EC June 2011

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

15 participants
42 discussions

Start a nNew thread

Natural gas prices set to jump with exports
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 04 Jul '11

04 Jul '11

Interesting article. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_741745.html

4 7

FW: [MarcellusGasInfo] NJ Assembly and Senate ban fracking
by Beth Little 30 Jun '11

30 Jun '11

Easy for them to do - they don't have any Marcellus shale. From: marcellusgasinfo(a)googlegroups.com [mailto:marcellusgasinfo@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Knight Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 10:45 PM To: ShaleShock; shaleshockcny CNY; marcellusgasinfo(a)googlegroups.com Subject: [MarcellusGasInfo] NJ Assembly and Senate ban fracking The NJ Senate banned fracking with a vote of 33-1 and the NJ Assembly banned it with a vote of 58-11. It is now down to whether the governor, Chris … [View More]

1 0

Re: [EC] [wvec-board] E-Council Green Jam-Tues. Oct. 4th
by Frank Young 30 Jun '11

30 Jun '11

Thank you for the notice, Greg. That is the evening of special election day- October 4th. We could look at it as a victory party, or as an occasion to cry in our beer- whichever the election returns indicate. Frank ----- Original Message ----- From: Carroll, Greg B To: dsgjr(a)aol.com ; clrank2(a)gmail.com ; fyoung(a)mountain.net Cc: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com ; ec(a)osenergy.org ; wyro(a)appalight.com ; djsoeder(a)yahoo.com Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:55 AM … [View More]Subject: [wvec-board] E-Council Green Jam-Tues. Oct. 4th Dear Folks , I wanted to make sure I got the right date out. NOT the 2nd but the 4th of Oct. That’s a Tuesday evening. The benefit will be at the Empty Glass in Charleston, Food –Music-Fun…after work from 6 to 10…..many local musicians! Please pass the word. Long time away but good to start in advance. Greg From: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of dsgjr(a)aol.com Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 3:10 PM To: clrank2(a)gmail.com; fyoung(a)mountain.net Cc: wvec-board(a)yahoogroups.com; ec(a)osenergy.org; wyro(a)appalight.com; djsoeder(a)yahoo.com Subject: Re: [wvec-board] Gas drilling hazardous waste landfill in Preston County? Actually, I have heard rumors that the other landfills in the area that DEP has authorized to receive this waste are none to happy about this new proposed landfill -- They don't want the competition! Like everything else in this world, it's all about the money. Don Garvin In a message dated 6/24/2011 12:15:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, clrank2(a)gmail.com writes: Yes, Frank. This has been and is a hot button issue for Friends of Cheat, the PA-WV watershed COMPACT, Upper Mon River Assoc. and all the Dunkard Creek, Sierra and other folks in northern WV where the bulk of the horizontal marcellus drilling is happening -- especially the two in Morgantown near the water intake... and the two in the Dunkard Creek watershed.... Chesapeake and others have already reduced or eliminated entirely the drilling pits and have been catching the drilling muds, etc in open truck beds (don't know the official terminology for them) and taking them to other already existing landfills ----- ... Dan may be aware of the attitudes of these landfill operators, but with the growing amount of waste generated by the drilling in these northern WV Counties i'm sure they can see their projected capacity quickly being stressed or stretched to the limits and welcome this new project to relieve pressure on their limits. .... Needless to say others in the communities are none too happy... Cindy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Frank Young <fyoung(a)mountain.net> wrote: This would seem to indicate public acknowledgement of serious waste disposal issues related to the by-products of shale gas drilling. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Buckley To: Frank Young ; Gordon Jones ; gary singleton ; John Gorrell ; Mike Reese Cc: Rick Buckley Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:30 AM Subject: Landfill in Preston County I guess this issue did not go away. This is what I had mentioned last evening regarding creating a landfill in Preston County related to Marcellus drilling. (see attached) __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group MARKETPLACE Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___ [View Less]

1 1

Re: [EC] ash for Thursday
by Jim Sconyers 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

