Dear Shale Protestor,

At the Cornell Debate on November 15th I was asked, "What does fracking mean for the economy?"  I was given 4 minutes to answer the question.  I post what I said here because I think it is the core argument of why the United States needs to develop shale, and do it now.  

***

Energy independence has been in the nation’s psyche ever since it was first proposed in November 1973.  An aspiration akin to landing the first man on the moon, or defeating the Soviet Union, energy independence has proven far more elusive. So to put the economic effect of fracking in context, when the IEA [International Energy Agency] issued its forecast this past Monday -- that the United States will be the world’s largest oil producer by 2020 and energy-self-sufficient by 2035 --  it predicted that something that has been impossible for two generations could be achieved largely because of fracking.

Energy markets are global, meaning energy independence does not insulate the United States from global affairs or global prices.  However, as the persistent $10-20 spread between Brent and WTI oil price shows, it is possible to have differential prices in global markets for an extended period of time.  

When price differences are large and stable, investment follows.   For example, the price of natural gas in the United States has fallen from $9 to $3/MCF because of fracking.  Natural gas is priced at an oil equivalent of $20/BBL, a 4X advantage over world prices.  As a result, fuel, electricity, transportation and raw materials are priced lower here than anywhere else.  Investment follows like the multi-billion dollar one Shell has announced in Western Pennsylvania for a world-class ethane cracker creating thousands of jobs and a hub for the resurgent petrochemical industry.

When lower prices from the US transmit around the world, it opens a door for everyone including individuals living in "grinding energy poverty" [phrase used by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a speech given October 19, 2012 at Georgetown University] on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder.  1.2 billion people do not have access to electricity. 3 billion people cook over fires fueled by dung, wood, charcoal and coal.  When cooking fuel becomes cheaper and cleaner, their lives will improve, and so will ours. This problem will not wait for the next generation.  People want better lives now. 

Another possibility brought forward by fracking is the potential for China and India to bypass coal and move directly to natural gas.  Both countries have large resources of shale. 

American jobs are another obvious benefit. The most recent estimate is 1.7 million direct, indirect and induced jobs have been created because of fracking. That number could double in the next 10 years. 

Industry jobs are criticized for being boom and bust.  I have personal experience with that joining the industry during a boom and leaving to go back to school during a bust.  I don’t think it’s ever realistic to think that a job is guaranteed for life no matter what industry you join.

Industry jobs require skills and expertise in engineering and science, management, accounting and law.  Skills are transportable.  Industry also provides high paying jobs for blue collar workers, who have an unemployment rate 3% higher than the national average. 

It’s instructive to look at what has already happened in Pennsylvania.  Before the Marcellus, the state imported 75% of its natural gas from the Gulf Coast States and Canada.  Now the state exports gas.  Money that used to flow out of the state is collected within the state and contributes severance, ad valorem and income taxes to state and local budgets.  During the first year of implementation in 2011 the impact fee on unconventional natural gas wells raised $205 million.

You don’t have to take my word for it.  Go see for yourself.  It’s easy to drive to Tioga, Bradford or Susquehanna counties.  Go to the diner.  Talk to people.   Of course there are some nay sayers, change is never easy, but by and large people are enthusiastic about what’s happening.   All eight elected state representatives from these counties, Republicans and Democrats, are in favor of natural gas.

As State Senator, Lisa Baker, from Susquehanna County said in a speech she gave on June 29, 2012 to the Pennsylvania Senate supporting Shell’s ethane cracker, “Over the years we’ve seen multiple economic strategies launched and countless incentives and assistance programs offered to jump start job creation.  Few have had any hope of yielding the economic payoff anticipated from this project. “

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

Once the cameras stopped, the real action began in the public fracking debate I participated in between industry representatives and Cornell faculty held November 15th on campus. 

During the debate, industry representatives aimed a fusillade of shots at Bob Howarth, Rene Santoro and Tony Ingraffea’s paper claiming that unconventional natural gas development causes more greenhouse gas emissions than coal.  Criticism ranged from the general, like no paper written since supports them, to the specific, like a pumper (production field hand) driving up to a well venting such large amounts of methane would have to have a death wish. 

Howarth defended the work.  He doubled down saying that his new findings will show plumes of methane coming off natural gas fields, which have been aerially photographed by both Purdue and Cornell Universities.  He also shot back with some wicked humor snidely insinuating that anyone who disagrees has “methane coming out of more places than we know.” 

After the debate, everyone shook hands in a show of sportsmanship.  Panelists on either side continued talking in pairs and small groups.  I thought Howarth would drop the disdain and engage the criticism showing intellectual curiosity worthy of a professor.  

He did just the opposite.

When I asked whether he would work with an industry advisory committee, he replied that he didn’t need one.   When I asked about including a petroleum engineer among his co-authors, he replied that he already had one, Tony Ingraffea. When I asked if and when he was going to retract his paper, he went into a tirade about how he had spent his life doing real science unlike industry hacks like me. 

