Comment

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 7:47am

Below is a response from Dr Terry Engelder to an email I sent to him yesterday afternoon. He was very kind to respond. It's interesting he mentions the life of methane is far less than tha of C02. This is not factored in to Howarths caclulations either.


John:

Howarth is not an expert on the Marcellus and is, in fact, quite disingenuous.



Let me take on just one of his statements! 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







Terry Engelder

Professor of Geosciences

Department of Geosciences

334 A Deike Building

The Pennsylvania State University

University Park, PA 16802



Phone: 814-865-3620



From: John [mailto:nightrgr@ptd.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 5:56 PM
To: Terry Engelder
Subject: Re: Marcellus



Good afternoon Dr Engelder,



I know you are very busy but I have a question about natural gas that I would really like answered. There are many people out there who are trying to stop natural gas exploration and attempting to scare land owners into believing half truths at best. Can you read the first few sentences below and let me know your opinion ? Basically the writer of the text below is saying overall natural gas consumption with extraction factored in, is as detrimental to the environment as coal. Please, please let me know what you think.



Thanks for any guidance.



John Reed









The point that one needs to understand is that the process of extractng the gas needs to be taken into consideration. This is the key point that is never addressed "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. " The whole picture needs to be discussed and considered also he is talking about the leakage of methane that occurs with the extraction process. This is huge and is not discussed. This is the whole article:
HYPERLINK "http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100328/VIEWPOINTS/3280320/" http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/20100328/VIEWPOINTS/3280320/ Gas and drilling not clean choices
Environmental risks too great; alternative fuels a better option
Robert Howarth
March 28, 2010 Natural gas is marketed as a clean fuel with less impact on global warming than oil or coal, a transitional fuel to replace other fossil fuels until some distant future with renewable energy. Some argue that we have an obligation to develop Marcellus Shale gas, despite environmental concerns. I strongly disagree. Natural gas as a clean fuel is a myth. While less carbon dioxide is emitted from burning natural gas than oil or coal, emissions during combustion are only part of the concern. 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. The most recent method of hydro-fracking is relatively new technology, massive in scope and far from clean in ways beyond greenhouse gas emissions. The landscape could be dotted with thousands of drilling pads, spaced as closely as one every 40 acres. Compacted gravel would cover three to five acres for each. New pipelines and access roads crisscrossing the landscape would connect the pads. Ten or more wells per pad are expected. Every time a well is “fracked,” 1,200 truck trips will carry the needed water. Drillers will inject several million gallons of water and tens of thousands of pounds of chemicals into each well. Some of this mixture will stay deep in the shale, but cumulatively, billions of gallons of waste fluids will surface. Under current law, drillers can use absolutely any chemical additive or waste, with no restrictions and no disclosure. Recent experience in Pennsylvania indicates regular use of toxic, mutagenic and carcinogenic substances. Out of 24 wells sampled there, flow-back wastes from every one contained high levels of 4-Nitroquinoline-1-oxide (according to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation). It is one of the most mutagenic compounds known. Flow-back wastes also contain toxic metals and high levels of radioactivity extracted from the shale, in addition to the materials used by drillers. Industry tells us that surface and groundwater contamination is unlikely, since gas is deep in the ground and drilling operations are designed to minimize leakage. Nonsense. The technology is new and understudied, but early evidence shows high levels of contamination in some drinking water wells and rivers in other states. Accidents happen, and well casings and cementing can fail. The geology of our region is complex, and water and materials under high pressure can move quickly to aquifers, rivers and lakes along fissures and fractures. Flow-back waters and associated chemical and radioactive wastes must be handled and stored at the surface, some in open pits and ponds unless government regulation prevents this. What will keep birds and wildlife away from it? What happens downstream if a heavy rain causes the toxic soup to overflow the dam? What happens to these wastes? Adequate treatment technologies and facilities do not exist. What about government regulation and oversight? The DEC is understaffed, underfunded and has no history with the scale and scope of exploitation now envisioned. Federal oversight is almost completely gone, due to Congress exempting gas development from most environmental laws, including the Safe Drinking Water Act, in 2005. We can be independent of fossil fuels within 20 years and rely on renewable green technologies, such as wind and solar. The constraints on this are mostly political, not technical. We do not need to sacrifice a healthy environment to industrial gas development. Rather, we need to mobilize and have our region provide some badly needed national leadership toward a sustainable energy future. Robert Howarth is the David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University. An internationally known expert on environmental issues and water quality, he has worked on the consequences of oil and gas development for more than 30 years. The viewpoint is his own and should not be construed as a position of Cornell University.

