes and businesses combined. Consequences for the nation’s water would be disastrous.
Natural gas is being hailed by some, including Pickens, as a high-energy “bridge” to a renewable future, and by others as sufficiently climate-friendly to be a “destination” fuel. But as gas’ environmental drawbacks become more evident, it’s looking more like a bridge to nowhere.
Read the entire piece at http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/04-5
.
Dear Pickens Plan “Army” -
In an article titled, “High Times for T Boone Pickens,” Time Magazine quoted Senator Howard Metzenbaum:
“Pickens makes a crusade out of what he’s doing because he can make a lot of money.”
And that was in 1985.
I don’t know about you, but I see a pattern emerging.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,961946-1,00.html
.
CDOG Responds to NPR’s Un-Natural Gas Propaganda Campaign
In September, NPR’s Morning Edition broadcast a 3 day series on the issue of extracting natural gas from stone, the content of which suggested NPR is now just another Naturalgas Propaganda Resource. Below are links to the 3 days of NPR’s un-natural gas promotion, with a CDOG response below each link.
Link to Day 1, of NPR’s petro dollared propaganda campaign:
09/22/2009 Rediscovering Natural Gas by Hitting Rock Bottom
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113043935
CDOG Response to Day 1:
In your 09/22/09 Morning Edition story, Rediscovering Natural Gas by Hitting Rock Bottom, NPR framed the issue as gas drillers being nice small independent entrepreneurs struggling against an energy market dominated by big oil and big coal. That’s false. Those little gas drilling wildcatters are controlled by big oil and gas corporations, which use them to limit liabilities (evade deep pocketed corporation responsibility for purposeful pollution). The not so small “independent” Nornew, positioning itself over the Marcellus shale here in New York, is actually a subsidiary of the international O&G corporation Norse Energy, based in Norway.Your report focused upon increased estimates of possible gas quantities, without providing evidence of the quality deficits, like the water wells now being destroyed in Pennsylvania by this form of drilling.
The only downside to ripping remnants of gas from stone that the NPR reporter reported was that gas prices are too low, making it difficult for the optimistic “energy independence” drillers to make a profit from their [money] expensive operations. The National Propaganda Radio reporter didn’t report on any of the costs to the public that the drillers externalize. To be truly FOXworthy fair and balanced there was a brief reference to “many environmentalists” after which only an institutionalized, industrialized “environmentalist” position was offered.
Unconventional horizontal hydrofracturing drilling, to extract natural gas from low-permeable stone formations, is environmentally unsound. The Halliburton developed process focused upon solving the industry’s extraction problem… with absolutely no concern for the environmental costs to others, from the industry’s use of it.
The scale of the drilling (number of wells and hydrofractures required), that’s necessary to extract those myriad remnants of gas so tightly bound up within the stone, will over time have a catastrophic cumulative negative environmental and human health impact… polluting air, ground, and water in this desperate process of extraction intended to maintain our fossil fuel dependancy.
All of the enormous quantity of clean fresh water used in the hydrofracture process is permanently removed from the natural water cycle, because the chemicals added to it cannot be fully removed to change the toxic waste, which the process creates, back into the safe drinking water it was before the drillers abused it.
The massive amount of toxic waste created by the drillers, which they either do not leave in the hole, or (Love Canal) bury at the site, is taken to municipal sewage waste treatment plants, through which the chemicals then pass on to be dumped into our rivers… and eventually come out of our faucets.
Link to Day 2, of NPR’s petro dollared propaganda campaign:
09/23/2009 Who’s Looking At Natural Gas Now? Big Oil
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113080237
CDOG Response to Day 2:
The nice “small independent company” that developed the new production techniques to rip the last remnants of natural gas from stone, having the small guy innovation which NPR falsely claims beat BIG oil, was… Halliburton!If NPR considers Halliburton to be a “mom-and-pop” operation, then what does it consider to be a beastly overlarge corporation?
Those little guy operators that NPR romantically astroturfed are the private contractor gas driller domestic equivalents, here at home, of what Blackwater is where fossil fuels can be found elsewhere.