OK - How about instead I make up a handout: Coal Ash Top Ten Toxics Arsenic Selenium Cadmium Lead Mercury Jim et al - next five please. We have that for the media and to present to McKinley, along with a statement of our concerns...? Also - I'll have several signs for folks - unless you want to make your own. On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Petra&John Wood <pbjmwood(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jim - as I said in my earlier email, I have no access to getting fly … [View More]> ash. sorry - petra > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Petra - can you get some actual ash for the Thursday event please? >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> >> Date: Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tr-Ash Talk: W.V. Rep. McKinley Sells Out >> Constituents >> To: Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> >> Cc: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu>, ec(a)osenergy.org, Nicole Good >> <nicolegood.wv(a)gmail.com>, Gwen Jones <gwenjones23(a)yahoo.com>, >> Petra&John Wood <pbjmwood(a)gmail.com> >> >> >> Folks - >> >> We're on for Thursday at 11:00 AM. >> Basic outline: >> Picket on sidewalk in front of the building, work with media if they >> come, then go inside to give our gifts of real coal ash to Congressman >> McKinley. We'll be sending a media alert later today - it is attached. >> >> Come on down - it'll be fun! >> >> <Sally - the time is now definite, so please send the request to Mon >> Group for folks to participate whenever you're ready - thanks.> >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 7:40 PM, Jim Sconyers <jim_scon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> > Can you join us for this on Thursday? We need numbers - you can speak if >> > you >> > like, but that is not required. Hold a sign, be one of the number >> > distressed >> > about McKinley on coal ash protection. >> > >> > Jim Sconyers >> > jim_scon(a)yahoo.com >> > 304.698.9628 >> > >> > Remember: Mother Nature bats last. >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> >> > To: James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> >> > Cc: ec(a)osenergy.org; Nicole Good <nicolegood.wv(a)gmail.com>; Gwen Jones >> > <gwenjones23(a)yahoo.com>; Petra&John Wood <pbjmwood(a)gmail.com> >> > Sent: Mon, June 20, 2011 4:56:57 PM >> > Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Tr-Ash Talk: W.V. Rep. McKinley Sells Out >> > Constituents >> > >> > Does 11:00 Tursday work? Or do we need to move to 10:00? >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 4:23 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> wrote: >> >> I agree tomorrow is too short notice. I have one meeting Thursday >> >> afternoon, but could possibly do things in the morning or at noon. >> >> >> >> JBK >> >> >> >>>>> Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> 6/20/2011 4:15 PM >>> >> >> Folks - I don't see how we can do this tomorrow - haven't sent >> >> anything to media yet, they need at least 24 hours. >> >> >> >> How about we set it for Thurs 11:00? I know the mark-up may have >> >> already happened by then - or it may not. If not, we're fine. If it >> >> has, we blast him for what he did, not for what he's about to do. >> >> >> >> Feedback? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >>> Here's what I think we need if we want to make this happen. >> >>> People - critical mass would be 4 - 5, more is good. >> >>> Signs - I can make 2 - "McKinley to Citizens: Kiss My Ash" "Coal Ash >> >>> in Our Air and Water - What the Health?" >> >>> Baggie of coal ash for each person >> >>> >> >>> A "plan" >> >>> The Morgantown office is staffed 9 - 5 M - F. >> >>> We go there, picket in front of the building (can anyone describe >> >> it, >> >>> location, sidewalk, etc.?) >> >>> Meet media in front if they show. I would say 11 AM - -? >> >>> Talk to media - what happened (is about to happen), why we're >> >>> concerned, story line being northern WV is epicenter of massive ash >> >>> dumping, yet McKinley wants to stop the EPA from protecting or >> >> health >> >>> through commonsense - or ANY - regulation of toxic coal ash. Who is >> >>> McKinley serving in Washington? Sure isn't the people of his >> >> district. >> >>> >> >>> Media alert - needs to go out within an hour or two of now. >> >>> >> >>> Can at least 4 - 5 commit to doing this? >> >>> >> >>> I can. >> >>> >> >>> Please use reply all..... >> >>> >> >>> Sally = please forward to Mon Group. >> >>> >> >>> 709 Beechurst Ave., Suite 14B >> >>> Morgantown, WV 26505 >> >>> Phone: 304.284.8506 >> >>> Hours: M-F: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 3:31 PM, James Kotcon <jkotcon(a)wvu.edu> >> >> wrote: >> >>>> Note: The markup (on McKinley's bill) was rescheduled for next >> >> Tuesday, >> >>>> June 21 at 4 p.m. Actions Tuesday morning? >> >>>> >> >>>> JBK >> >>>> >> >>>>>>> Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> 6/17/2011 3:24 PM >>> >> >>>> Jim - >> >>>> I think we need to do something. This worthless SOB needs some >> >>>> consequences. What can we do? How about picketing his Morgantown >> >>>> office and getting media there? Or.......? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>> From: Raviya Ismail <rismail(a)earthjustice.org> >> >>>> Date: Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 9:13 AM >> >>>> Subject: Tr-Ash Talk: W.V. Rep. McKinley Sells Out Constituents >> >>>> To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is our latest Tr-Ash Talk blog: >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-june/tr-ash-talk-w-v-rep-mckinley-sells-o… >> >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Emily Enderle >> >>>> Tr-Ash Talk: W.V. Rep. McKinley Sells Out Constituents >> >>>> Congressman’s district is home to largest coal ash pond >> >>>> >> >>>> Here we go again. >> >>>> >> >>>> Some of our elected leaders are once more maneuvering to block >> >>>> much-needed health protections against coal ash. Rep. David >> >> McKinley >> >>>> (R-WV) has sponsored a bill that would broadly remove federal >> >>>> authority for any regulation of coal ash ever. This bill, if >> >> enacted, >> >>>> also would conveniently protect his business interests. In April, >> >>>> Politico exposed Rep. McKinley’s business interest in ensuring >> >> that >> >>>> coal ash is not regulated. Rep McKinley owns the largest >> >> engineering >> >>>> firm in West Virginia and his company uses coal ash in concrete, as >> >>>> fill for roads and other uses. >> >>>> >> >>>> Rep. McKinley also represents a district that has the largest coal >> >> ash >> >>>> pond in the nation, and his bill goes against what he promised West >> >>>> Virginian Curt Havens, veteran and constituent. Havens was at the >> >>>> Energy and Commerce hearing in April, when Rep. McKinley said, >> >> about >> >>>> prior coal ash threats, "I want to make sure that never happens >> >> again >> >>>> to another family in America." (Those comments start at minute >> >> marker >> >>>> 2:26:26.) Again, business interests are coming before the interest >> >> of >> >>>> protecting public health. >> >>>> >> >>>> During the House budget negotiations February frenzy, Rep. McKinley >> >>>> sponsored amendment 217 that would have prohibited the EPA from >> >> using >> >>>> any of their funds to move forward with the health protective >> >> Subtitle >> >>>> C regulation. Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced amendment 10, >> >>>> trying to achieve the same thing. It’s no surprise that both >> >>>> congressmen are heavily supported by the energy sector. >> >>>> >> >>>> During his 2010 campaign Rep. McKinley received $43,300 from energy >> >>>> companies, and $22,751 of that came from mining interests, >> >> according >> >>>> to the Center for Responsive Politics. >> >>>> Rep. McKinley’s current effort to stop the regulation of this >> >> potent >> >>>> waste, H.R. 1391, would “amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act to >> >>>> exempt >> >>>> fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste and flue gas emission >> >>>> control waste generated primarily from the combustion of coal or >> >> other >> >>>> fossil fuels from regulation as hazardous waste under such Act.” >> >>>> >> >>>> H.R. 1391 was scheduled to be marked up in the Environment and >> >> Economy >> >>>> subcommittee of Energy and Commerce this morning. The markup had to >> >> be >> >>>> rescheduled for next Tuesday, June 21 at 4 p.m. due to a drafting >> >>>> error. The bill, as written, couldn’t have been much worse and >> >>>> it’s >> >>>> doubtful there will be any improvements as they fix the drafting >> >>>> error. >> >>>> >> >>>> Rep. McKinley and the bill supporters will continue to put public >> >>>> health at risk. Further, they will undermine the public coal ash >> >>>> rulemaking currently underway that generated a record-breaking >> >> 450,000 >> >>>> comments. This is a tragic example of how some elected officials >> >> bow >> >>>> to dirty polluters rather than heeding the concerns of their >> >>>> constituents. >> >>>> >> >>>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To >> >>>> unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message >> >> to: >> >>>> COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check >> >> out >> >>>> our Listserv Lists support site for more information: >> >>>> http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Jim Sconyers >> >>>> jimscon(a)gmail.com >> >>>> 304.698.9628 >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> EC mailing list >> >>>> EC(a)osenergy.org >> >>>> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Jim Sconyers >> >>> jimscon(a)gmail.com >> >>> 304.698.9628 >> >>> >> >>> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jim Sconyers >> >> jimscon(a)gmail.com >> >> 304.698.9628 >> >> >> >> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Jim Sconyers >> > jimscon(a)gmail.com >> > 304.698.9628 >> > >> > Remember, Mother Nature bats last. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > EC mailing list >> > EC(a)osenergy.org >> > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim Sconyers >> jimscon(a)gmail.com >> 304.698.9628 >> >> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. >> >> >> >> -- >> Jim Sconyers >> jimscon(a)gmail.com >> 304.698.9628 >> >> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. > > -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last. [View Less]