Each question caused him to get more agitated, drawing closer and closer.  By the time it was over, he was standing so close to me that I felt personally threatened.   

So why would a tenured professor at an Ivy League institution stoop to name calling and physical intimidation?  Is this education?  Or is it indoctrination?

By the way, if any graduate student reads this and recognizes themself in my shoes, go file a harassment complaint as fast as you can! 

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

The energy panel organized by undergraduate students at Columbia University here in New York City asked a lot of good questions.  The first question was, "What are the potential environmental consequences of fracking?  Out of the impacts which are short term and which long term?" 

I told them that there are all kinds of worries, but most are not very substantial.  Yet, while the potential for environmental impact is small, it is not infinitesimal. 

Here is what can happen and what is being done about it:

1.      Short term Impact:  Well drilling is a construction project: first the surface location is prepared, then the equipment is placed, finally supplies are delivered and the drilling takes place.  It takes anywhere from a few weeks to a year or more depending on how many wells are drilled, how deep and long they are.  Truck traffic is significant and roads take a beating.  To counter this, states like Pennsylvania collect an impact fee.  In 2011 that totaled $205 million in 2011.  The money is divided between the state, state agencies, counties and municipalities.  It is used to repair roads, bridges, provide affordable housing, preserve open space and buy equipment for first responders.  Communities that allow drilling must be fairly compensated.

2.      Short term Impact:  All wells are drilled through aquifers.  Nearby water wells may run cloudy for a few days while drilling occurs.  That’s from the pressure wave that is created by drilling the surface hole.  Typically the disturbance clears up in a few days.  If it doesn’t, it’s usually because there is a problem with the water well.  In the United States there are millions of rural, unmonitored, unregulated water wells.  Many of the wells are old and have never been maintained.  Natural gas drilling can expose pre-existing problems with methane and bacteria that the homeowner may not have been aware of.  Pre-drilling water samples, and monitoring water while drilling, can be used to improve rural water supplies.

3.     Short term Impact:  Chemicals and brine handled on the surface may spill.  This is not new and companies have procedures to reduce the risk, mitigate the impact, and clean up the spill.  All Spills have to be reported to the state authorities.  Companies are increasingly using food grade chemicals in their wells.  They are self-reported on http://fracfocus.org. By the way, more than 200 energy-producing companies have registered over 15,000 well sites in the past year, not because they had to, but because it was the right thing to do.

4.      Long term Impact:  Improperly constructed and poorly maintained wells cause problems.  They are conduits for gas migration. Surface casing has to be set across the aquifer and cemented into place.  This has to be verified with a pressure test and a cement bond log. Intermediate casing must be set across shallow gas zones and cemented into place.  This has to be verified with a pressure test and cement bond log.  Casing head pressure has to be monitored.  If a well develops a casing leak or a tubing leak it has to be repaired.

5.     Long term Impact:  Poorly sited equipment causes problems.  Compressor stations and condensate tanks located near homes cause complaints about noise and smells.  Compressors need enclosures and noise abatement.  Tanks need vapor recovery.

6.      Long term Impact:  Improperly plugged and abandoned wells cause problems.  The proper procedure is once the well is past its life, it is pumped full of cement.  The valves at the surface are disconnected and hauled off.   Producers have to set money aside for P&A (plug and abandon) costs.  Abandoned and orphaned wells are a problem in some states because this wasn't done.  Texas serves as a model for how to cope with the problem.  Despite having drilled over a million wells, the state only has 8,000 orphaned and abandoned wells and aggressively locates and plugs 1,400 wells per year.

Every one of these impacts can be addressed by effective regulation and oversight.  

Most of them are already being addressed by good will and self interest.  

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

I just returned from speaking at the inaugural event of the Columbia University Energy Club.  The students were great!  About 80 attended a 2-hour panel discussion focused on the Marcellus, petroleum, "clean" energy and energy self-sufficiency. 

Ironically, the day before, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published their annual World Energy Outlook 2012 predicting that the United States will become energy self-sufficient by 2035.  

While the kids in the audience didn't appreciate the significance, the old timers on the panel were stunned.  Many of us remembered November 1973 when Richard Nixon announced the goal of energy independence for the United States.  He challenged the country to do it in 10 years. 

Nixon built on Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon never imagining which was the bigger gauntlet.  Even with the discovery and development of the giant Alaskan oil fields and offshore Gulf of Mexico, energy independence remained elusive.

Well 62 years later, the U.S. just might do it. It turns out that the keys to the kingdom are a combination of developing unconventional resources (55%) and energy efficiency (45%). 

To be sure, there are a lot of things that have to go right.  Energy independence could still slip away.  Prices have to cooperate, neither too high nor too low, technology must improve and the promise of shale has to be fulfilled.  Are the hydrocarbons really there in commercial quantities?  We won't really know until we drill the wells.  Plenty to screw up in the next 23 years.

