Comment

Comment by daniel cohen on April 6, 2010 at 3:19pm

Dear John and rfs,
Your point about the recent mining tragedy in West Virginia is right on target.CJK is pointing out that the industry there needed to be held to safety standards, that the mining company involved was in violation up the kazoo, and elected to put their workers and the environment at risk to increase their profit margin. CJK rightly points out that we all need to be on our guard to require the industry (in our case Gas) to be responsible and to hold them to comply with all regulations. What are you guys disputing? In previous posts you both have agreed with that basic position. Are you now taking a different position, or have I missed something here?
Dan

Comment by Robin Fehrenbach Scala on April 6, 2010 at 2:50pm

Interesting that you mention the coal miners, John.
For what reason do all the obstructionists ignore the environmental damage of coal mining and the clearly deadly work of mining? I never hear ProPublica railing about coal mining, and I don't see swarms of anti-everything people demonstrating at the mines.
Doesn't anyone care about coal miners? Or the effects of mining?

Comment by John Reed on April 6, 2010 at 1:17pm

Oh, I forgot about this. What about the methane that escapes as a result of coal mining ? Mr. Howarth failed to include this into his mathematical calulations when determining natural gas is equivalent to coal. Did you happen to see the news the last few days ? What is it, 24 miners dead in WV after a methane explosion? Wouldn't you think coal mining causes a far greater risk of methane escaping into the atmosphere?

Comment by John Reed on April 6, 2010 at 1:08pm

Every presentation I attended was informative. Dr Engelder did not always deliver the news that landowners wanted to hear. His presentations are from a geology perspective. Pros and cons of certain areas with regard to its geology. If you do your own research you will find his presentation information to be spot on. In addition, it's common knowledge. To say that the information he has given to me and to the general public regarding geology is a direct result of contributions made to PSU from O/G companies is simply not accurate. Again, I have several of his presentations in slide show formar if you are interested. He gives no indication that he is persuaded by the dollar. If any credible geologist caught him lying or bending the truth his credibility would be shot.

Comment by CJK on April 6, 2010 at 11:12am

John: You sound very knowledgable about natural gas extraction. Where did you get your information from?
What I am referring to is the methane that escapes while extracting the natural gas.
in addition: Have you ever visited a well pad site that had a separator and compressor on it? These sites have a fumes and odors and after effects that have not been accounted for. Every pad I have visited that have had compressors and seperators on them, have caused me to have severe headaches and sickness after being there for only one to three hours. What possible effect could numerous pad sites have on the air quality of the region? No one has adressed this issue yet. Can you answer that?

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. They had 17 million dollars donated to them by the gas companies so we know where their allegiance will be because of that donation. Less than 3 years ago Penn State officials were stating that it was not advisable to hydrofrac in the PA geology until further study but now that they have money donated to them the have changed their tune.
Look at Penn State work prior to their donation. While facts are facts anyone can change statisitcs to benefit an outcome. There is no arguing that Penn State changed their position on hydrofracking after their donation,one directly correlates with the other.

Comment by John Reed on April 6, 2010 at 10:25am

CJK, I received your message. Here is what I know. There are several stages involved in gas and oil maturation. The shale in question has a maturity level that is determined by several factors. Two of the big factors are depth and temperature at which the shale has been exposed. Out in the western part of PA you will find both oil and natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation, where as here in NE PA you will find natural gas only. This is because the temperature at which the organic material that is the Marcellus formation in Western PA was condusive to what is needed in order for oil to form. In other word Kerogen + Heat > 50 degrees celcius converts to bitumen, bitumen + heat equals > 100 degrees celcius through about 200 degrees celcius equals petroleum. The closer to 100 degrees ceclius the lighter the oil and the closer to 200 degrees the heavier the oil. The molecular structures are broken down and converted to light oil and heavy oil. At temperatures above 200 degrees celcius through 250 or 260 degrees celcius is the natural gas window. The closer to 200 degrees the wetter the gas and the close to 250 degrees the dryer the gas. Methane is the byproduct of thermal maturity of Marcellus shale subjected to temperatures above 250 degrees celcius. The byproduct of methane (thermally overmature) subjected to temperatures beyond the dry gas limit window is C02.

Since methane has a simpler chemical makeup than oil I don't see how it is possible that it is more harmful to the environment than oil.

Also, I've attened several informational presentations conducted by none other than the godfather of Marcellus Shale Dr Terry Engelder. Professor of Geo Sciences for Penn State University. Most of my knowledge regarding thermal maturity comes drectly from him. he is arguably the most educated human on Earth with regard to Marcellus Shale. I trust his opinions over anyones.

If you are interested I have several slideshow presentations I can email to you in order to help educate you on this stuff.

Comment by CJK on April 6, 2010 at 2:03am

The pits (ponds) are supposed to only be fresh water but no one is enforcing that. I can't even build a pond on my property without a permit gas companies can build pits and add wastewater to it with DEP approval:

"Drill site spill subject of investigation"
Robert L. Baker, Susquehanna County Independent
Published: March 24, 2010
http://www.independentweekender.com/news/drill-site-spill-subject-o...
The Department of Environmental Protection is investigating a spill at a gas drilling site just south of the village of Dimock.

Mark Carmon, DEP spokesman at the Wilkes-Barre office said that his agency was notified that a discolored liquid of unknown composition was leaking from a catch basin from a Cabot Oil & Gas site identified as Hibbard, along Pa Rt. 29.
He said Tuesday morning that a vacuum truck was taking up the liquid since Sunday afternoon, and that inspectors from DEP had been on the premises Monday and would return possibly late yesterday afternoon.
Carmon said the liquid was apparently coming from an on-site wastewater pit whose plastic liner may have developed a leak.
“We want to get a idea of exactly what it is we’re dealing with,” Carmon said, but acknowledged conclusive samples were not yet available Tuesday morning.
Carmon said the site had been drilled, fracking was complete, and the entire pit possibly would need to be drained.
He noted that it was too early to tell what charges might be pending against Cabot or one of its subcontractors and probably wouldn’t know until the entire wastewater pit was drained.
Susquehanna County EMA director Charlene Moser expressed concern that as of Monday morning neither Cabot nor DEP had informed her office of a problem. She said that if her agency doesn’t already know about a spill, it is typically notified by DEP as a courtesy.

Comment by Carol on April 6, 2010 at 1:46am

Marie,

Where have you read about all of these dead horses and cattle? Do you have any links to the articles?

Comment by Carolyn Knapp on April 6, 2010 at 1:46am

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 Country Bumkin on April 6, 2010 at 12:57am

Hey John,

Lol!! Stop using common sense or reality! LOL!! These people don't care about the facts. They will make up stuff to support their cause--thank you for calling them out on their BS....

Keep up the good work Marie and Carolyn! You guys are great! LOL!!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page