Peter Sinclair, via YouTube, tackles disinformation regarding climate change and Arctic sea ice melt:
VIDEO: Watts up with sea ice?
4
Tag Archives: Environment
NATURAL GAS: Drilling companies injected over 30-million gallons of diesel underground to extract natural gas
Between 2005 and 2009, oil and gas service companies injected more than 30 million gallons of diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states, according to an investigation released by House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats.
— Politico
Image of frackwater via Keith Srakocic/Associated Press. Frackwater is a byproduct produced from natural gas drilling activities. Image of protest sign via ltmayers on Flickr.
The fossil-fuel industry doesn’t make or produce coal, natural gas, petroleum, or any other type of fossil fuel. The industry merely extracts materials that have been made by natural processes within the Earth.
However, the fossil-fuel industry reaps huge profits by polluting the human environment and natural landscapes. Although, the fossil-fuel industry has a well-documented history of making profits at the expense of the environment and human health, the industry has received billions in subsidies from governments and taxpayers. The entire process is deplorable and immoral. More via the Dallas Morning News (emphasis added):
Drilling companies violated federal law by injecting 16 million gallons of diesel fuel underground in Texas to extract natural gas, senior House Democrats said Monday.
In a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency , the lawmakers said the companies failed to obtain necessary permits when they used diesel fuel in their hydraulic fracturing mixtures. The fracturing process, which is widely used in North Texas’ Barnett Shale, has come under scrutiny as environmental groups and some residents allege it has contaminated drinking water supplies.
The congressional inquiry, which began in early 2010 when Democrats controlled the House, did not conclude that the use of diesel polluted any drinking-water sources. The Democrats said the firms they questioned couldn’t provide data on the proximity of drilling operations to underground sources of drinking water.
. . .
Nationwide, over 32 million gallons of diesel fuel or fluids containing diesel were injected underground, the lawmakers wrote. The drilling firms used 10.2 million gallons of “straight diesel fuel” and 21.8 million gallons of products containing at least 30 percent diesel, the letter states
The ugly truth of the natural gas boom via the post-gazette.com:
The natural gas boom gripping parts of the United States has a nasty byproduct: wastewater so salty, and so polluted with metals like barium and strontium, that most states require drillers to get rid of the stuff by injecting it down shafts thousands of feet deep.
But not in Pennsylvania, one of the states at the center of the gas rush. In Pennsylvania, the liquid that gushes from gas wells is only partially treated for substances that could be environmentally harmful, then dumped into rivers and streams from which communities get their drinking water.
In the two years since the frenzy of activity began in the vast underground rock formation known as the Marcellus Shale, Pennsylvania has been the only state letting its waterways serve as the primary disposal place for huge amounts of wastewater produced by a drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. State regulators, initially caught flat-footed, tightened the rules this year for any new water treatment plants, but let existing operations continue discharging water into rivers.
At least 3.6 million barrels of the waste were sent to treatment plants that empty into rivers during the 12 months ending June 30, state records show. That’s enough to cover a square mile with more than 8 1/2 inches of brine.
Halliburton is among twelve companies that were cited in the House probe. Via Reuters:
The probe of diesel use in hydraulic fracturing, a practice that has allowed drillers to tap abundant shale gas, found that oil services firms such as Halliburton (HAL.N: Quote) and BJ Services, which was bought by Baker Hughes Inc (BHI.N: Quote), injected millions of gallons of fluids containing the fuel into wells between 2005 and 2009. A total of 12 companies were cited in the probe for using diesel without proper permits.
Critics say the chemicals used in the process, called “fracking,” can contaminate drinking water.
In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency entered into a voluntary agreement with Halliburton, BJ Services and Schlumberger (SLB.N: Quote) to eliminate the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into coalbed methane wells.
In addition, a 2005 energy law exempted hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except when diesel is used.
Still, the probe found that no oil and gas service companies sought or were issued permits for the use of diesel fuel in fracking between 2005 and 2009.
Democrats who sponsored the probe in the House of Representatives urged the EPA to look into this matter.
OFFSHORE WIND: Massive offshore wind farm proposed for Rhode Island
Image via mooste on Flickr
Competing interests and litigation kept the Cape Wind Project from being permitted and constructed for almost a decade. Now, fishers are concerned with a proposal by Deepwater Wind to construct a large offshore wind farm in federal waters between Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
While the United States struggles to plan, permit, and construct offshore wind farms, Europe is rapidly developing their infrastructure to capture offshore wind resources by constructing ambitious projects and proposing ever-larger offshore wind projects. More on Deepwater Wind’s proposal via the Providence Journal:
“We understand the value of this thing,” said Chris Brown, president of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association. “But we don’t want to become collateral damage.”
Brown said that Deepwater had reached out to fishing groups and tried to work with them in determining a location for the 1,000-megawatt wind farm, but they couldn’t find a site that wouldn’t affect the fishing industry.