Yet, to think that there really could be a viable path to energy independence is worthy of a full-stop pause.  Do you think that the United States oil and gas industry could win the next Nobel Peace Prize?

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom
New York City

p.s. - Assuming that the Nobel Committee does not award the Peace Prize to industry, I am going to frame the front page of the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Redraws World Oil Map, November 13, 2012.
It's close enough.

Dear Shale Protestor,

Our world runs on hydrocarbons.  Even 40-years after the painful Arab oil embargoes in the 1970s, the world is hugely dependent on hydrocarbons.  According to the IEA, 90% of the world’s fuel comes from coal, oil, natural gas, wood, waste and various biofuels.  All of them are hydrocarbons.  How did this happen?

Some people think that alternatives have been under researched and underfunded which explains why the world is still stuck on hydrocarbons.  Hmmmm.  If alternatives really have that much potential wouldn’t you think that they would be farther along by now?  Afterall, the first solar cell was developed by 1902.  The first wind mill dates to before recorded history.

Let's face it. We have yet to overcome stumbling blocks that prevent widespread adoption of these technologies.  Most people don’t live where the sun always shines (the desert) or where the wind always blows (high plains).  Electricity is prohibitively expensive when it must be transported and stored to be consumed where people actually live.  The other big bugaboo, which isn’t talked about much, is the massive footprint of these technologies.  Acres upon acres of solar and wind farms are more disruptive to the environment than a handful of directionally drilled natural gas wells.  In Germany, they stopped subsidizing solar farms on agricultural land.  America will figure this out, too.

Some people think that the ability to externalize pollution costs (i.e., not pay for them) keeps people burning hydrocarbons without thinking about the dangers of global warming.  I’m not so sure I buy this either.  I don’t pretend to be a climate scientist, but I do remember the Time Magazine I saw when I was a kid.  It warned of the approaching Ice Age (“Another Ice Age?” June 24, 1974). Presumably scientists have learned a lot since then, but it used to be that they were more concerned about global cooling than global warming.  Some still are. The current period of warming, even if it is being caused by too many people burning hydrocarbons, could well be the harbinger of another period of cooling.

Conspiracy theorists think that the sheer size of most hydrocarbon extraction enterprises make them suspect.  Deep pocketed industry greases politicians and regulators with money in an effort to co-opt them.  Well, maybe.  I find the conspiracy theory a little like the theory about banks.  Big banks are bad banks because they are big banks.  It ignores the benefits from economies of scale, employment and tax revenue.  Being cynical about the ability of democratically elected government to determine the public good is seen as sophistication in some circles, but it also insults the intelligence of the voter. 

The fact is hydrocarbons have dominated the world's energy supply since the cave man discovered fire. 

Why?  

They are a vastly superior fuel.  Just like sunshine and wind, they occur nearly everywhere. The world is not running out of them. It is only running out of the most obvious places to harvest. Infinitely flexible, natural gas, in particular, is LESS polluting, requires LESS water and land, and creates FEWER waste products than solar and wind.

In some ways, it’s quite simple. Drill a well and Mother Earth pushes hydrocarbon into it. The trick is estimating whether there be enough naturally occuring hydrocarbon to repay the cost of the well and return a profit.  Increasingly the answer is yes.

Till next time,

Energy Mom
New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

Next week I will appear on a panel sponsored by the Cornell Institute for Public Affairs to discuss practical ways of moving forward with hydraulic fracturing.  I am the investor voice on the panel.

So what am I going to say?

I will say that politicians and celebrities are way ahead of themselves in enthusiasm for energy that does not come from burning hydrocarbons.  

Starting in the 1970s, during the painful inflation caused by the Arab oil embargoes, the world and its best scientists began trying to find substitutes for hydrocarbons.  Yet, so far, the only substitute with the ability to scale across geographies and demand patterns is nuclear power.  If you don’t believe me, look at the IEA’s chart of the World Total Primary Energy Supply.

Smart, technologically advanced countries, like France, Germany, the United States and Japan, built large fleets of nuclear power plants to diversify away from hydrocarbons.  Yet, after the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, people in Japan and Germany insisted that the government shut down most of the plants.

Germany is also installing large scale solar and wind farms, but a political backlash is brewing around them, too.  According to a recent article in ReCharge: The Global Source for Renewable Energy News, the renewable surcharge will spike nearly 50% next year. The average German consumer could see their power bill rise by as much as 11%.  A renewable surcharge of the German magnitude here in the United States would essentially double most consumers’ electricity bills.

If nuclear is too controversial, and wind and solar are too expensive, what is left?

Investors, like me, are putting their money on hydrocarbons.

http://www.cipa.cornell.edu/news/index.cfm?news_id=265 

Dear Shale Protestor,

Riverkeeper announced support for the Champlain Hudson Power Express today[1].

