This discussion talks about how anti fossil fuel extremists and outside entities are attacking PA natural gas industry and working to methodically shut down PA Natural Gas production.  Anti-fracking groups, climate change advocates and others  want to control your royalty or potential for royalty.

If this doesn't make you angry then check your pulse. The video was made before PA Governor Wolf got involved. You will not find any references to meetings he holds with Bloomberg listed on his website. That's because his staff covers it up so the public doesn't know.


On November 6, 2018, 8 Anti Fossil Fuel candidates were elected to the PA Congress and the left in the Pennsylvania Democrat Party wants to ban all fracking in the state. I

Views: 1461

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Josie, I do not pretend to understand all of what you are saying or even a small part.

But what I will say,

Putting all of these ideas an opinions can be compared to a dozen folks around a tree and then asking them to tell what they saw. 

Each person will tell you that they saw something different. And every one will be right!  Move them around that tree a few  steps and then their view of that tree will change. 

It would be nice if everyone could share equally in the treasures to be found. But I fear not in the foreseeable future. 

Are  human beings up to the task to understand this kind of thought? Greed and control seems to be the real crux of all human difficulties!

Granddad Ladd

You just hit The Nail on The Head. "Greed and control seems to be the real crux of all human difficulties!"

KEEP YOUR EYES ON THIS: If the antis get off on this they may be able to shut things down for years while it goes through the courts. It happened in CA in 2007
Californians lose 800,000 acre-feet of water to 305 minnows

Study: Marcellus Drilling Doesn’t Affect Brook Trout All That Much

Trout Unlimited (TU), previously outed as an anti-fracking organization (see Trout Unlimited, Other Groups Outed as Radical Green Groups), is promoting a research study recently authored by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) titled “Brook trout distributional response to unconventional oil and gas development: Landscape context matters” (full copy below). TU believes the study offers proof that fracking hurts brook trout. We scanned the study and came to the opposite conclusion. Using a count of the number of certain kinds of trees in a given habitat as a proxy for how well trout will do, or not do, the study concludes that there is some minor degradation in brook trout habitat when drilling comes to town. But only in places where the habitat had already been damaged by other non-drilling activities.

A brief overview of the study, from the USGS:

Issue

The Upper Susquehanna River watershed (PA) has experienced a rapid increase in unconventional oil and gas (UOG) development since it is part of the Marcellus shale formation. It is also part of the headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay, which is the focus of considerable conservation and restoration activities by federal and state agencies under the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Brook trout are of significant economic and cultural importance in this region, and require high quality, cold-water habitats to persist throughout the watershed.

The Study and Key Findings

The Federal Multiagency Collaboration on Unconventional Oil and Gas Research identified key research questions for DOI and other agencies to provide information to stakeholders in support of safely and responsibly developing domestic UOG resources. The USGS was tasked with assessing possible ecological effects of UOG development and to identify and prioritize aquatic communities that are most vulnerable to impact from UOG activities. The study was funded by the USGS and the National Science Foundation.

The key findings include:

  • Eleven percent of brook trout streams in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin were impacted by current UOG development.
  • Most streams impacted had poor underlying brook trout habitat quality due to pre-existing non-UOG land uses, such as agriculture, residential and commercial development, and historic mining.
  • The model predicted a loss of brook trout in 126 (4%) of streams impacted by existing UOG, including four Pennsylvania Class A designated streams.

Implications

  • This paper used empirical data to analyze and model context-dependent impacts on brook trout distribution from current and future UOG development. The findings and underlying model can be used by stakeholders to identify streams where additional UOG development may impact brook trout and to prioritize restoration activities.
  • Some of the stakeholders working to improve stream conditions for brook trout in the Chesapeake watershed include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and other state wildlife management agencies. Additional stakeholders include Trout Unlimited, American Fisheries Society, and other regional and local organizations.*

A very close friend of mine and an expert in Tioga County PA Native Brook Trout told me recently that the fish used in the photo at the top of the article is a stocked brook trout and not a native brook trout.

PA Fish and Game runs one of the largest Brook Trout stocking programs in the nation. They raise the fish and plant them in streams. It is a huge profit center for the State through license sales.

For those that do not know; stocked brook trout and native brook trout are basically the same fish but the stocked version is not as "wild" and in fact might be considered "tame".

see the "stockie" here

https://www.usgs.gov/centers/cba/science/potential-effects-unconven...

