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