National Propaganda Radio’s reporting implies that the remnants of natural gas, which the myriad tentacled energy industry has in recent years been so hazardously ripping from the earth, are ENORMOUS; but then NPR claims they’ve been deposits too small scale to have yet attracted large corporations. If the remnant areas were large corporation considered so profit inconsequential, then why has the Millennium Pipeline been built to and now through those areas? Would the vast matrix of gas drilling rigs and pads, packed close together covering the whole landscape from the Catskills for 350 miles or more all the way across the broad breadth of New York State to Lake Erie, which will be necessary for the industry to successfully unconventionally extract all that natural gas trapped down there too tightly within non-porous stone… be small scale?
NPR cloaks the socially irresponsible decisions of individual landowners in American Dream apparel, romanticizing those who place their communities in long-term nightmare jeopardy to personally short-term profit themselves. Is inviting a dangerous marauding invading occupier into your neighborhood a good neighborly thing to do? Is the energy industry’s economic draft persuading farmers to site chemical toxic waste production facilities on their farms the way a sane society would provide farmers an adequate income? Is embracing toxic waste production the way any sane society would provide farmers their only ability to have the healthcare they’ll need when the extraction chemicals used produce the effects they cause?
Link to Day 3, of NPR’s petro dollared propaganda campaign:
09/24/2009 With Little Clout, Natural Gas Lobby Strikes Out
www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113138252
CDOG Response to Day 3:
By Day 3, NPR’s petro dollared propaganda campaign has become more subtle, providing some seemingly innocuous banter at the end, to reluctantly acknowledge the existence of some environmental “concern” regarding the type of drilling required to get the last remnants of gas from rocks that couldn’t be gotten before.That ripping of gas from stone with the Halliburton hydrofracking process is not something that “might cause some contamination.” It has in the past; it does now; and it will whenever and wherever it is used, regardless of how tight, or tighter the un-enforced regulations are typed upon paper. The hydrofracturing process is the underground equivalent of mountaintop removal. Both of those extraction procedures have devastating environmental impacts, with mountaintop removal’s just being more readily apparent, while hydrofracture of low to non-permeable tight-gas bearing rock is insidious… like the cancers that it produces.
Being corporate media, when NPR turned its attention to the “political reality” it too subtly sporting announcer focused upon the gas lobby not having as much game as the coal lobby. The Waxman-Markey Bill is the product of industry bribery, with the biggest bidding bribers being rewarded. Yes, like a losing coach would, former [in the pocket of the gas industry] Colorado Senator Tim Worth “chewed out” the gas industry players… for being too cleaner than coal, when bribing Congress.
The gas industry is not the energy constituency with “the most to gain and the most to offer.” No! Those with the most to gain are we, The People, and those with the most to offer are the other environmentalists, who urge us to focus on serious conservation first, and rapid deployment of pervasive alternative renewable energy solutions, with the relocalization of energy production being necessary to bring our carbon footprints down to a size we can survive in.
National Propaganda Radio is still maintaining the false dichotomy of needing to choose gas or coal, repeating gas industry favorable claims of “some environmentalists” with those “some” being the institutionalized industrialized “environmentalists” who claim these last remnants of gas, which are so environmentally damaging to extract, are needed as a bridge-fuel to transition away from coal.
However, those “environmentalists” have taken the wrong exit, onto a bridge to nowhere. Gas from low to non-permeable stone is not a bridge to “transition” away from fossil fuels, but rather a desperate means to maintain the energy industry’s profits from our fossil fuel addiction dependence.
This nation has often displayed how quick and vigorously it can exert huge human energy devoted to the murder and mayhem of wars purposefully designed to government spend enormous amounts of money earned by working people to provide obscene profits to the most ruthless few. We would not need to choose only between dirty coal that won’t become clean, and the remnants of gas that’s so dirty when extracted, if we as a nation treated climate change as a problem of truly existential graveness, which it is.
What would some other environmentalists have to say?
We should stop spending trillions of dollars to fight wars over oil resources that are being used up by those wars fought over them. We should claw back the trillion dollars stolen by banksters. We should exert the same highly concerted human energy and ample money distribution, normally provided by this society only when engaged in global war, and direct that enormous effort and money into providing solutions for global survival… and make that transition from fossil fuel dependence to renewable energy independence be completed as fast as possible.