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 7:43am

Everything you are stating is pretty accurate. However, when I feel misinformation is being posted I feel I have a responsibility to everyone involved in this to set the record straight.

You should be having this conversation with the anti drilling people. They don't seem to be open to talking about ways to mkae things better. It is my opinion they are out to completely tarnish and abolish drilling period. What they write gives me no indication their motives are to the contrary.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 7, 2010 at 4:48am

Dear John,
When you say "I'm all for protecting our land and water as stated several times in previous posts", we are in agreement. You also have stated several protective measures that you personally would follow, and recommend that others follow as well. Again, we are in agreement.

Our point of departure occurs when you focus on tangential side issues, and academic points of question. To engage in a tit for tat on posts that are related but off the main point is curious- you're too bright and well informed for that, yet you jump right in. The end result is to dilute your recommendations for protection in favor of academic debate.

I say again, you need to focus. Use that good intellect to help strengthen local efforts to protect our environment, health and property values. Help those of us who are trying to do that to do a better job. Shouldn't the emphasis be on landowner groups forming, topics to be explored, helpful hints/suggestions on how to help the landowner and the gas companies to have a better partnership in a an adventure that brings the potential for economic recovery and energy independence? That is where you many talents could serve a most useful purpose. Or am I wrong?
Dan

Comment by CJK on April 7, 2010 at 4:39am

This is the kind of oversight we currently have in our state. Beware the State and Federal Agencies are not in the business of protecting our interests.:
"Residents reported gas odors before explosion"

Thursday, April 01, 2010

By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10091/1047159-58.stm#ixzz0kQuRB3NB
The Atlas well burns on Wednesday.

Property owners living near the site of a gas well operation that caught fire in Washington County Wednesday morning said they had been trying for days to reach state officials about noxious odors at the site.

George Zimmerman, who owns the property where an Atlas Energy wastewater impoundment pond caught fire on Wednesday, and neighbor Kyle Lengauer, said they experienced a "horrendous gas smell" in the days leading up to the fire, but they couldn't reach state officials to warn them.

"We actually left our house on Sunday because the fumes were so bad and we were so nauseated," said Mr. Lengauer, whose lives with his wife and two children on property that abuts Mr. Zimmerman's 480 acres in rural Hopewell .

Both men said they heard a loud explosion at about 8 a.m. Wednesday and saw an impoundment pond on fire with clouds of black smoke.

"I saw about a 100-foot flame -- you could see it seven miles away," said Mr. Zimmerman, who is embroiled in a lawsuit he filed against Moon-based Atlas Energy last year, alleging that the company "ruined his land with toxic chemicals," such as arsenic and benzene, used in hydraulic gas well fracturing.

Mr. Lengauer said he contacted a hotline for the state Department of Environmental Resources on Sunday, but was unable to reach agency officials because their voicemail boxes were full.

"I tried to call them for three days straight," said Mr. Lengauer.

The man-made, rubber-lined impoundments are used to collect wastewater that's produced from hydraulic fracturing of gas wells. Water, chemicals and sand are used in the fracturing process, which releases natural gas.

DEP spokeswoman Helen Humphries said a preliminary investigation indicated that gas on the surface of the wastewater may have ignited the 100-by-80-foot impoundment and nearby equipment.

Washington County Public Safety Director Jeff Yates said the county's hazardous materials team responded to the site and used foam to extinguish a fire at a holding tank that is used to separate water and sand near the impoundment. The impoundment's rubber liner was allowed to burn out on its own, he said.

Atlas Energy, which denies the claims made in Mr. Zimmerman's lawsuit, said in a statement on Wednesday that it would work to find the cause of the fire, which resulted in minor slip-and-fall injury to a contractor.

"We take this situation very seriously, and we are working with local and state officials to determine the cause of the fire and any potential impacts," said Jeffrey Kupfer, Atlas Energy's senior vice president. "We anticipate the resumption of normal operations in the near future."

Earlier this year, the DEP fined Atlas Energy $85,000 for failing to control erosion and runoff at six well sites and for not properly discharging waste products.