3 2

Fwd: Hydrofracked: One man's quest for answers about natural gas drilling
by Paul Wilson 28 Jun '11

28 Jun '11

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: High Country News <enewsletter(a)hcn.org> Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:29 PM Subject: Hydrofracked: One man's quest for answers about natural gas drilling To: pjgrunt(a)gmail.com View in a browser window<http://whatcounts.com/dm?id=E61606FADDB7639A154B815D5C014BF6B42BD6281DE2FE61> [image: High Country News Commons] Subscribe to the Magazine<http://wc4.net/t?r=1873&c=2631826&l=58707&ctl=3777FED:… [View More]

1 0

LOE: Natural Gas and Greenhouse Gasses
by Jonathan Rosenbaum 27 Jun '11

27 Jun '11

The quick: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00025&segmentID=4 <http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=11-P13-00025&segmentID=4> The long ..... In the Stop the Fracking in Morgantown Industrial Park Facebook Group Jeff Young initiated a discussion about the recent MIT report, http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/natural-gas-2011.shtml . He said, This is important reading for anyone who wants a serious, broader view of the … [View More]

1 1

Low hanging fruit in energy conservation = to all electric use of state of MD for one year.....year in and year out
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 26 Jun '11

26 Jun '11

Atop TV Sets, a Power Drain That Runs Nonstop By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/elisabeth_rose…> Published: June 25, 2011 Those little boxes that usher cable signals and digital recording capacity into televisions have become the single largest electricity drain in many American homes, with some typical home entertainment configurations eating more power than a new refrigerator and even some central air-conditioning systems. Todd … [View More]Heisler/The New York Times A new study has found that some home entertainment systems eat more energy than refrigerators or central air-conditioning systems. Multimedia Comparing Energy Use - Green: A Blog About Energy and the Environment<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/?ref=us> There are 160 million so-called set-top boxes in the United States, one for every two people, and that number is rising. Many homes now have one or more basic cable boxes as well as add-on DVRs, or digital video recorders, which use 40 percent more power than the set-top box. One high-definition DVR and one high-definition cable box use an average of 446 kilowatt hours a year, about 10 percent more than a 21-cubic-foot energy-efficient refrigerator, a recent study found. These set-top boxes are energy hogs mostly because their drives, tuners and other components are generally running full tilt, or nearly so, 24 hours a day, even when not in active use. The recent study, by the Natural Resources Defense Council <http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/settopboxes.pdf>, concluded that the boxes consumed $3 billion in electricity per year in the United States — and that 66 percent of that power is wasted when no one is watching and shows are not being recorded. That is more power than the state of Maryland uses over 12 months. “People in the energy efficiency community worry a lot about these boxes, since they will make it more difficult to lower home energy use,” said John Wilson, a former member of the California Energy Commission who is now with the San Francisco-based Energy Foundation. “Companies say it can’t be done or it’s too expensive. But in my experience, neither one is true. It can be done, and it often doesn’t cost much, if anything.” The perpetually “powered on” state is largely a function of design and programming choices made by electronics companies and cable and Internet providers, which are related to the way cable networks function in the United States. Fixes exist, but they are not currently being mandated or deployed in the United States, critics say. Similar devices in some European countries, for example, can automatically go into standby mode when not in use, cutting power drawn by half. They can also go into an optional “deep sleep,” which can reduce energy consumption by about 95 percent compared with when the machine is active. One British company, Pace <http://www.pace.com/global/>, sells such boxes to American providers, who do not take advantage of the reduced energy options because of worries that the lowest energy states could disrupt service. Cable companies say customers will not tolerate the time it takes to reboot the system once the system has been shut down or put to sleep. “The issue of having more efficient equipment is of interest to us,” said Justin Venech, a spokesman for Time Warner Cable. But, he added, “when we purchase the equipment, functionality and cost are the primary considerations.” But energy efficiency experts say that technical fixes could eliminate or minimize the waiting time and inconvenience, some at little expense. Low-energy European systems reboot from deep sleep in one to two minutes. Alan Meier, a scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said of the industry in the United States, “I don’t want to use the word ‘lazy,’ but they have had different priorities, and saving energy is not one of them.” The Environmental Protection Agency has established Energy Star standards<http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find_a_product.showProductGr…>for set-top boxes and has plans to tighten them significantly by 2013, said Ann Bailey, director of Energy Star product labeling, in an e-mail. The voluntary seal indicates products that use energy efficiently. But today, there are many boxes on the list of products that meet the Energy Star standard<http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/prod_lists/set_top_boxes_prod_list.pdf>that do not offer an automatic standby or sleep mode. “If you hit the on/off button it only dims the clock, it doesn’t significantly reduce power use,” said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist at the natural resources council. Energy efficiency is a function of hardware, software, the cable network and how a customer uses the service, said Robert Turner, an engineer at Pace, which makes set-top boxes that can operate using less power while not in active use. Sometimes energy efficiency can be vastly improved by remotely adjusting software over a cable, Mr. Turner said. In this way, Pace reduced the energy consumption of some of its older boxes by half. Cable boxes are not designed to be turned completely off, and even when in deep sleep mode, it takes time to reconnect and “talk” with their cable or satellite network, though that time is highly variable depending on the technology. Mr. Wilson said he routinely unplugged his set-top boxes at night and waited only 45 seconds for television in the morning. But Dr. Meier said that when he tried to power down his home system at night, it took “hours” to reboot because the provider “downloaded the programming guide in a very inefficient way.” Cable providers and box manufacturers like Cisco Systems, Samsung and Motorola currently do not feel consumer pressure to improve box efficiency. Customers are generally unaware of the problem — they do not know to blame the unobtrusive little device for the rise in their electricity bills, and do not choose their boxes anyway. Those devices may cause an increase of as little as a few dollars a month or well over $10 for a home with many devices. In Europe, electricity rates are often double those in the United States, providing greater financial motivation to conserve. Cisco Systems, one of the largest makers of set-top boxes, said in an e-mail that they would offer some new models this year that would cut consumption by 25 percent “through reduced power used in ‘on’ and standby states.” There will be no deep sleep or fully “off” setting. But Cisco said that taking advantage of the potential energy savings for a box would also depend on “how it is operated by the service provider.” Cable and satellite providers will have to decide whether the boxes can automatically go to standby, for example, and whether customers will be able to adjust their own settings. Currently, providers often do system maintenance and download information at night over the cable, so an ever-at-the ready cable box is more convenient for them. Cable companies can become Energy Star “partners” if they agree to install or upgrade boxes so that 25 percent to 50 percent of the homes they serve have “energy star qualified” equipment. The E.P.A. merely encourages providers to use units that can automatically power down at least partly when not in use. But as of Sept. 1, typical electricity consumption of Energy Star qualified products would drop to 97 kilowatt hours a year from an average of 138; and then by the middle of 2013, they must drop again to 29 kilowatt hours a year. Companies have fought the placement of the “Energy Star” seal on products and the new ambitious requirements, which may still be modified before enacted. Mr. Wilson recalled that when he was on the California Energy Commission, he asked box makers why the hard drives were on all the time, using so much power. The answer: “Nobody asked us to use less.” The biggest challenge in reducing energy use is maintaining the rapid response time now expected of home entertainment systems, Mr. Turner said. “People are used to the idea that computers take some time to boot up,” he said, “but they expect the TV to turn on instantly.” -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com [View Less]