This nation, with the capacity to exterminate all life upon the planet with just a 20 minute war, surely has the capacity — if it can find the will — to make our planet sustainable in the years that is needed to be done, rather than waiting decades until it’s too late… and then can’t be done.
David J. Cyr
Delhi, NY
GPNYS SC member – Delaware County
Tags: Natural Gas Alliance, NPR
.
While T Boone Pickens campaigns for the creation of the Natural Gas Nation, otherwise known as the T Boone-Doggle Corporate State, and politicians with a Green Wish sign on without critical examination, careful investors take a view that’s a little more cautious:
.
What Could Go Wrong With Shale Plays
Posted: Oct 09, 2009 12:11 PM by Eric Fox
The industry and investment community is all worked up over the various oil and natural gas shale plays in North America, but little attention is given to what could go wrong with these plays.
The first issue is that not very much drilling has been done in some of the most promising shale plays. Since there is very little development and production history, it is difficult to determine the average estimated ultimate recovery (EUR), initial production (IP) rates and decline curves of wells here. Thus any estimates of the total resource potential are unreliable.
Chesapeake Energy (NYSE:CHK), which has 510,000 acres in the Haynesville Shale, uses an average EUR of 6.50 Bcfe, an IP rate of 14.1 million cubic feet equivalent per day, and a first year decline of 85%. However, the oldest Chesapeake Energy well in the Haynesville Shale is only nine months old, and it is difficult to attribute this data to the entire play.
Experience Matters
On the other hand the Barnett Shale, which has a much longer development and production history than the Haynesville Shale, has a more reliable production and decline curve with which to evaluate the assets of exploration and production companies.
The Marcellus Shale also lacks a long history of development, and thus has the same problem as the Haynesville Shale in regards to the reliability of available data. One unique problem for the Marcellus Shale is its immense size. The shale underlies a huge area in terms of square miles, reaching into New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland and even New Jersey. Most of the drilling to date has occurred in Pennsylvania, but little is known about most of the other areas.
There is no way to tell currently whether all this acreage will be as productive as the Pennsylvania acreage that has excited the industry. Eventually, the Marcellus Shale will evolve into a core and non-core, or Tier 1, 2 and 3.
Range Resources (NYSE:RRC) is one of the largest players in the Marcellus Shale and has 900,000 acres that are prospective for the Marcellus Shale. Another company that has not moved as far into developing its acreage is Gastar Exploration (NYSE:GST), which has 37,200 net acres under lease. The company plans to drill as many as five wells here by 2010.
Green Protests
Another issue that might cause a problem in the shale plays is the environmental issues associated with hydraulic fracturing, including the use of immense amounts of water and possible pollution when that water is disposed of.
Cabot Oil and Gas (NYSE:COG) recently had two spills of fracturing fluid in the Marcellus Shale that leaked into wetlands and a creek in Pennsylvania. The company was issued a violation notice by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection for violation of several state laws.
Any permanent restrictive regulation on water use in the high growth shale plays might slow down development by making the permitting process cumbersome, or by making it more expensive to drill.
The Bottom Line
The industry and investors are rightly excited about the large amounts of natural gas in the recently discovered shale plays in North America, but this enthusiasm should be tempered by recognition of potential problems that could erupt. (To learn more, see our Oil And Gas Industry Primer.)
By Eric Fox
Eric J. Fox, is the founder of Brittain Capital Management, LLC., which manages the Alesia Fund, LP., a Value oriented long/short investment partnership. You can read more of his views on investments at his blog – Stock Market Prognosticator. Mr. Fox also publishes a paid investment newsletter. Please visit The Unknown Stock Report for more details.
.
From Environment & Energy Daily, 9/30:
.
Boxer, Kerry brace for delicate talks as bill emerges today
The decision by Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to seek steeper greenhouse gas emissions cuts than their House counterparts drew mixed reviews from senators yesterday, underscoring the challenges the pair will face after unveiling their climate bill today.
. . . . .
“The draft includes new incentives for natural gas producers that were not in H.R. 2454, the sweeping House-passed energy and climate bill, as well as a modest nuclear energy title that Senate nuclear power backers — such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — hope to greatly expand.
. . . . .