Native

For those who wish to investigate the Climate Change Science on the merits of real scientific efforts, I invite you to visit the WUWT website....Watts Up With That-All things related to Climate Science.

It is worth a few minutes of your time....then you decide what to believe....you might be surprised at the out and out dishonesty in the Science of Climate, as influenced by big money politics.
For those who wish to investigate the Climate Change Science on the merits of real scientific efforts, I invite you to visit the WUWT website....Watts Up With That-All things related to Climate Science.

It is worth a few minutes of your time....then you decide what to believe....you might be surprised at the out and out dishonesty in the Science of Climate, as influenced by big money politics.

The Most visited Climate website on the Internet. Then owner pots research 24 hiourss per day....new articles coming on ant any given time.

. https://wattsupwiththat.com/

Hi OT, I did but most technical info is above my pay grade. The concept of man made climate change is so out of control and so being driven by so many different entities that I don't think any "good" science can make any difference...It is the most dangerous hoax ever put on mankind. It is madness!

Got It, Thanks again.

“…Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”– Dwight Eisenhower, 1961

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/28/essay-solar-cycle-wave-frequ...

OT, I did read the linked science article from your post. I am not a scientist, but science minded. To fully understand any of the information on WUWT, I rely on the comment section to help make sense of what has been reported. Thanks for the link.

Natural Gas with Zero Emissions? This Will Give Antis Heartburn



Natural gas-fired electric generating plants are a big deal. They burn far more efficiently, and pollute way less, than either coal or oil plants. Yet anti-fossil fuelers still hate them because, well, they burn a fossil fuel. And that means they put carbon dioxide (CO2) into the air. And ya know, CO2 is going to make Mom Earth fry “someday.” Whatever. But what if you could capture all of the CO2 and use it/channel it somewhere else, so it didn’t escape into the air? And what if you could ensure that no methane (CH4) escaped either? What if you had a truly zero-emissions natural gas-fired electric generating plant? Such a thing IS possible, and three investors, including Exelon (Fortune 100 electric generating company) is betting on this new technology as the future of electric generation. The question is, will antis shed their prejudice and embrace this new technology?

To answer our own question, no, they won’t. Antis are so twisted that nothing but so-called renewables will ever make them happy. Meanwhile, the rest of us adults will live in the real world. A world where new technology addresses “problems” like CO2 emissions.

Make no mistake, while we think the technology is super cool, we also think it’s totally unnecessary. CO2 is not frying the planet. However, so many people believe in the myth of man-made global warming so completely, it is the reality we must now live in. We wonder how Galileo put up with those who wanted to burn him at the stake for advocating Copernicus’ heliocentric theory that the planets revolved around the sun, not earth. Likewise, we maintain temperature patterns here on earth are influenced far more by solar flares (or lack of them) than by CO2 in the atmosphere.

DROP INTO AN ENERGY conference or strike up a conversation about the any-day-now clean energy revolution, and inevitably the conversation will turn to “baseload” power: the search for an energy source that can churn out cheap, reliable, zero-emissions electricity at large scale – something able to replace polluting coal and gas plants without the intermittency of solar and wind.

Nuclear may have once held such a promise but for concerns about safety, government oversight, nuclear waste, and, most recently, astronomical construction costs. Now, however, a new technology has arrived – one that may finally claim the mantle of clean, emissions-free baseload power, even as it stokes consternation among environmental groups.

“The cost of new nuclear is prohibitive for us to be investing in,” Chris Crane, the CEO of energy company Exelon Corp., said at a discussion last month at the Brookings Institution. “Our bet for our company is advancing technologies around storage and sequestering technologies.”

Exelon is one of three investors in Net Power, an energy startup developing a new type of natural gas plant outside Houston that captures and stores – or “sequesters” – 100 percent of the emissions it generates. Though carbon capture and storage has been around for decades, it’s costly and energy intensive: A pilot project in Texas that installed carbon capture technology at a heavily polluting coal plant, for example, needed a new gas plant to power it – and captured only about a third of the unit’s total emissions.

The Net Power project in Texas, by contrast, promises to capture all of its own emissions: Whereas traditional power plants – whether coal, gas, nuclear or even certain types of solar – generate steam to push a turbine that then generates electricity, the Net Power project uses a pressurized stream of carbon dioxide, a much more efficient process.

The pilot plant earlier this year passed a significant development milestone known as “first fire,” and it’s on track to become fully operational by the start of 2019, top Exelon officials say. Set to generate 50 megawatts, commercial versions of the technology will be able to turn out about 300 megawatts – or roughly enough to power about 200,000 homes, based on average residential energy use in 2017.