1 0

Natural Gas Industry Doubts About Shale Gas
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 26 Jun '11

26 Jun '11

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&gwh=D91… Drilling Down Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush Jennifer Pitts/The Journal Record, via Associated Press, left; Mark Peristein for The New York Times “It's time to get bullish on natural gas," said Aubrey K. McClendon, left, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy. "This could have profound consequences for our local economy," said Deborah Rogers, a committee member at the Federal Reserve Bank of … [View More]Dallas. By IAN URBINA<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/u/ian_urbina/ind…> Published: June 25, 2011 - - Natural gas companies have been placing enormous bets on the wells they are drilling, saying they will deliver big profits and provide a vast new source of energy for the United States. Multimedia Interactive Feature <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…> Documents: Leaked Industry E-Mails and Reports<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…> Graphic Overestimating Natural Gas Production Graphic Sweet Spots, but Not Many Drilling Down *Natural Gas Investments* Articles in this series will examine the risks of natural-gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry. Complete Series »<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/us/series/drilling_down/index.html> Enlarge This Image Brandon Thibodeaux for The New York Times Ministers, pastors and deacons of Fort Worth churches. Dozens of black churches in Fort Worth signed gas leases. But the gas may not be as easy and cheap to extract from shale formations deep underground as the companies are saying, according to hundreds of industry e-mails and internal documents<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>and an analysis of data from thousands of wells. In the e-mails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market analysts voice skepticism about lofty forecasts and question whether companies are intentionally, and even illegally, overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. Many of these e-mails also suggest a view that is in stark contrast to more bullish public comments made by the industry, in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles. “Money is pouring in” from investors even though shale gas is “inherently unprofitable,” an analyst from PNC Wealth Management, an investment company, wrote to a contractor in a February e-mail<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>. “Reminds you of dot-coms.” “The word in the world of independents is that the shale plays are just giant Ponzi schemes and the economics just do not work,” an analyst from IHS Drilling Data, an energy research company, wrote in an e-mail on Aug. 28, 2009<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>. Company data for more than 10,000 wells in three major shale gas formations raise further questions about the industry’s prospects. There is undoubtedly a vast amount of gas in the formations. The question remains how affordably it can be extracted. The data show that while there are some very active wells, they are often surrounded by vast zones of less-productive wells that in some cases cost more to drill and operate than the gas they produce is worth. Also, the amount of gas produced by many of the successful wells is falling much faster than initially predicted by energy companies, making it more difficult for them to turn a profit over the long run. If the industry does not live up to expectations, the impact will be felt widely. Federal and state lawmakers are considering drastically increasing subsidies for the natural gas business in the hope that it will provide low-cost energy for decades to come. But if natural gas ultimately proves more expensive to extract from the ground than has been predicted, landowners, investors and lenders could see their investments falter, while consumers will pay a price in higher electricity and home heating bills. There are implications for the environment, too. The technology used to get gas flowing out of the ground — called hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking — can require over a million gallons of water per well, and some of that water must be disposed of because it becomes contaminated by the process. If shale gas wells fade faster than expected, energy companies will have to drill more wells or hydrofrack them more often, resulting in more toxic waste. The e-mails were obtained through open-records requests or provided to The New York Times by industry consultants and analysts who say they believe that the public perception of shale gas does not match reality; names and identifying information were redacted to protect these people, who were not authorized to communicate publicly. In the e-mails, some people within the industry voice grave concerns. “And now these corporate giants are having an Enron moment,” a retired geologist from a major oil and gas company wrote in a February e-mail<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>about other companies invested in shale gas. “They want to bend light to hide the truth.” Others within the industry remain optimistic. They argue that shale gas economics will improve as the price of gas rises, technology evolves and demand for gas grows with help from increased federal subsidies being considered by Congress. “Shale gas supply is only going to increase,” Steven C. Dixon, executive vice president of Chesapeake Energy, said at an energy industry conference in April in response to skepticism about well performance. *Studying the Data* “I think we have a big problem.” Deborah Rogers, a member of the advisory committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, recalled saying that in a May 2010 telephone call to a senior economist at the Reserve, Mine