Riverkeeper is the environmental lobby organization led by Paul Gallay and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.  The energy policy they support includes phasing out coal, stopping shale and shutting down nuclear power.  How's that for a Gordian knot of an energy policy?

Champlain Hudson Power Express would import wind and hydro power from Canada.  That must seem like a timely solution to extreme greens.  Yet, the public is becoming increasingly skeptical.  Who really benefits?

It’s not consumers.  Renewable power transmitted across long distances isn’t efficient or cost effective.

It’s not workers.  Renewable power generated in another country doesn’t build local jobs or a tax base.

It’s definitely not utilities. 

Here's another guess -- bankers. 

Riverkeeper should have figured out by now that local power is green power.  Extreme green will not get the job done.  If New York City needs an extension cord, let’s run it to a New York power plant.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

[1] De Avila, Joseph, “Power Lines Drawn,” The Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2012, p. A15.

---

Dear Shale Protestor,

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." 

-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan, United States Senator from New York, 1976-2000

Here are eight facts about New York:

• ·      New York is the #4 largest consumer of natural gas in the country.
• ·      New York consumption is growing because New York City passed a law requiring buildings to stop burning #6 oil by 2015. 
• ·      New York imports 95% of the gas it consumes.  
• ·      New York’s average electricity price is 50% higher than the average electricity price in the United States.
• ·      New York’s gasoline price is the 13^th highest in the nation.
• ·      New York collects 4% to 8.88% individual income tax.  It is a graduated tax based on the amount of income a person makes.  8.88% is the 7^th highest individual income tax rate in the country, which is only surpassed in Hawaii, California, Oregon, Iowa, New Jersey and Vermont.
• ·      New York pays $5-8 billion every year for natural gas to producer states in the Southwest and Canada.
• ·      New York possesses an estimated 20% of the Marcellus shale deposit.

New York is a state with high fuel prices and high taxes that is arguing about whether it will develop its shale.

Here are eight facts about Pennsylvania:

• ·      Pennsylvania imported 75% of its natural gas before it developed the Marcellus.
• ·      Pennsylvania produced 1.3 TCF of natural gas in 2011, about twice the amount that it consumes.  
• ·      Pennsylvania has a budget surplus.  The state just raised its budget from $27.1 billion to $27.6 billion because of the surplus.
• ·      Pennsylvania has 150,000 jobs created from natural gas development.
• ·      Pennsylvania will be the home of the billion-dollar ethane cracker announced by Shell in March 2012 and the attendant petrochemical industry.
• ·      Pennsylvania’s gasoline price is the 32^nd highest in the nation.
• ·      Pennsylvania collects 3% individual income tax.  It is a flat tax.
• ·      Pennsylvania sells natural gas to New York.

Pennsylvania is a state with low fuel prices and low taxes that is developing its shale.

So which state is the better place to live and work?  You can be the judge.  

As for me, I live in New York, but neighboring Pennsylvania looks pretty attractive.  Especially since I'm one of those engineers who worked in the "dirty" petroleum industry "raping" the earth.  I used to think that my job was noble.  I helped the country develop its own petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska at a time when it was dangerously dependent on OPEC.  But since I came to New York, I've been re-educated.  According to liberal arts professors, medical professionals and celebrities, I polluted drinking water, gave children asthma and am forever responsible for toxic chemicals left in the ground to destroy future generations.  Oh brother ...

No doubt, Pennsylvania’s success was not problem-free.  Once the Marcellus was proved, exploration and production companies rushed in causing a land grab and drilling frenzy that Pennsylvania was not prepared for.  (In the company's defense natural gas prices were the highest ever and governments around the world were predicting that the world would run out of everything because of the rise in the global middle class.)  Pennsylvania worked hard to overhaul its regulation.  Now it is a model for other states.   Problems were fixed, and when new ones occur, I am confident that they will be fixed, too, because that's what scientists and engineers do.

So when will New York notice what happened? 

Maybe it just did.

Governor Cuomo floated a proposal yesterday to allow hydraulic fracturing in communities that want it.  Landowning women and men -- representing 800,000 acres and 17,000 families -- rode buses to Albany the day before, and demanded their right to develop the resource that they own.  

You get the picture.  I think the Governor did, too.

Till next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

I just returned from the front lines of the Shale War raging in New York State.  The battle lines have been redrawn in a really surprising way.

A study released by the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University in early June
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96295495/Report-2-2012-Natural-Gas-Drilling revealed that the strongest objection to shale development comes from those who live in fringe urban areas around communities like Ithaca, Rochester or Syracuse.  People who go to the city for work, but come home to the country for rest, perceive that they will bear the disruption of shale development while receiving few of the benefits.

