Comment

Comment by Eberhard Brendan Carroll on April 30, 2010 at 4:03am

Gas has it's place, as does coal. Gas is approximately double that of coal per BTU. This means if we switched from all coal to all gas our electric bill would be approximately double. Is it worth that cost to maybe slow down global warming? Is global warming real? didn't we just have one of the coldest winters on record? Is global warming bad? Wasn't the scare in the 70's global cooling? Do humans really have any control over our climate / the weather? I think we were supposed to hit peak oil by now and be out of food as well.

I apologize for being off topic. Just because some of us are in favor of gas production we shouldn't discredit the most abundant and efficient fuel source that we have in this country, coal.

Eberhard

Comment by John Reed on April 30, 2010 at 2:24am

And with regard to your piece about coal being comparable to natural gas with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, Engleder gave a detailed explaination as to why this is simply not the case. I posted it a few weeks back. Here it is again.... Please feel free to send his response to your sources who feel he is wrong. I'd be interested to see/hear their response.

Howarth states, “Natural gas is mostly methane, a greenhouse gas with 72 times more potential than carbon dioxide to warm our planet (per molecule, averaged over the 20 years following emission). I estimate that extraction, transport and combustion of Marcellus gas — together with leakage of methane — makes this gas at least 60 percent more damaging for greenhouse warming than crude oil and similar in impact to coal.” Let’s assume he is referring to just to replacing oil and coal by gas equivalences from the Marcellus.



Global warming potential GWP of methane is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance (CH4) relative to that of 1 kg of CO2. This definition comes from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Radiative forcing is a measure of the influence a gas has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth –atmosphere system. As the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the ratio of incoming to outgoing energy increases. The same amount of CH4 has a much larger effect which is implied by Howarth’s statement. What Howarth does not tell the reader is that methane is easily oxidized in the atmosphere and has a half life of only 7 years. CO2 is very stable in the atmosphere once it is released. This is why the atmosphere is Venus is mainly CO2.



Because of the oxidation of CH4 in the Earth’s atmosphere, methane’s GWP drops rapidly from 72 times CO2 after 20 years to 21 times after 100 years CO2. In fact, it is this rapid decay that will limit the amount of methane in the Earth’s atmosphere to a few parts per million under the present rate of gas production in the world. Note that the concentration of CO2 is presently about 400 parts per million (ppm) and this will continue to climb because it is NOT being systematically removed at the rate of CH4 removal by oxidization. What this means is the CO2 is presently king in terms of radiative forcing and its influence will continue to grow.



Here is the kicker! According to DOE EIA, the US uses about 25 trillion cubic feet of methane per year (25 Tcf/yr). Converting to mass this is 552 Tg/y (teragrams/year). According to US EPA figures, the methane production industry releases 104 TgCO2 Eq. The US EPA uses the 100 year equivalence between CO2 and CH4 (not the 20 year equivalence used by Howarth) which was calculated to be 21 within the IPCC 2nd Assessment Report. So, methane emission by the gas industry is 4.9 Tg/y which means that 0.9% of all methane produced gets into the atmosphere. Note also that total methane emission is just above 578 TgCO2 Eq which means that gas production is responsible for 18% of all methane fed to the atmosphere by the USA. Obviously, these numbers are larger if this tranche of methane is tracked for a shorter period. It should be noted that methane production by the USA has stabilized over the past several years and the measured concentration of methane in the atmosphere has not increased because of its short half life. Presumably it has stabilized by somewhat less than 2 ppm.



Suppose that all coal fired power plants were converted to methane power plants tomorrow. The USA uses about 25 Quads (quadrillion BTU) annually from both coal and natural gas. Coal production would stop and natural gas production would double. Methane emits half the CO2 as coal on a BTU basis. Presently coal releases 2,000 TgCO2 Eq. Burning CH4 would release 1000 TgCO2 Eq for a net savings of 1000 TgCO2 Eq. At the same time, this additional methane production would release 104 TgCO2 Eq worth of methane emissions. The USA emits about 5800 Tg in CO2. A complete conversion from coal to natural gas saves the USA about 900 Tg or roughly 15% in greenhouse gas emissions. Converting vehicles to natural gas would save an additional 15% in CO2 loading. This is calculated using the US EPA standard of a 100 year oxidation period for CH4.