“It’s all critical habitat,” he said. “There’s someone making a living on every square inch.”
Deepwater said it purposely designed the wind farm to accommodate commercial and recreational boaters. The project, called the Deepwater Wind Energy Center, is divided into two main arrays, one of about 50 turbines and another of 150 turbines. The company would space the machines 0.7 miles apart to allow fishing boats to more easily travel through the groupings. Corridors 1.5 miles long would also cut through parts of the project for boat navigation.
But Brown and Lanny Dellinger, president of the Rhode Island Lobstermen’s Association, said it may not be Deepwater’s decision whether boats would be allowed to travel into the wind farm. Dellinger said he knows of insurers in Europe who won’t allow it for fear of a vessel hitting a turbine.
“Commercial fishing and wind farms are not compatible,” he said.
State officials, however, said that the two industries can indeed coexist.
“Our goal here is not only to achieve a renewable-energy future for Rhode Island,” said Keith Stokes, executive director of the state Economic Development Corporation. “We’re not going to supplant the fishing and boating industries in Rhode Island. We know how important they are to the state.”
—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.
CLIMATE POLITICS: Outgoing Republican congressman warns his party about the consequences of climate-change skepticism
Political cartoons by Clay Bennett
Bob Inglis, a Republican congressman of South Carolina, “is often described as a casualty of the ‘Tea Party-ization’ of the GOP.” Recently, the congressman, in addressing his colleges, warned his party of the negative side effects from rampant climate-change skepticism and of “missed economic opportunities in clean energy development.” Via NYTimes.com:
Mr. Inglis used an analogy comparing the climate to a sick child.
“Your child is sick,” he said. “Ninety-eight doctors say treat him this way. Two say no, this other way is the way to go.”
By taking the minority viewpoint that carbon emissions are not a problem, “you’re taking a big risk with those kids,” he said.
On clean energy development, Mr. Inglis warned his Republican colleagues that China was preparing to “eat our lunch.”
“They plan on innovating around these problems, and selling to us, and the rest of the world, the technology that’ll lead the 21st century,” he said. “We may press the pause button for a few years, but China is pressing the fast-forward button.”
Other Republicans on the subcommittee stood by their doubts on climate change. Among those questioning the validity of climate science was Ralph Hall of Texas, the leading candidate to take the House Science and Technology gavel in next year’s Congress.
Sherwood Boehlert, a former Republican U.S. Representative from New York’s 24th District, also rebuked his Party’s denial of climate change. Via Think Progress:
In a Washington Post op-ed yesterday, former Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (NY) articulated his confusion as to why “so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong.” Allowing for debate over policy, Boehlert said he finds the GOP’s “dogged determination” to deny the actual science “incomprehensible”:
Watching the raft of newly elected GOP lawmakers converge on Washington, I couldn’t help thinking about an issue I hope our party will better address. I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party’s line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.[...]
Why do so many Republican senators and representatives think they are right and the world’s top scientific academies and scientists are wrong? I would like to be able to chalk it up to lack of information or misinformation.
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.[...]
There is a natural aversion to more government regulation. But that should be included in the debate about how to respond to climate change, not as an excuse to deny the problem’s existence. The current practice of disparaging the science and the scientists only clouds our understanding and delays a solution.
Like this:
NONRENEWABLE RESOURCES: Energy analyst predicts that oil could reach $300 in ten years. Can the GOP’s energy policy meet our future energy needs?
Images via Grant Neufeld and pshab on Flickr.
How will the future economy of the United States respond to rising oil prices or to $300-a-barrel oil? Under the Obama Administration and a Democratic majority, we’ve seen the federal government attempt to stimulate renewable energy by investing into it, by contributing to energy-storage technology, and by recognizing the utility of alternative-fuel vehicles.
Despite fossil fuels contributing to climate change, national security concerns, and the pollution of the human environment, the GOP embraces an economy dependent on dirty, nonrenewable fossil fuels. Fossil fuels may seem cheap, but they’re not. The cheap cost of fossil fuels, paid at the pump for example, doesn’t reflect the true cost of fossil fuels, because the price at the pump doesn’t include costs that are a consequence of the negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels. For example, it has been estimated by numerous studies that the negative externalities associated with burning fossil fuels cost governments and the public billions of dollars each year. This means that while fossil-fuel companies receive record profits, they’re not responsible for the consequences of doing dirty business or for the billions of dollars that governments and the public are forced to pick up. Additionally, the fossil-fuel industry receives government subsidies to pollute the human environment. These fossil-fuel subsidies must be eliminated to “enhance energy security, reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution, and bring economic benefits.”