They and their political representatives keep throwing up environmental and health arguments to delay or stop shale.  It seems that technical research and analysis, plus years of field experience in Pennsylvania’s rural areas, which are most similar to New York’s, are not enough to prove that shale can be developed safely.  There’s always something else to worry about and another objection  -- invariably life threatening and cancer causing -- that must be addressed.

It also seems that these people believe that other forms of energy are right around the corner. 

On the other side are landowners and rural communities located too far from the city for work who cannot develop their mineral rights and provide the economic benefits of doing so for themselves and their communities.  They perceive themselves being oppressed by people one rung up the economic ladder. 

Increasingly this struggle boils down to class warfare.  Right now it feels like the losers are the country folk.  Or to put it another way, those who make their living with their hands are getting beat by those who make their living with words.  Natural gas would be the great equalizer, but those who don't want any change and benefit from low wages in depressed rural economies are dominating the discussion.

Yesterday a group of strong-willed women, and their men, stepped forward to change that.   It’s a group who come from all walks of life.  They understand how vital inexpensive energy is to family budgets.  From first hand experience they know that not developing shale means paying higher prices for fuel and electricity, losing their kids to better jobs in other states and in some cases even losing the family farm.  

Calling themselves the Women’s Energy Leadership Coalition (WELC), they came together in Albany yesterday for the first time.  Volunteers, not industry shills as the opposition derisively labels them, they know that shale can be developed safely because it is already being done. Their stories are captured in a film called, Silent No More.  Just like modern day sufragettes, they donned sashes inscribed with the words of the film as they marched to the capitol to give voice to their cause.  

These people represent the 17,000 rural families who own 800,000 acres of shale land.  

Every one of them wants it developed safely.  

They also want it developed now. 

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

First I was invited to be on the panel.  Then I was uninvited.  Then I was told that I couldn't be on the panel, but I could present for ten minutes to the audience. Oh please!  Here's the editorial I wrote that is running in the Syracuse newspaper today about the whole sorry affair.

"I’m sure it was a packed house at the Landmark Theatre on Saturday night. The docu-farce Gasland was screened followed by a panel discussion moderated by Alec Baldwin. It fleetingly crossed my mind to attend, but I knew I would not be welcome. 

I am a trained engineer who has spent my career in the energy business.  Alec Baldwin’s crowd is probably not interested in what I have to say.  It’s not dramatic and flies in the face of the most of the stereotypes being pushed. There’s no little guy being taken advantage of.  There’s no robber baron corporation. There’s no government conspiracy plot.  Plus, the science and facts take more than ten minutes to understand.

Gasland was screened as if it is an expose of what is happening outside of New York, and what will happen in New York if hydraulic fracturing is permitted.  The truth is that it’s a slight of hand that has duped a lot of people and is making civil discussion of the future of natural gas almost impossible. Entertainers -- like Josh Fox and Alec Baldwin – want to cause a commotion.  It’s good for their business, themselves.

Gasland leads you to believe that “fracking” is new. The truth is that hydraulic fracturing to make wells more productive is more than 60 years old.  It is used in 90% of oil and gas wells, many geothermal wells and even water wells.

Gasland perpetuates the lie that 596 harmful chemicals pollute every job. The truth is that the entire list of chemical additives is available on Fracfocus.org, a searchable database with well-by-well records. In New York, revealing all additives is required to receive a permit to drill. Proportions are proprietary, just like any other “recipe.” Look at any canned or packaged food you eat: there are ingredients and chemicals galore, but not the percentages or amount.

Gasland continues to spread the myth that the oil and gas industry is unregulated by the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The truth is that the industry is highly regulated on both the federal and state levels. New York state regulations are among the toughest.

Finally, Gasland is mostly famous for the flaming faucet. The truth is that low concentrations of methane are pervasive in the Earth’s crust and easily accumulate in water wells.  Lighting kitchen water on fire is an old party trick.  It’s nothing new in some parts of the country and guaranteed to cause a stir every time.

 

Gasland reminds me of Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds, except it’s not that original. Watch Truthland, which was posted on YouTube a few days ago, and learn the story that Josh Fox chose not to tell because he thought it was “irrelevant.”

So had I gone to the Landmark Theatre on Saturday night, I would have asked a few questions, beginning with:  Who walked?  Who rode a bicycle?

Next I would ask:  Who heats their home?  Who has air conditioning?  Who reads at night? 

Then I would ask members of the audience to take off all blended or polyester fabrics, remove shoes with synthetic soles, discard plastic water bottles and Solo cups, sit on the floor instead of plastic chairs.

 

Finally I would say raise your hand if you support nuclear power, want to host a wind farm, cut down shade trees to install solar panels or grant access to a power transmission line.  If you raise your hand, you can get off the floor and sit in a chair.

Now with all the hypocrisy in full view, let’s talk."