I don’t have any idea what Howarth means when he says that Marcellus methane is as damaging as coal but to my way of thinking he is clearly out to foil Marcellus production for reasons that he does not make clear!



Terry

Comment by Carol on April 30, 2010 at 2:22am

Isn't lime used on farms? I recall using lime on my pasture fields.
Also, not so sure we can blame the contaminated water in the Mon River on gas drilling. When, in our lifetime, has that water ever been clean? Not in my 39 years.

Comment by John Reed on April 30, 2010 at 2:05am

CJK, farming is 100% acceptable to me. My point is the farming industry is known to be at the top of the list when it comes to polluting water aquifers and other natural water sources. You seem to be hell bent on squashing natural gas exploration yet you are contributing to water pollution every day, even though you know your business is known to be a great contributor to water pollution. Your passion is directed at the gas industry, not fixing water pollution in general. Yes, most people involved in this would take offense to your stance. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Comment by CJK on April 30, 2010 at 1:55am

John: If pollution is not acceptable to you from the farming industry how can you justify it from the gas industry? Is it because it is more profitable for you and others?
I have never once insulted your intelligence by saying you were not "smart enough to realize". By the way Dimock has not been the first contamination it has happened more often than it should have out west and in fact in the western part of the state what about the Monongahela River? Also the fact is that many of the problems go unreported and settled by the gas companies to avoid bad press. I know of three in my area.

Thank you for acknowledging that "some of my points are moderately valid", time will tell if your arguments are valid.People might not "drop like flies" the effects of this will be long-term and broad. It will be our children and our great children that will be dealing with the damage.
At a meeting this week a woman discussed how she had to be taken to the hospital because she could not breathe. Apparently the drilling company was using lime in the drilling process. Her house and things around it were covered in a film of lime. Her lungs were burned by the lime. Her animals, horses, dogs etc., all now have respiratory problems. My point: this area is in for alot of respiratory problems as a result of all sorts of air pollution, from the trucks on the road, to the chemicals used in the drilling process, to the compressor stattions that will be on many of the well pads. Just more more thing to think about. This is not panic, this is what will happen as a result of the Industrialization of the area. This may be acceptable to some, and for others this may not be what they were expecting.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 30, 2010 at 1:55am

Dear John &rfs,
CJK reports on what she reports. Why do you have a problem with that? She reports the facts that she has uncovered, and shares it with the rest of us. You guys do the same. What is wrong with that? Shouldn't our focus be on how best to minimize/eliminate potential hazards and to protect ourselves best? Decrying to facts don't change them-attempting to drown them in statistics or in the broader context don't change them. Both of you guys come across as bright, but the focus is wrong-headed isn't it? With special thanks to Angel shouldn't we be focused on the following for our area?
Subject: Continuous Air Monitor Online

The continuous air monitor is now up and running in DISH. It is now available 24 hours a days seven days a week. I am thrilled of this development, and this is a real victory for the citizens of this community. You may see the data at the link below, and please spread the word.

http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/compliance/monitoring/air/monops/agc/ag...

Calvin Tillman
Mayor, DISH, TX
(940) 453-3640

Dan

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 29, 2010 at 11:53pm

Oh, no kidding!
Yes, I stay out of religion and politics as much as possible (ha ha). Gas issues have been taking all my time anyway.

Comment by John Reed on April 29, 2010 at 8:20pm

Eberhard, I have been trying to reason with CJK for months now. I've been using statistical sampling logic. I've posted the number of operating gas wells in the country as well as the number in the state of PA. I've tried to expain that if we sampled an adequate number of wells to arrive at a confidence level of close to 100%, we would find that the number of instances of methane migration and water well contamination caused by the gas companies would be miniscule and the percentage or odds would be very low. Now, this is just my opinion but if I wasn't certain I would not post.