K. Yucel. “We need to take a close look at this right away,” she added. A former stockbroker with Merrill Lynch, Ms. Rogers said she started studying well data from shale companies in October 2009 after attending a speech by the chief executive of Chesapeake, Aubrey K. McClendon. The math was not adding up, Ms. Rogers said. Her research showed that wells were petering out faster than expected. “These wells are depleting so quickly that the operators are in an expensive game of ‘catch-up,’ ” Ms. Rogers wrote in an e-mail on Nov. 17, 2009, to a petroleum geologist in Houston, who wrote back that he agreed. “This could have profound consequences for our local economy,” she explained in the e-mail. Fort Worth residents were already reeling from the sudden reversal of fortune for the natural gas industry. In early 2008, energy companies were scrambling in Fort Worth to get residents to lease their land for drilling as they searched for so-called monster wells. Billboards along the highways stoked the boom-time excitement: “If you don’t have a gas lease, get one!” Oil and gas companies were in a fierce bidding war for drilling rights, offering people bonuses as high as $27,500 per acre for signing leases. The actor Tommy Lee Jones signed on as a pitchman for Chesapeake, one of the largest shale gas companies. “The extremely long-term benefits include new jobs and capital investment and royalties and revenues that pay for public roads, schools and parks,” he said in one television advertisement about drilling in the Barnett shale in and around Fort Worth. To investors, shale companies had a more sophisticated pitch<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>. With better technology, they had refined a “manufacturing model,” they said, that would allow them to drop a well virtually anywhere in certain parts of a shale formation and expect long-lasting returns. For Wall Street, this was the holy grail: a low-risk and high-profit proposition. But by late 2008, the recession took hold and the price of natural gas plunged<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>by nearly two-thirds, throwing the drilling companies’ business model into a tailspin. In Texas, the advertisements featuring Mr. Jones disappeared. Energy companies rescinded high-priced lease offers to thousands of residents, which prompted class-action lawsuits. Royalty checks dwindled. Tax receipts fell. The impact of the downturn was immediate for many. “Ruinous, that’s how I’d describe it,” said the Rev. Kyev Tatum, president of the Fort Worth chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Mr. Tatum explained that dozens of black churches in Fort Worth signed leases on the promise of big money. Instead, some churches were told that their land may no longer be tax exempt even though they had yet to make any royalties on the wells, he said. That boom-and-bust volatility had raised eyebrows among people like Ms. Rogers, as well as energy analysts and geologists, who started looking closely at the data on wells’ performance.* * In May 2010, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas called a meeting to discuss the matter after prodding from Ms. Rogers. One speaker was Kenneth B. Medlock III, an energy expert at Rice University, who described a promising future for the shale gas industry in the United States. When he was done, Ms. Rogers peppered him with questions. Might growing environmental concerns raise the cost of doing business? If wells were dying off faster than predicted, how many new wells would need to be drilled to meet projections? Mr. Medlock conceded that production in the Barnett shale formation — or “play,” in industry jargon — was indeed flat and would probably soon decline. “Activity will shift toward other plays because the returns there are higher,” he predicted. Ms. Rogers turned to the other commissioners to see if they shared her skepticism, but she said she saw only blank stares. *Bubbling Doubts* Some doubts about the industry are being raised by people who work inside energy companies, too. “Our engineers here project these wells out to 20-30 years of production and in my mind that has yet to be proven as viable,” wrote a geologist at Chesapeake in a March 17 e-mail<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>to a federal energy analyst. “In fact I’m quite skeptical of it myself when you see the % decline in the first year of production.” “In these shale gas plays no well is really economic right now,” the geologist said in a previous e-mail to the same official on March 16<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>. “They are all losing a little money or only making a little bit of money.” Around the same time the geologist sent the e-mail, Mr. McClendon, Chesapeake’s chief executive, told investors, “It’s time to get bullish on natural gas.” In September 2009, a geologist from ConocoPhillips, one of the largest producers of natural gas in the Barnett shale, warned in an e-mail to a colleague<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>that shale gas might end up as “the world’s largest uneconomic field.” About six months later, the company’s chief executive, James J. Mulva, described natural gas as “nature’s gift,” adding that “rather than being expensive, shale gas is often the low-cost source.” Asked about the e-mail, John C. Roper, a spokesman for ConocoPhillips, said he absolutely believed that shale gas is economically viable. A big attraction for investors is the increasing size of the gas reserves that some companies are reporting. Reserves — in effect, the amount of gas that a company says it can feasibly access from its wells — are important because they are a central measure of an oil and gas company’s value. Forecasting these reserves is a tricky science. Early predictions are sometimes lowered because of drops in gas prices, as happened in 2008. Intentionally overbooking reserves, however, is