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York City

Dear Shale Protestor,

Last week I was in a small group that met with an assemblywoman whom I’ll refer to as Ms. B.  Ms. B represents the district that is the most vocal critic of shale development in New York.  Activists in this district are responsible for funding the shale protest and masterminding the 90 bans and moratoriums on shale development that have been passed here. As her website states, Ms. B was first elected in 2002 and is now starting her fifth term.

Ms. B began the meeting by telling my group that climate change is her number one issue.  She declared that her reading tells her that the United States must completely de-carbonize its economy by 2020.  If it doesn’t, it will be responsible for catastrophic collapse of the environment.  Ms. B, who holds an M.A. in English and taught high school English before she was elected to the legislature, knows this because she reads it.  Unfortunately, she just doesn’t read anything that doesn’t agree with this view.

What’s more, Ms.B’s well-educated constituents –- the faculty, students and staff of a well-known university where my daughter will matriculate in the fall –- agree with her, which is why they keep re-electing her.  If her constituents get their way, hydrocarbons will be headed for the dumpster.  Forget the industrial revolution; never mind the cost or intermittency of alternatives; Mother Nature is terminally ill and can only be saved by drastic action!

Ms. B also demonstrated how she lives by her convictions.  She refused to turn on the lights even though her office was dark.  When one person reached for the switch, she muttered under her breath,  “We don’t do that around here.”  Instead, she tried to open the blinds, which would have been a good idea, except they didn’t work.

When I suggested she read Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air by David J C MacKay in order to understand what de-carbonization will take, Ms. B said that she had never heard of it.  MacKay wrote the book for British policy makers when he became alarmed at the physical impossibility and excessively optimistic claims of most renewable energy.  He is professor of natural philosophy in the department of physics at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate. The book is available for free at this link: http://www.withouthotair.com/.  I recommend it for any person passionate about de-carbonization like Ms. B.

In Sustainable Energy Without the Hot Air, MacKay shows that only nuclear power generates enough energy to replace hydrocarbons.  The world already knows this.  After 40-years of trying to replace hydrocarbons after the 1973 Arab oil embargo, the only non-hydrocarbon source of fuel of any significance in the world is nuclear power.  Today nuclear power makes up 10% of the world’s fuel supply, while the other 90% is hydrocarbons. The figures are on the IEA (International Energy Agency) website.

Wind resources are simply not in the right place.  Turbine farms take up valuable land and generate most of their output at night when it’s not needed.  Solar is good for the desert, but if the panel is shaded, pitched or oriented in any direction except South, output declines significantly.  Bio-fuels raise food prices.  Wave energy is in its infancy.  Then there is my personal favorite: hydroelectric dams.  My great-grandfather lost his farm to one of these projects in the 1940s. 

So has Ms. B thought through the implications of her position?  She kept saying that the United States does not have an energy policy.  Does Ms. B have a coherent energy policy?  Does Ms. B support nuclear power? 

No.  In fact, she hates nuclear power, too.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

Dear Shale Protestor,

The desperate search for a smoking gun to shut down shale development has reached a new level of lunacy.  As if the combined fears of rural industrialization, rampant air and water pollution, and exposure to cancer causing chemicals were not enough, now it is earthquakes!  Oh please … what next?  Shale development increases the incidence of tornadoes?

At first glance the headline looks like another scary outcome associated with shale development.  A research paper by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to be presented April 18th at the Seismological Society of America’s Annual Meeting links oil and gas production to increased seismicity.  Alarm bells are ringing in all the usual corners.

Except that the authors, who are being interviewed this week in advance of presenting the paper, are saying something very different.  They are saying that increased seismicity is caused by over use of deep injection wells.  This is a decades- old, well- known phenomenon that can be avoided by curtailing injection into the offending well.*

Deep injection wells have been controlled by the EPA ever since Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974.  The program is known as the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program and its history can be found here:  http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/history.cfm.  Deep injection is used for waste disposal by many industries, not just oil and gas, and has ben in existence for the better part of a century.  An earthquake caused by injecting into one of these wells is not new, it’s not noteworthy and it’s not news.

I think the more interesting question is: why is the USGS hell-bent on stirring the pot?  What does the  USGS do anyway?  According to their website, "The mission of the Geological Survey is to provide geologic, topographic, and hydrologic information that contributes to the wise management of the Nation's natural resources and that promotes the health, safety, and well-being of the people."  Does Rodney Dangerfield work there?

Look at what happened after the USGS wrote up shale reserves.  In August 2011 when USGS revised their shale reserves upwards from 2 TCF to 84 TCF, their estimate was substantially less than the figure being used by the Energy Information Agency (EIA), causing the EIA to write down their estimate of reserves.  Countless shale protestors cite the USGS write up as proof that the gas isn’t there.  By writing up reserves, USGS effectively wrote them down.

Now USGS is releasing a research paper confirming that deep injection wells cause earthquakes and production wells don’t. Never mind that has been known for 50-years. Shale protestors will use the paper to “prove” that recent earthquakes would not have happened without the shale development boom, and therefore future development should stop. 