“If that technology works as they claim, it’s pretty much a game-changer in terms of the cost of creating electricity and the CO2 stream,” says Anthony Kovscek, professor in energy resources engineering at the Stanford School of Earth, Energy and Environmental Sciences.

As with nuclear, cost remains a sticking point. Without subsidies, gas plants of the Net Power design simply won’t be able to compete with comparatively cheap coal and traditional natural gas, or even solar-plus-battery facilities that have seen prices fall, some energy experts say.

Economists and energy wonks across the political spectrum have long pushed for a carbon tax: a price on emissions that would reward clean-energy sources while charging coal and traditional gas plants for the “societal” costs they impose, such as the public health consequences of pollution or the environmental impacts of drilling and mining.

Earlier this year, however, congressional lawmakers took a different approach: Rather than taxing emissions, they tucked a provision into the 2018 Bipartisan Budget Act that introduced tax credits for each ton of carbon dioxide that was stored. The Net Power project and others like it, for example, will be able to earn subsidies of $50 per ton of CO2 it sequesters underground, or $35 per ton of CO2 it sells to oil producers for enhanced oil recovery, where producers inject gas into deposits to yield as much as 25 percent more oil.

Utilities would need a carbon price of “anywhere from a hundred to upwards of hundreds of dollars per ton” for carbon capture to make economic sense, says Lynn Loo, director of the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment at Princeton University.

Though a boon for carbon storage, the tax credits triggered outrage across a wide range of environmental groups. Rather than simply incentivizing carbon capture and storage, they pointed out, the measure simply makes enhanced oil recovery cheaper, rewarding oil companies for extracting more oil simply when they use CO2.

“We don’t support subsidies for fossil fuel production, including subsidies for enhanced oil recovery, that would conflict with the need to reduce our dependence on those fuels,” David Doniger, the organization’s senior strategic director for the Climate and Clean Energy Program, wrote in a March blog post with Natural Resources Defense Council alumna Danielle Droitsch. “We will work to ensure that the new tax credits are used as much as possible for [carbon capture and storage] projects that bury carbon dioxide in deep geologic formations without producing oil or put it into materials like cement that lock it up for good.”

Though cautiously optimistic about the role of carbon capture and storage in general – environmental groups across the board acknowledge that it can and should play a pivotal role in reducing emissions from the U.S. power sector – its implementation inevitably goes hand-in-hand with a continued reliance on fossil fuels: No company will invest in installing the technology unless it’s convinced there will be a continued, reliable supply of natural gas.

According to an analysis by the International Energy Agency of the tax plan passed by contrast, about 90 percent of projects under the tax credit will use CO2 for enhanced oil recovery. Net Power, it turns out, is no exception.

Earlier this month, Exelon announced it had attracted a new investor in its Net Power venture: Oxy Low Carbon Ventures. The company is a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum, which generated some $12.5 billion last year. It’s plan: to use the CO2 generated by the Net Power plant for enhanced oil recovery projects.

“We see a tremendous opportunity to utilize this technology, not only in the United States, but internationally,” says Mike Pacilio, executive vice president of Exelon and CEO of Exelon Generation, which oversees the company’s power plants. “We’re not shutting down these wells: We still have a need for oil in the country. So what this does, it allows CO2 to generate electricity and be used for enhanced oil recovery, which is environmentally much superior to what we currently do.”

The project will still rely on the build-out of infrastructure, from pipelines to carry CO2 to oil fields to proper places to store it. Environmental advocates also point out that there will need to be rigorous oversight to ensure the captured CO2 – whether simply used or harness for enhanced oil recovery – actually stays underground.

Nonetheless, Loo, of Princeton, says, “if this pilot study goes well, I can imagine this being deployed very quickly.”*

*U.S. News & World Report (Nov 13, 2018) – New Technology Promises Natural Gas With No Emissions

The original study was "peer" reviewed and then published all around the world....but then....a climate critic reviewed it and found an error...

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate...

RSS

Local Groups

Latest Activity

Blog Posts

Those French Fuel Riots and the “Great Wall of Cuomo”

Posted by Thomas J Shepstone on December 3, 2018 at 10:33am 0 Comments

The French fuel riots demonstrate what can happen when ordinary people are denied the basic necessities of life by “let them eat cake” elitists with agendas.

The French Revolution is hardly a thing to be admired,…

Continue

© 2018   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service