Plans to include new natural gas incentives drew attention as lawmakers last night began digesting the long-awaited bill.A new “clean energy” provision rewards companies that switch from power sources with higher emissions than the 2007 power sector average — such as coal-fired or oil-fired power plants — to cleaner fuels including gas.
The plan received high marks from Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) who said it is a “positive step.”
“Anything we do to promote natural gas would be a very, very smart thing to do,” Landrieu said. “The leaders are hearing from many different parts of the country how much natural gas is out there.”
Landrieu was among nine senators who sent a letter last week to Boxer lobbying for greater incentives for natural gas. Natural gas producers have been aggressively lobbying senators to win greater incentives for the fuel and have garnered support from some swing votes, including Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).
Maybe Kerry, Boxer, Landrieu, et al, haven’t seen this article:
Eric Fox: “What could go wrong with shale plays”
Remember this, when you hear those slick commercials touting decades worth of natural gas from tight shales
or this one:
If 2% leaks, the CO2 impact of natural gas is the same as burning coal
or this one:
Must read: “How Neutral is the Potential Gas Committee?”
or this one:
Analyst: Gas shale may be next bubble to burst
But they should get up to speed. Imagine how mortifying it will be if we’ve switched over to natural gas for much of our energy generation and transportation, but somehow, greenhouse gas levels just don’t drop the way those industry-funded studies and think tanks said they would. Imagine how embarrassing it will be when it turns out so much taxpayer money was spent on infrastructure for natural gas delivery and consumption and then the infrastructure investment cost isn’t even paid off before the gas runs out. Can y’all say T Boone-doggle?
When Donna Lupardo, Assemblywoman, D-Endwell, 126th District, wrote this …
… MB wrote this:
Very disappointing bit of writing from Lupardo, who was, for a while,
one of the more reasonable people around as far as this issue is
concerned. I understand the appeal of these “middle ground” arguments.
I really do. In some cases, finding “middle ground” is exactly the
right thing to do. Unfortunately, all too often, the “middle ground”
isn’t really in the middle at all–rather, it is skewed very, very,
very far toward the side that has dollar signs sparkling in their
eyes–a side that is sometimes aided by nutty and/or gullible people
who are allowing themselves to be used.
For example, let’s take a look at the global warming issue. On one
side we have people who are paying attention to the vast amount of
scientific evidence that has been accumulated indicating that global
warming is occurring, is due to human activity, and if left unchecked
is going to make life on this planet a lot more difficult (to put it
mildly). On the other side, we have a bunch of people who think that
just because they can dig up a handful of credentialed people (I
hesitate to call them “scientists”) who tell us not to worry about
global warming, they can go ahead and cheerfully ignore all of the
science on the other side. Finding some sort of “middle ground”
between these two groups is like finding some sort of middle ground
between your rational Aunt Bessie who goes out to work every day and
then comes home and balances the checkbook and prepares a nutritious
meal for her family, and your loony-as-a-jaybird Uncle Everett, who
spends each day standing on the rooftop dressed in his Napoleon
outfit, alternately baying at the moon (whether the moon is up or not)
and dreamily picking out which horses he plans to bet on in tomorrow’s
races. Clearly, the Bessie/Everett household is going to run a lot
more smoothly if Bessie does all of the planning and never gives
Everett a cent.
We have, I believe, much the same sort of situation as far as this
shale gas mess is concerned. On one side are the people who have
looked at all of the problems
THAT HAVE ACTUALLY OCCURRED ALREADY IN THE REAL WORLD
as a result of this type of drilling, and on the other
side are people who a) don’t give a damn, and/or b) are willing to
believe in some sort of fictional universe in which some sort of
fictional technology exists that will allow some sort of fictional,
safe drilling. I have lost count of the number of people I have talked
to who have said that they started out thinking that perhaps there was
some safe way to do the drilling, until they did some research…and
then they decided that there is no safe way to do the drilling.
At the heart of the issue, as far as I am concerned, is the huge
number of wells required. According to everything I’ve read,
(including information from drilling-friendly sources), a shale gas
well depletes very rapidly; even when it is re-fracked, production
does not come back up to those high initial levels. That means that in
order to maintain a reasonably high level of production (and income)
from a given shale gas area, you have to drill more wells, and then
drill more wells, and then drill more wells, on and on and on. And
with a huge number of wells, even if each well has a very small
negative impact on the environment and on public health, the
cumulative impact is going to be nasty. (Let me just pause here to say
that the phrase “negative impact on public health” means that people
will get sick–perhaps very sick. Some of them may be people that
those in the “middle” or on the pro-drilling side know and love.)