With the USGS on your side, you can't help but lose.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

*It’s critical to differentiate deep injection wells, which are disposal wells, from shale development wells, which are hydraulically fractured horizontal wells.  Mixing up these two types of wells is like confusing the faucet and the drain in your sink.  In this analogy the faucet is the production well and the drain is the injection well.

Dear Shale Protestor,

I sat in silence as the woman with the red beret and purple sweater waved a glossy postcard promoting an upcoming discussion on alternatives to natural gas. The woman and her cohort shouted: Stop natural gas!  It should be left in the ground where it belongs!  Don’t bring hydrofracking to New York!  Burn biodiesel  instead!  I was stunned. 

The woman and I were seated together at a meeting on natural gas conversions.  The meeting was held at a Catholic church in my neighborhood in New York City.  It was well attended because a lot of buildings, like the one that I live in, are required to stop burning fuel oil #6 (bunker fuel or resid).  The change must be made by  2015.  After that, buildings can chose to burn fuel oil #4 or #2 (diesel) or natural gas.  If they choose fuel oil #4, they have to convert to diesel or natural gas by 2030. 

As buildings figure out their options, a lot depends on where they are located.  Some buildings have already switched to natural gas, but in many locations the existing natural gas distribution lines are not big enough to supply building heat.  Con Edison (New York City’s utility) is offering to build larger lines at no cost if a revenue stream of 40% of the capital cost is guaranteed.

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) senses that natural gas is the best option for places like New York City.  EDF has been working hard to bring all the stakeholders together.  EDF created the map which shows the "dirty fuel" buildings http://apps.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=49624.  EDF worked with the neighborhood association to organize the meeting that I attended.  EDF brought the utility, the fuel supply companies and the building owners together.  


This is a win-win-win. Energy and environment on the same side of the table. ConEd gets new business with a two-and-a-half year payout.  New York City gets cleaner air and better quality of life.  All the buildings have to do is form a cluster -- groups of users of sufficient size -- and they will replace expensive oil with cheap natural gas and keep the savings.  It seems that good energy choices and good environment choices are not mutually exclusive after all ... except that the program was not over.  

Red and purple woman and her cohort called for one more speaker.  Tri-State Biodiesel (TSB) came to the microphone.  TSB is a private company that produces biodiesel.  There is not very much information on their website, but they seem to have been around nearly a decade, won social responsibility awards and gotten press coverage.  TSB takes soybean oil, waste animal fat, used cooking oil or some combination of the three and converts them into heating oil.  Gathered from as many as 3,000 locations in NY, NJ and CT, many of which are restaurants, it sounds like it could have some potential.  Plus, the sales manager is a likable guy.  Likable enough that no one seemed to notice that biodiesel is priced the same as petroleum diesel, although the consumer gets a rebate from the government.

Once the rebate was mentioned, my skepticism began:  Can it scale?  Is it reliable?  Is it affordable?  Even if you pick up every gallon of waste oil, how much supply can there possibly be?  What happens during a cold snap in January when all the buildings simultaneously need to top off their fuel tanks?  What happens when the single processing plant goes down?  

Plus -- and this is the real sticking point for me -- if my building switches to biodiesel and oil prices go down, TSB goes out of business.  The environmental activists are so deadset against hydraulic fracturing that they promote continued reliance on diesel.  Don't they realize how conflicted their position has become?  Has anyone ever thought about whether a product that depends on high oil prices AND a government rebate is really going to go the distance?  Buildings only change fuels every 50 years.  The last, and only, time that my building changed was when it converted from coal to fuel oil in the 1960.

As I left the meeting with the postcard thrust into my hand, I couldn’t help but think, it might not be a good idea to trust my building's energy future to someone who wears red and purple at the same time. 

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

Dear Shale Protestor,

In New York, towns are passing laws right and left to ban hydraulic fracturing.  Courts are upholding their ability to do so.  On the surface it sounds like self-preservation, but when you look at the facts, it reveals gullibility of historic proportions. 

Gripped with irrational fear being fed by opportunist environmental activists -- like Josh Fox and his seemingly rag-tag, but actually well-heeled crew from Gasland and Gasland 2 -- town boards have been led to believe that their drinking water is at risk from natural gas development.

That’s simply not true. The charge ignores the record of 70,000+ oil and gas wells that have been drilled in New York with production stretching back to 1821.  Every one of those wells reaches hydrocarbons by passing through an aquifer.  They have not poisoned the water supply.

Fox is famous for filming the flaming faucet, but if he would have turned his camera out of doors he would have found Eternal Flame Falls, Burning Springs, and many other places in NY and PA where methane occurs in shallow strata, mixes with water and seeps to surface.  Oil and gas drilling did not cause this to happen.  Nature did!