illegal because it misleads investors. Industry e-mails, mostly from 2009 and later, include language from oil and gas executives questioning whether other energy companies are doing just that. The e-mails do not explicitly accuse any companies of breaking the law. But the number of e-mails, the seniority of the people writing them, the variety of positions they hold and the language they use — including comparisons to Ponzi schemes and attempts to “con” Wall Street — suggest that questions about the shale gas industry exist in many corners. “Do you think that there may be something suspicious going with the public companies in regard to booking shale reserves?” a senior official from Ivy Energy, an investment firm specializing in the energy sector, wrote in a2009 e-mail<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>. A former Enron executive wrote in 2009<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>while working at an energy company: “I wonder when they will start telling people these wells are just not what they thought they were going to be?” He added that the behavior of shale gas companies reminded him of what he saw when he worked at Enron. Production data, provided by companies to state regulators and reviewed by The Times, show that many wells are not performing as the industry expected. In three major shale formations — the Barnett in Texas, the Haynesville in East Texas and Louisiana and the Fayetteville, across Arkansas — less than 20 percent of the area heralded by companies as productive is emerging as likely to be profitable under current market conditions, according to the data and industry analysts. Richard K. Stoneburner, president and chief operating officer of Petrohawk Energy, said that looking at entire shale formations was misleading because some companies drilled only in the best areas or had lower costs. “Outside those areas, you can drill a lot of wells that will never live up to expectations,” he added. Although energy companies routinely project that shale gas wells will produce gas at a reasonable rate for anywhere from 20 to 65 years, these companies have been making such predictions based on limited data and a certain amount of guesswork, since shale drilling is a relatively new practice. Most gas companies claim that production will drop sharply after the first few years but then level off, allowing most wells to produce gas for decades. Gas production data reviewed by The Times suggest that many wells in shale gas fields do not level off the way many companies predict but instead decline steadily. “This kind of data is making it harder and harder to deny that the shale gas revolution is being oversold,” said Art Berman, a Houston-based geologist who worked for two decades at Amoco and has been one of the most vocal skeptics of shale gas economics. The Barnett shale, which has the longest production history, provides the most reliable case study for predicting future shale gas potential. The data suggest that if the wells’ production continues to decline in the current manner, many will become financially unviable within 10 to 15 years. A review of more than 9,000 wells, using data from 2003 to 2009, shows that — based on widely used industry assumptions about the market price of gas and the cost of drilling and operating a well — less than 10 percent of the wells had recouped their estimated costs by the time they were seven years old. Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University, said the debate over long-term well performance was far from resolved. The Haynesville shale has not lived up to early expectations, he said, but industry projections have become more accurate and some wells in the Marcellus shale, which stretches from Virginia to New York, are outperforming expectations. *A Sense of Confidence* Many people within the industry remain confident. “I wouldn’t worry about these shale companies,” said T. Boone Pickens, the oil and gas industry executive, adding that he believes that if prices rise, shale gas companies will make good money. Mr. Pickens said that technological improvements — including hydrofracking wells more than once — are already making production more cost-effective, which is why some major companies like ExxonMobil have recently bought into shale gas. Shale companies are also adjusting their strategies to make money by focusing on shale wells that produce lucrative liquids, like propane and butane, in addition to natural gas. Asked about the e-mails from the Chesapeake geologist casting doubt on company projections, a Chesapeake spokesman, Jim Gipson, said the company was fully confident that a majority of wells would be productive for 30 years or more. David Pendery, a spokesman for IHS, added that though shale gas prospects had previously been debated by many analysts, in more recent years costs had fallen and technology had improved. Still, in private exchanges, many industry insiders are skeptical, even cynical, about the industry’s pronouncements. “All about making money,” an official from Schlumberger, an oil and gas services company, wrote in aJuly 2010 e-mail<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>to a former federal regulator about drilling a well in Europe, where some United States shale companies are hunting for better market opportunities. “Looks like crap,” the Schlumberger official wrote about the well’s performance, according to the regulator, “but operator will flip it based on ‘potential’ and make some money on it.” “Always a greater sucker,” the e-mail<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/natural-gas-drilling-down-documents-4…>concluded. Robbie Brown contributed reporting from Atlanta. A version of this article appeared in print on June 26, 2011, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Insiders Sound an Alarm Amid a Natural Gas Rush. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com [View Less]