Finally, after a given area is drilled out, the gas companies will be
off to the next area, leaving a huge mess behind. We have seen this
act before, with other extractive industries. Can Donna Lupardo or
anyone else point to a case in which it DIDN’T go this way????
I’m sure that we can all agree that it would be lovely if our area
could prosper from the drilling while simultaneously remaining a safe
and pleasant place in which to live. It would also be lovely if
tomorrow morning everyone woke up and found a large basket of cash on
their doorstep, no strings attached, and then went into the house and
turned on CNN to find that world peace had miraculously been
established and a perpetual motion machine invented. Unfortunately,
none of these things are going to happen–they are fantasies. And
there is no reasonable “middle ground” between fact and fantasy.
Period.
Please write Donna Lupardo and tell her there is no “middle” ground
here–it’s a bit like an election: either you vote for a given candidate, or you
don’t. Period.
=======================================
MB’s makes more sense to us.
Guest post by Jack Ramsden:
.
I’m a big Tom Gjelten fan and a bigger National Public Radio (NPR) fan.
.
But last week, I was troubled by their series on the new initiatives in natural gas drilling. There were three installments of a story by Tom Gjelten (09/22-23-24) and then an hour on the Diane Rehm Show on Wednesday, September 23. I listened to the Rehm Show and read the text on the three installments, plus a related story on “water worries” yesterday. This last story seemed to be an “oh yeah, but…” kind of a thing.
.
Here’s the problem. A very distressed but articulate caller called in to the Diane Rehm Show and identified herself as “Victoria” from Dimock, PA. This was the day before PA DEP shut down gas drilling due to the three large spills, but after the spills happened and she referred to them in her call. The panel on the show had been talking about the good science and millions of successful wells and making me upset with every misleading statistic, so I was glad to hear from a resident of a drilling area.
.
You know what Tom Gjelten called it? “Anecdotal evidence”! How can he have visited a drilling area, whether in PA, TX, or CO or where ever, and make all these statements about the science of hydro-fracking and then put off this woman’s statements as merely anecdotal? Did he talk to any residents that were at the grocery store buying their water? Did he drive on any of the roads that were literally pulverized by the huge trucks? Did he ask about anybody in the area that could set their tap water on fire out of the faucet?
.
If this is the perspective that this reporter brings to this story, then maybe his other stories are suspect too. Maybe I shouldn’t be such a fan.
.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113043935&ps=rs (link to 1st installment)
Tags: media bias, NPR
The Washington Post reports:
Oil Group’s ‘Citizen’ Rally Memo Stirs Debate
Firms Asked to Recruit Employees, Retirees
By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 16, 2009
A petroleum industry trade group is asking oil companies to recruit employees and retirees to attend rallies attacking climate-change legislation, an approach to grass-roots politics that resembles strategies used recently by some opponents of health-care reform.
In a memo this month, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard detailed plans for “Energy Citizen” rallies to be held in 20 states during the final two weeks of Congress’s August recess. Gerard wrote that the intent was to put a “human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy,” including a climate-change bill passed by the House in June.
“Please indicate to your company leadership your strong support for employee participation in the rallies,” Gerard wrote in the memo, saying that contractors and suppliers should also be recruited.
Environmental groups on Saturday criticized the rallies, which they described as manufactured events intended to pass as organic assemblies of concerned citizens. Greenpeace activists said they saw parallels to the health-care debate, where opponents of reform — including some organizations that receive heavy funding from industry groups and individuals — have organized efforts to shout down lawmakers at “town hall” meetings.
“It’s the most powerful among us, masquerading as grass-roots outrage to stifle debate on global warming,” Michael Crocker, a spokesman for Greenpeace, said of the oil group’s plans. “These are manufactured concerns, and the people who get involved in this are paid to put on this theater.”
The memo, obtained by Greenpeace, was first reported on by the Financial Times Saturday.
Kert Davies, another official with Greenpeace, said the group opposes the climate bill, too, deeming it too lenient on polluters.