Environmental activists have conflated historical industrial pollution in New York with oil and gas development in order to stir up wild emotions.  Once again, it’s wrong.  New York has 220 sites listed on EPA’s Superfund and RCRA clean up website.  Not one of them was caused by oil and gas development.  Gowanus and Love Canals happened because of unregulated industrial waste disposal, not because of oil and gas development.

To be sure, environmental risks associated with development are not zero, but they are worth taking.  Comprehensive study of the 2008-2010 record of violations in Pennsylvania, which was done by the Manhattan Institute and released in May 2011, showed that the environmental cost over this period of Marcellus development was $4,500 per well.  That cost is more than offset by the benefit, which is estimated to be $2,800,000 per well.  Both figures are at the low end of the estimates.  Higher figures show an even more compelling cost/benefit trade off.

Towns that enact bans can be sure of only one thing.  They will never receive any of the benefits of oil and gas development. Let the New York Department of Environmental Conservation do its job, which is to protect the health, safety and environment of its citizens while ensuring the efficient extraction and conservation of valuable natural resources.

It’s time to board the airplane.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom
New York, New York

Dear Shale Protestor,

So what exactly is the risk that shale development poses to drinking water?

The short answer is there is none. 

The longer, but more accurate answer is: there is no risk to drinking water if the wells are properly constructed, if the water used to drill and fracture is properly sourced when it is put into the ground, and if the water that flows back and is produced is properly treated when it comes out of the ground.

So let's examine the conditional statements one at a time in order.

1. Well Construction

Regulations exist for every step of this process.  They vary by state.  In states with a history of oil and gas development, well construction regulations are well defined, no pun intended, and have been for a long time.  In states with less history of oil and gas development, regulations are being rewritten to make sure that they provide the necessary protection.  New York, for example, if it goes forward with high volume hydraulic fracturing, will require two strings of casing cemented through the aquifer.

2. Source Water (Water Going Into the Ground)

Sourcing water for well fluids has been the subject of much scrutiny.  I had the pleasure of speaking with John Veil, head of Veil Environmental Engineering and former Manager of the Water Policy Program in the Environmental Science Division of Argonne National Laboratory, who just last week made a presentation on this topic at the Society of Produced Water’s January conference in Houston, TX.  His estimates show that expected aquifer use for shale development is minimal compared to existing large users like electric power generation, irrigation, livestock and drinking water supply.  As industry works to recycle drilling and fracture fluids, there will be less demand for water and less potential for stress on the aquifer.

So that leaves the one concern that my East Coast friend voiced, which is legitimate in my opinion.  Where does all that water go when it comes back out of the ground?  This is really two questions:  Where does the flowback water go?  Where does the produced water go?

3. Flowback Water (Initial Water Coming Out of the Ground)

Flowback water is handled in three ways.  It is recycled, injected underground or treated and disposed of by a treatment plant. Recycling is a great option and companies are innovating constantly to do more of it. Underground injection is also a useful option, especially in the early going because it is highly regulated (beyond reproach) and readily available, although expensive. 

Option 3: treating and disposing of flowback using publically owned treatment works (POTWs) has not worked very well.  Pennsylvania tried it, but the public outcry was enormous.  POTWs are designed to take in wastewater and separate it into solids, which are sold as fertilizer or landfilled, and clean water, which is discharged into surface water via a federal permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - NPDES - permit). 

Even though POTWs are designed to treat all kinds of things mixed into water like solvents, pesticides, paint, grease (such as food oil from restaurants), lead, copper, PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyl), benzene  and PERC (a dry cleaning fluid), the public is not convinced that they can handle flowback water.  The New York Times ran a series of articles, written by Ian Urbina, which called this practice into question, and that is when all the shouting started, common sense shut down and shale development took a black eye.

OK, so take option 3 off the table.  Pennsylvania effectively has because they banned flowback treatment at 15 POTWs.  It’s too bad because it was a source of income for the POTWs and cost savings for the ratepayers, but in a way, I agree with my friend.  The risks are too high, especially the risk of endless controversy.

That leaves just one unanswered question.  What happens to the water associated with the production of hydrocarbons which is unavoidable, produced water?

4. Produced Water (Water Coming Out of the Ground Over the Lifetime of the Well)

My last blog pointed out that oil and gas companies are highly skilled at processing produced water and using it in ways that have negligible environmental impact.  They have to be because many of them are really produced water companies, handling 10 barrels of water for every barrel of hydrocarbon in aggregate in the United States (individual company figures will vary widely). 

But here’s the real point I want to make.  For physical reasons, most hydraulically fractured shale wells will produce very little water and are expected to produce very little water over the life of the well.  Basically the gas molecules, which are very small, will flow, but the water molecules, which are large, will be blocked. 

All that nasty water which produced water companies -- I mean the oil and gas industry -- process every day could be a relic of the past … if we develop the shale.   That’s a game changer.

Till Next Time,

Energy Mom

New York, New York