Theodore Roosevelt National Park vs. Fracking

Hello Readers,

I think this video about fracking near the Theodore Roosevelt National Park speaks for itself.


Pass it on.

Thanks,
Sean

Don't Frack My Mother - song

Hello Readers,

After my string of long, detailed, and serious posts, I thought that I would provide everyone with a little bit of humor this Friday. Below is a song "Don't Frack My Mother" as performed by Sean Lennon and Yoko Ono on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon.



(The posting is from Hulu, so if it stops working Hulu took down the clip.)

Have a good weekend. Next week, I have a series of posts prepared about Boston's mass transit system, the MBTA, so check back on Monday.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

Natural Gas TED Talk

Hello Readers,

I encourage you to check out T. Boone Pickens' TED Talk on conversion to natural gas. He offers some excellent facts, talking points, and arguments for the use of natural gas (at least as a bridge fuel... and possibly more).




Of course, he does not mention energy storage technology as a solution to intermittent renewable energy, but you can read more about energy storage in my dissertation.

Enjoy,

Sean

Natural Gas Mixbag

Hello Readers,

It has been a while since my last post. Here is some food for thought about natural gas:

• If you watched the State of the Union this past week, you probably noticed that President Obama talked quite a bit about energy. During that part of the speech he made the claim that there is 100 year supply of natural gas in the United States. This is unlikely to be the case, and an article on Treehugger - Fact-Checking Obama: Is There Really '100 Years' Worth of Natural Gas in the US? - debunks the premise.

• Even if it is true that we are sitting on 100 years of natural gas, consumers should not expect that the energy will be especially cheap or provide as many jobs as promised. As described in a New York Times article - Chesapeake to Cut Number of Gas Rigs - this week, natural gas drillers and refiners still face the same market incentives to cut production (and presumably labor hours) when prices get too cheap.

• It is difficult to tell what all of this may mean from a sustainability standpoint. Burning natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gas emissions than coal. However, if natural gas is used as an energy crutch, it may hinder a transition to a truly renewable and clean (no-emission) energy system.

• Extracting natural gas from shale through hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. 'fracking') requires pumping chemicals into the ground, which may - despite the best efforts and claims of the industry - result in negative environmental consequences. Perhaps President Obama's plan to implement "rules to ensure that safe drilling practices are followed and the types of chemicals used in the so-called fracking method are disclosed for operations on public lands" will shed some light on the full extent of the potential consequences. [quote from: Jobs, energy, values top issues in Obama address by the Associated Press]

• According to an article in Bloomberg news - U.S. Cuts Estimate for Marcellus Shale Gas Reserves by 66%, the previous estimates of the available natural gas from shale have been revised. Using improved data the US DOE reduced its shale-based natural gas reserve estimates from last year by 42% for the country as a whole (66% for the Marcellus Shale formation). Thus, the natural gas from Marcellus shale is now expected to only cover 6 years of natural gas consumption (as opposed to the initial estimate of 17 years).

I hope this gives you something to chew on while you discuss America's energy future.

~Sean

Frack You!

Hello Readers,

I have run across a great blog post from ClimateProgress.org. I definitely recommend checking it out:
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/13/must-see-propublica-video-on-natural-gas-fracking/

The article is informative, but in case you don't have time to read through it I also suggest passing along this Flight of the Conchords-esque song:



Stay frack free!
~Sean

What the Frack?

Dear Pennsylvania,

I love you. Please stop poisoning yourself to heat your house! I have to urge anyone living in Pennsylvania to take the time to read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/us/27gas.html) about natural gas wells in PA. It is terrifying.

In case you absolutely refuse to read the whole article, I have pasted some excerpts below. I promise that these excerpts are not wildly out of context. Instead they give you an idea of the gist of the article.

In case you have been living under a rock in Pennsylvania that is not made of shale, here is a general description of the fracking process:

The [natural] gas has always been there, of course, trapped deep underground in countless tiny bubbles, like frozen spills of seltzer water between thin layers of shale rock. But drilling companies have only in recent years developed techniques to unlock the enormous reserves, thought to be enough to supply the country with gas for heating buildings, generating electricity and powering vehicles for up to a hundred years.

...

But the relatively new drilling method — known as high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — carries significant environmental risks. It involves injecting huge amounts of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, at high pressures to break up rock formations and release the gas.

 This leads to the problem:

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

...

The radioactivity in the wastewater is not necessarily dangerous to people who are near it. It can be blocked by thin barriers, including skin, so exposure is generally harmless.

Rather, E.P.A. and industry researchers say, the bigger danger of radioactive wastewater is its potential to contaminate drinking water or enter the food chain through fish or farming. Once radium enters a person’s body, by eating, drinking or breathing, it can cause cancer and other health problems, many federal studies show.

...

Under federal law, testing for radioactivity in drinking water is required only at drinking-water plants. But federal and state regulators have given nearly all drinking-water intake facilities in Pennsylvania permission to test only once every six or nine years.

 Last, but not least... in fact very importantly:

In December, the Republican governor-elect, Tom Corbett, who during his campaign took more gas industry contributions than all his competitors combined, said he would reopen state land to new drilling, reversing a decision made by his predecessor, Edward G. Rendell. The change clears the way for as many as 10,000 wells on public land, up from about 25 active wells today.

 ...

“I will direct the Department of Environmental Protection to serve as a partner with Pennsylvania businesses, communities and local governments,” Mr. Corbett says on his Web site. “It should return to its core mission protecting the environment based on sound science.”

Please excuse my rant, but...

While I have nothing personally against Mr. Corbett, serving as a "partner with Pennsylvania businesses" needs to have its limits! Otherwise, all of the other Pennsylvania businesses, communities and local governments are going to end up losing out! If you are relying on sound science you are going to need data. If you are refusing to collect or look at data, don't call it science! It is simply ignoring the problem.

I have spent a lot of time studying climate change and sustainability, which are massive, global, all-encompassing environmental issues. It is often tough to figure out a solution (and in some cases a cause). In these fields I have shown patience with people that do not quite understand or refuse to believe it.

However, in the case of fracking, I refuse to show such restraint. The whole thing is too straightforward. You are literally pumping chemicals into the groundwater! Then you are taking what comes back out (even more toxic and radioactive chemicals) and sending it through a filtration system (that is un-/under-tested for such chemicals) before dumping these chemicals into our rivers! The cause is obvious, the solution should be, too!

Pennsylvania, please help yourselves by drawing attention to this issue that is affecting every major river basin in our land-locked state!

Thank you,
Sean Diamond

Please note that all excerpts are from the recent New York Times article:

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

By IAN URBINA

Published: February 26, 2011