Bottom line is people are not dropping like flies and the overwhelming majority of landowners have had a positive experience with natural gas exploration. If this was not the case we would certainly be hearing and reading about it. Natural gas exploration and hydro-fracking is relatively new to our area of PA however it is not new at all to the country. If the instances of methane migration and water well contamination were anything other than miniscule, again, we would be hearing about it. The problem is that media outlets tend to report bad news much more often than good news. They're intent is to sell newspapers and improve ratings by reporting what will catch the eyes and ears of the general public. Creating controversy is a great way to accomplish this. So when they have the chance to report things like what happened in Dimmock they jump on it, then they stomp on it, then they beat the issue into submission. This causes the environmentalists to jump on board and a massive frenzy of panic appears out of nowhere. Then they use these minimal instances as an avenue to scare as many people as possible. I'm surprised so many people fall for this. Another important note is that many media outlets are politically motivated and choose to report whatever supports their agenda. It didn't used to be like this. Some of us are smart enough to realize this and do not buy into it. We choose to take a more logical and educated approach to all of this. We do our homework and arrive at educated conclusions as opposed to allowing the negative press to influence our decision making process. Some of CJK's points are moderatley valid and we should be concerned and continue to safeguard our land and water by ensuring our lease agreements are protective. She seems however to be buying into the panic and placing a large blanket over the entire gas industry.

From what I understand she owns a working farm. Also, from what I understand, the farming industry has been recognized to be near the top of this list of pollution causing industries in the US. WIth her being so passionate about the environment, I sure hope she recognizes this and is doing her best to limit the pollution potential. I'd be very disappointed if I found out she contributes to this by allowing the delivery of sediment to receiving waters, contaminates our natural streams, creeks and aquifiers with pathogens and nutrients caused by animal waste. I sure hope she does not use pesctices. We all know these poisions have a far greater chance of reaching water sources than the flowback water utilized in the fracking process. Oh did I mention irrigation, and the detrimental effects it has proven to have on the environment. Really I have no problem with farming. I respect the industry. And I must admit my family and I would be lost without the services all farmers provide However, I do have a problem if a farmer or anyone else for that matter chooses to threaten my ability to provide a better way of life for my family. Especially, if at the same time is guilty of his/her own contributions to polluting the environment.

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 29, 2010 at 12:44pm

If I recall, the odds of water contamination are less than 1%

Odds of company losing license, at least 80% (if it were my company, then 100%)

Comment by Eberhard Brendan Carroll on April 29, 2010 at 12:32pm

CJK - Now we are getting somewhere. We have to start by understanding the process. The proper casing of the well is what we need to push for. The surface string is the most important, not to say that the other strings are not important, but that is the final safety net to protect the ground water. Now I'm not familiar with PA's regulations, or the common practices there. What I have seen in other areas is that some operators will try and save a buck by using a cheaper system, i.e. extended C cement and minimum excess. Other operators would spend more and run a G neat with 100% excess. These operators never had issues with their surface pipe. Most if not all states require that surface string be cemented to surface, they usually require a bond log of this as well. With a less sophisticated bond log the cement may appear complete, but there can be channels that do not show up. Through these channels gas, water, and /or oil can migrate. If you want to protect yourself when leasing make sure there is a clause in the lease regarding the quality of the surface pipe and the surface cement job.

Regarding my compensation, not that it's relevant, I was making about $12/hour when I started. Hard work and dedication pay off I'm doing better now. My farming friends and I would defiantly take a heated / AC combine cab with the XM radio over being 60' up in a Derick in the middle of winter (uh ah my tractor is sexy.) I can't argue with you on the guaranteed compensation part. It does suck not knowing when, or if income will be coming in. Living without food... Yah, Yah, yah, you need food. I'd take water over food, and air over water. That's not the argument. To enjoy a modern lifestyle, we need energy, end of story.

The companies always want, "good relations." They will continue to give back to the communities and do their best to operate in a responsible manner. Sometimes things go south. Sometimes things were already south before the first microseismic study was done. Did Dimock already have Shallow gas pockets? I don't know the full story there, I'll have to read up for next time.

Now I'm pretty new to this, I haven't read all the posts, nor do I have the time. I'm guessing that you CJK do not have a well on your property. A question for you and everyone out there:
Lets take the worst case scenario of having a well drilled on your property. There was a bad cement job and now your well water is contaminated. Let's suppose that at first the gas company denies any responsibility, so you have to buy water out of pocket. Let's say you spend $50/week on water. Your royalty check is $30,000 / month, so you are up $29,800 / month. I know bottled water isn't as good as the tap water and its a bit inconvenient. So would you rather have the $29,800 / month or the convenience of good tap water?

Now, who knows what the odds are of your water being contaminated by drilling on your property? Real odds. Anyone?

What do you think the chances are that the gas company will maintain it's license to operate if they do not remedy the problem? You can make up odds for this one.

Again, Best Regards.
Eberhard

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 11
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page