. . . . .
The House bill calls for a 17 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. It would also require polluters to buy “allowances” for each ton of emissions and allow them to exceed their allotted share of pollution only by buying more allowances.
Democratic leaders in the Senate have said they will use the House bill as a model for their version of the legislation.
The oil industry seems divided on the issue. Shell Oil and BP America, both members of the American Petroleum Institute, are also members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which has supported a “cap and trade” approach. Spokesmen for both companies said yesterday they would not participate in the “Energy Citizen” rallies.
And former vice president Al Gore’s group, the Alliance for Climate Protection, is part of an effort to hold rallies attended by people who have — or would like to have — jobs in the renewable-energy sector. Their economic prospects might improve if a climate bill passes.
Alice McKeon, a spokeswoman for the group, said she did not think attendees were being recruited through their employers, in the way the oil group aims to do.
“They’re reaching out to the businesses directly and getting their people involved in it, as employees, and that’s not something that we’ve used as a tactic,” she said.
Complete story at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/15/AR2009081502698.html
Tags: API, astroturfing, cap and trade, grassroots, memo, rally
…You wonder if they wondered why.
Smells like… astroturf, don’t you think?
___________________Credit all photos Cecile A Lawrence (c)____________________
Tags: astroturfing, Bainbridge, coalition, Marcellus, our rights our land our future, rally
It’s a media miracle.
Like water into wine, like the loaves and fishes, somehow there were more people at the rally than arrived or left – even resorting to adding those 2 figures together. This handful of people who attended a coalition rally in Bainbridge on August 23 were, through the magic of reporting, turned into “two thousand.”
These pictures were taken at the height of the attendance, not early in the day.
On the evidence, it could easily be concluded that most of the people there were family members of organizers – or selling something. Look at all the company and bank reps standing around with no one to peddle their wares to.
It’s hard to conclude that in real terms, this thing was anything other than a bust. But when you can get the media to report that 2000 people showed up, and then you can take the newspaper article with the bloated figures to your politicians to pressure them to betray the majority population of their constituencies, suddenly, the sow’s ear becomes a silk purse.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Kudos to the voice of caution – who evidently wasn’t standing alone on the fringe of the field, as reported by the media.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
___________________Credit all photos Cecile A Lawrence (c)____________________
Tags: astroturfing, Bainbridge, coalition, Marcellus, our rights our land our future, rally
In a July 27 post, Robert F Kennedy correctly lists some of the reasons we need to move away from burning coal for energy generation. Unfortunately, his conclusion that the solution is to replace coal with natural gas is as erroneous as his convictions about coal are correct.
At http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/king-coal_b_245117.html he concludes:
“Natural gas comes with its own set of environmental caveats. It is a carbon-based fuel and [its] extraction from shale, the most significant new source, if not managed carefully, can cause serious water, land use, and wildlife impacts, especially in the hands of irresponsible producers and lax regulators. But those impacts are dwarfed by the disastrous holocaust of coal and can be mitigated by careful regulation.
“The giant advantage of a quick conversion from coal to gas is the quickest route for jumpstarting our economy and saving our planet.”
In response, SplashdownPA writes:
“It sounds reasonable, doesn’t it?
“All we need are responsible producers and vigilant regulators!
“Congress can’t even agree that this is necessary! Money isn’t there for environmental protection agencies to hire the number of inspectors necessary to monitor this lawless industry. And YES! coal mining and burning is dangerously toxic, but when Kennedy talks about enough affordable natural gas to last us into the next century, he’s supporting perpetuation of a carbon-based energy industry that has demonstrated it is unwilling to divert a nickel of its profits to safeguard our absolutely VITAL resources: WATER, AIR and LAND. Their best practices are simply NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Especially not a century’s worth!!!
“Closing coal fired plants would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 20%.. BUT, what measure of CO2 and even more environmentally harmful methane is released into the atmosphere during extraction of natural gas, including toxic air polluting emissions from transporting the millions of gallons of water to and from well pads, treatment or burial of “produced water”, operating drilling rigs, compressors and other associated gas production equipment and activities, over and above emissions from well flares and finally, power plant emissions from energy generation from natural gas? How does all that stack up against that 20%?