Given the facts and consequences associated with a fossil fuel-based economy, it would seem that a prudent and progressive energy policy shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but the Republican Party isn’t exactly known for pushing clean, sustainable, or rational energy policy reforms. For example, the Republican Party’s energy policy focuses on “lifting restrictions on ANWR, the Outer Continental Shelf, and oil shale in the Mountain West.” Also, the Republican Party claims that “revenue generated by the sale of leases will be invested in renewable and alternative sources of energy.” However, what will the United States utilize after these nonrenewable resources are exhausted? Why drill here, drill now when these minerals are sold on an international market, so why is it necessary to invade protected wilderness areas to extract minerals, which aren’t necessarily consumed domestically. Also, considering greenhouse gases, global warming, and climate change, why is it necessary to add even more trapped carbon dioxide — a greenhouse gas — into the atmosphere? Basically, the short-term benefits of extracting and using these minerals are outweighed by the long-term damage caused by climate change and a failure to implement a prudent or sustainable energy policy.
Furthermore, the Republican Party believes that “the best way for utility companies to reduce carbon emissions is to increase their supply of nuclear energy.” However, nuclear power isn’t cheap, and the costs associated with constructing new nuclear power plants have skyrocketed. There are also substantial costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants (“it may cost $300 million or more to shut down and decommission a plant“). Other negatives associated with nuclear power production include the fact that the nuclear power industry depends solely on a nonrenewable energy source, and there’s the well-known problem of storing nuclear waste. Also, “the process of thermoelectric generation from fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as nuclear power, is water intensive. In fact, each kWh generated requires on average approximately 25 gallons of water to produce.” Therefore, drought could force nuclear power plants to shut down. What’s more, there are past and present safety concerns with nuclear power production. Recently, the nuclear power industry has been plagued by safety problems at the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant. Certainly, if the costs associated with decommissioning nuclear power plants, with the management of nuclear power plants, and with the disposal of nuclear waste are considered, then both solar and wind power are substantially cheaper than nuclear power.
The GOP’s talking points on energy also claim that Democrats tax energy, but the GOP makes no mention of the tax incentives and tax credits spurred under the Democratic majority and under the Obama Administration. Consequently, the Republican Party merely politicizes and trivializes the issue of energy. Why can’t the Republican Party aggressively pursue the development of renewables? Portugal is doing it. Denmark is doing it. Iceland is doing it. Even China understands the utility of developing its renewable energy sources.
Additionally, being a conservative political party, there are energy conservation strategies that the Republican Party should show open and strong support for but don’t. For example, there are the ideas of retrofitting buildings to conserve energy, adopting greener building standards to conserve energy, or even promoting the smart grid revolution to conserve energy. Also, instead of attacking it, the Republican Party should show strong support for science in order to spur innovation and technological development to meet our energy needs.
Given the Party’s energy policy positions, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives threatens to stifle the progress made by the Democratic majority by resurrecting an energy policy focused too much on fossil fuels. For example, Representative Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas and BP apologist, is supposedly a contender for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Another contender for the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee is John Shimkus, a Republican from Illinois. Shimkus is a climate-change denier, and once declared that “global warming isn’t something to worry about because God said he wouldn’t destroy the Earth after Noah’s flood.”
To summarize, the Republican energy policy lacks innovation and forward-thinking, and their energy policy merely utilizes old ideas, which don’t promote energy security. To put it another way, the Republican Party’s answer to our current energy crisis is to stick their heads in the sand. Also, the failure of the Republican Party to embrace prudent energy policies is the failure to recognize the connection between population growth, rising energy demand, natural resource unavailability, and rising energy and mineral prices. More on the future price of oil via Peak Oil News and Message Boards:
Ludwig: What is your oil price outlook as this whole new world order begins to take shape?
Maxwell: The supply and demand of oil in the world today are pretty close to each other, and there shouldn’t be too much deviation in 2010 and 2011. We think prices will stay within a band roughly between $67-$87 a barrel. When it gets up toward $87, it seems to retreat, and when it gets down toward $67, it seems to take off again. That’s because supply and demand are in rough balance.
But as the economic recovery continues, as more people use oil because there are more people in the world, and China and India continue to progress with rapid expansion of cars and the roads they are offering their people, demand for oil will continue to climb between 1 and 1.5 percent per year. That, combined with the depletion of these mature oil fields we’ve talked about, will bring us to a plateau by 2015-2017, where the rising production of newer oil fields will equal the falling production of old fields.
At that stage, prices will break through this $87 boundary—in about 2013, I’m thinking. And by 2015 we’ll be up to around $130-$150 a barrel. And then by 2020, when we have 1.5 percent increases in demand each year and 0.5 percent declines on the downside, then we’ll really be in a fix. At that time, I’m looking at $300 a barrel in money of the day. But remember, by then we will have the full effects of inflation over the prior 10 years, so it would probably be something like $200 a barrel in today’s terms, but it will have a nominal price of about $300 a barrel.