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 4:21am

Dear Dan. What don't you get ? I never said we didn't need to protect ouselves. As a matter of fact I have been quite clear that we do need protections.

My points were in response to a post that stated natural gas exploration is as detrimental to the environment as coal are more detrimental than oil. Also, it was in response to a post stating anything that comes out of PSU is suspect. How are my responses besides the point ? Thet are direct responses to a post ?

There are two or three fanatics on this site that are blowing things way out of proportion. When you start listening to people who say natural gas exploration is as detrimental or more detrimental to the environment as coal and/or oil, then you have become one of those fanatics. Basic common sense sees right through these people.
Most are also hipocrits. If they really believed in slowing global warming they would become vegetarians. After all, they're dairy and meat cattle supply 14% of the US contribution of methane to the atmosphere. They also fail to mention this. Why, because they have a vested interest so they ignore this part. Although they will not admit it, but they have one common goal. That goal is to halt natural gas exploration in PA, not to ensure that it is a safe practice. I see the rhetoric being tossed around on this site by a few individuals. Blatent half thruths and scare tactics. They are trying to influence the landowners to see things their way and they don't care how many lies of half truths they tell to get their misguided points accross.

I'm all for protcting our land and water as stated several times in previous posts. But do not insult my intelligence by by posting nonsense rubbish that only a newbie would fall for.

Comment by daniel cohen on April 7, 2010 at 3:53am

Dear John,
You wrote"Daniel, I am disputing that natural gas drilling will contribute to global warming at the same rate as coal and/or oil." "I am also disputing that Dr Engelder has been swayed by the oil and gas industry and that his research is suspect."

Both nice points, both clearly stated and both besides the point. Focus John- the issue is the need to protect ourselves from inadvertent mishaps, poor procedures and carelessness on the part of the Gas companies which can negatively impact our environment and personal health. What don't you get?
Dan

Comment by CJK on April 7, 2010 at 2:17am

I maintain that anything that comes out of Penn State is suspect. Penn State has known about this natural gas play for quite a long time, at least back in 2001 and they did virtually nothing prior to 2008-09 to assist the landowner, most of their help was to further the industries needs and not the landowner. Of late they have come forward, when it was too late for many. Regardless of someone's research when you work for an organization such as Penn State you follow their agenda or you do not have a job. Sad reality many people face and follow.

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 1:39am

Methane is ubiquitous in coal mines. The gas, like coal, is a molecule made of hydrogen and carbon, and it is produced from the same raw material as coal, ancient piles of biological material, by the same processes. Much of the natural gas sold in the United States is drawn from coal seams. In undisturbed coal deposits, the methane is kept loosely attached to the coal molecules by compression; when the area is opened up by miners, the pressure is reduced and the methane bubbles out [The New York Times].

Comment by John Reed on April 7, 2010 at 1:29am

As far as Dr Terry Engelder goes, I agree that he is a very knowledgable man, but Penn State has been bought out by the gas industry so anything that comes out of Penn State is suspect.

Direct quote from your earlier post.

Most wells will be fracked twice. There will be exceptions, but for the most part twice. If I sign a lease it wil be mandated that water testing be done prior to any fracking as well as after fracking at multiple intervals. Again, I have the power to make this happen. If they do not agree to this lease condition, I don't sign. We all have the same choice. Also, as a landowner you can have a surface disturbance addendum in your lease agreement that mandates the company to clean up and restore the land. I will also have this in my lease agreement or I won't sign it.

Comment by CJK on April 7, 2010 at 1:19am

John:

I never said Dr. Engelder's research was suspect. I said facts are facts, what is uspect is his opinions and interpretations regarding his research. There are alot of assumptions happening with regard to the outcome of all this drilling. By the way I did watch one of Dr Engelder's videos and interestingly enough he said that a horizontal well will be fractured two, three, maybe even four times, to stimulate production, during the life of the well, So you are not only talking about the initial disturbance of both the land and the subsurface but possibly four more times of having the equipment on your land, at different intervals, injecting fluids into the ground over and over again. Do the gas company have to get your water tested every time they frac or just when they do the initial drilling? There may be quite a bit of time between frac jobs and the industry will use that time to their advantage to argue any damage that might be done while refracing.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 22
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page