“How too does Kennedy justify the permanent depletion and contamination of drinking water supplies across the country, occurring as a result of mining for gas? Surely he can’t think that indicating the need for responsibility and vigilance is going to suddenly manifest a new attitude on all fronts, by all players in this play?
“What guarantees do we have that a gluttonous industry won’t milk the quick fix dry, leaving us with an irrevocable permanent loss in exchange for temporary energy?
“There are important unanswered, and without drilling reform legislation in place, perhaps unanswerable questions. They loom like loopholes in his argument as we continue to learn how criminally untrustworthy corporate America is willing to be in pursuit of the almighty dollar. We’ve seen too how even regulations aren’t foolproof, and how when one entity acts outside the law it encourages others to follow suit.
“Meanwhile, the gas industry has already been irresponsible for deadly releases of toxins into the atmosphere, deadly releases of toxins into our waters, for killing and/or sickening livestock, wildlife and humans, for the seepage of toxic wastewater into our lands, contaminating land and water, the evaporation into the atmosphere of carcinogens from open sludgepits… in short, there isn’t anything healthy or friendly about the production of natural gas and turning a blind eye to the devastating problems of the lesser of two evils does not make the lesser evil any better.”
Read more at:
http://splashdownpa.blogspot.com/2009/07/king-coal-rf-kennedy-jr-weighs-in-on.html
Tags: air emissions, coal, energy generation, groundwater, Huffington Post, natural gas, RFK
An e-mail from one citizen & taxpayer to Barbara Fiala:
I am writing in regard to Broome County’s decision to hire a lobbyist
to urge Albany not to get “bogged down” in its environmental review of
drilling in the Marcellus Shale.
The shale gas drilling techniques that have come into use over the
last decade were developed in an atmosphere of very poor regulatory
control. A May 19 press release on hydrofracturing from Congressman
Maurice Hinchey
(see http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny22_hinchey/morenews/051909HydraulicFracturing.html)
states:
“More than 1,000 cases of contamination have been documented by
courts and state and local governments in New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio,
Texas, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. In one case, a house exploded after
hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and methane
seeped into the residential water supply.
A 2004 EPA study, which was haphazardly conducted with a bias
toward a desired outcome, concluded that fracturing did not pose a
risk to drinking water. However, Hinchey noted that the more than
1,000 reported contamination incidents have cast significant doubt on
the report’s findings and the report’s own body contains damaging
information that wasn’t mentioned in the conclusion. In fact, the
study foreshadowed many of the problems now being reported across the
country. ”
We have recently seen drilling-related methane contamination of water
wells in nearby Dimock, PA. Questions still remain as to exactly how
the water in Dimock became contaminated. Once an aquifer is
contaminated, it may be extremely difficult or even impossible to
clean it up. Fortunately, so far, no one has been killed by the
drilling-related explosions that have occurred in water wells, and, in
one case, in a home. But there is certainly no guarantee that we will
continue to be that lucky.
It is often said that New York’s environmental regulations regarding
drilling are superior to those of other states, but a review of the NY
regulations does not bear out that claim. For example, NY’s setbacks
from residences and bodies of water are much smaller than those in
many other areas. Water is becoming increasingly precious as shortages
occur around the world and in other parts of our own country. Areas
possessing clean water are likely to be increasingly desirable in the
future. Our water is our area’s most valuable natural resource and we
should not endanger it.
Last summer and fall, the NYSDEC demonstrated that it did NOT have a
good grasp of the multiple issues involved in shale gas drilling.
Rather, it was members of the public and of local environmental groups
who researched the damage that has occurred from this type of gas
drilling in other areas and then made the NYSDEC aware of that damage
through the informational meetings and draft scope SGEIS hearings held
by the NYSDEC. The NYSDEC received thousands of comments on its draft
scope. Many, many of those comments were NOT in support of drilling.
I do not believe that the NYSDEC is getting bogged down in
bureaucracy. They are understaffed and do not have the resources
needed to deal with this issue in a truly thorough manner. Even if
they had sufficient resources, the environmental review would still
require a great deal of care and time. This is an extremely complex
and technical issue; the drilling’s impacts will be long-lasting and
wide-ranging and are likely to negatively affect not only our water,
but our air, the health of our forests and farmlands, the nature and
desirability of our communities, and the health of our people.
Many Broome County residents are not in favor of this drilling. While
the pro-drilling landowners’ groups may be well organized, it is
important to recognize that most of the residents of this county do
not own large tracts of land, will see little or no financial gain
from the drilling, and may suffer serious personal and financial
losses if their quality of life, their health, and/or the value of
their homes are negatively impacted by the drilling.
I would also like to point out that the current price of natural gas
is quite low, that some experts expect it to remain low for some time,
and that the first few years of production are usually the highest for
any given shale gas well. It is therefore quite likely that if Broome
County’s land is drilled in the near future, the county will be
selling a large fraction of its recoverable gas at bargain-basement
prices.
We have all seen the results of the TCE contamination in Endicott. Our
area does not need more of the same. Frankly, given the track record
of the gas industry and the high well density needed to recover
appreciable amounts of gas from the Marcellus Shale, it seems
extremely likely that Broome County will end up with a number of
seriously contaminated drilling sites, several areas in which homes
have no reliable water supply, poor air quality, a loss of green
space, lowered residential property values in areas where drilling
occurs, a loss of residents who prefer not to live in an
industrialized area, difficulty attracting new and highly skilled
residents to the area, additional costly health problems among its
residents, and probably a whole host of unforeseen problems as well.
We should not rush into this. The gas is not going anywhere. And I
would add that, in any case, the gas industry is well able to afford
its own lobbyists.
For all of the reasons explained above, I do not think it is in Broome
County’s best interest to spend taxpayer dollars to hire a lobbyist to
push for gas drilling.
Tags: county government, DEC, EPA, fracking, gas drilling, lobbyist, Marcellus, regulation, SGEIS
1) compose an e-mail sort of like this one…Heck, it could even BE this one:
—————————————–
Why the softball approach to T Boone Pickens? He used you. And you’ve got to keep abreast with your viewers, many of whom already know the following:
A) His only agenda is his own profit – but he’s pretty damn slick at making it look otherwise, isn’t he?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70HFEHB6dag
B) The “Energy Plan” is his ticket to increasing demand for a dirty fuel that ruins lives everywhere it’s extracted, and in fact will NOT be used for energy independence. A great deal of it is slated for export. I’m talking about natural gas, or as we like to call it, UN-natural shale gas. The process of hydraulic fracturing, which pollutes vast amounts of precious water across the nation and leaves dead zones and sick people in its wake, is used to get natural gas out of tight shales. We need clean water, clean air, healthy cropland and healthy people much more than we need a few years’ worth of a dirty hydrocarbon fuel.
Want to know more? Visit:
http://www.un-naturalgas.org
http://un-naturalgas.org/weblog/?cat=107
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/2009/03/take-action-tboone-pickens-gets-free.html
http://otegony.com/t-boone-pickens
http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/fracpage.htm
http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/whatyouneedtoknow.htm
http://www.journeyoftheforsaken.com/consortiumofthefraced.htm
http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/home.php
http://www.earthworksaction.org/oil_and_gas.cfm
THIS is the story you should be telling. Women across the country will thank you.
As will I.
————————————-
2) Add or substitute your own URL or your favorite URLS (can you imagine, 50 URLs a day?*)
3) Go to the e-mail page for The View:
http://abc.go.com/daytime/theview/ask
4) Paste your e-mail into the window and send it.
It would be great if we could get a hundred e-mails in to them in the next couple of weeks – enough for them to notice, anyway – a counter-offensive to industry efforts to increase demand for un-natural shale gas. The marketplace rules: less demand, less pressure on us and our homes, water, air, politicians, regulating agencies…
*With apologies to Arlo:
"And friends, somewhere in Washington enshrined in some little folder, is a study in black and white of my fingerprints. And the only reason I'm singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if you're in a situation like that there's only one thing you can do and that's walk into the shrink wherever you are ,just walk in say "Shrink, WE DON'T WANT YOUR STINKIN' UN-NATURAL SHALE GAS." And walk out. You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and they won't take either of them. And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin' a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends, they may think it's a movement. "And that's what it is , the Anti-Shale-Gas Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is ... put your URL on the end and e-mail it."
Tags: Pickens, reduce demand, The View
0