1 0

Conrad Volz on the problems of extraction for energy
by Beth Little 25 Jun '11

25 Jun '11

This starts out as an exposure of contamination of water with drilling waste, but toward the end, he indicts mtr and talks about environmental justice and how WV is paying the cost of providing energy for everyone else. It is long, but extremely moving in its depth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwjWFcCIgY <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwjWFcCIgY&feature=youtube_gdata_player> &feature=youtube_gdata_player

1 0

FYI - China blends Imported coal to meet local environmental standards....A Green Solution, or the Dark Side to Cleaner Coal?
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 25 Jun '11

25 Jun '11

[image: The New York Times] June 14, 2011 A Green Solution, or the Dark Side to Cleaner Coal? By KEITH BRADSHER<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/keith_bradsher…> LIANYUNGANG, CHINA — The six massive silos standing beside this industrial port in northeastern China hold seemingly contradictory promises: They could help improve the quality of China’s polluted air, but they might also contribute to faster global warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/… [View More]science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…>. The silos, which are scheduled to start operation in July, are designed to blend cleaner-burning imported coal<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.h…>with China’s own high-polluting domestic coal, which is contaminated with sulfur and dust. Coal blending will produce a mixture that will help electric utilities meet China’s steadily tightening environmental regulations. It will also increase the efficiency of coal-fired plants by slightly reducing the quantity of coal needed. Burning less coal means less greenhouse gases emitted. But critics argue there is a darker side to cleaner coal. “Anything that makes coal more cost effective, like blending, which is only enabling China to burn more coal, is bad news for the global struggle against carbon emissions,” said Orville Schell, the Arthur Ross director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York. The Chinese government’s decision this month to import more coal in order to lessen power outages — and control rising coal prices — ensures that blending will increase rapidly. Industry executives are quick to tout the practice’s environmental benefits. Blending “is a sound solution to reducing greenhouse gas and pollutants emissions from coal-fired power plants,” said Howard Au, the director and chairman of Petrocom Energy Ltd., which owns the blending facility here. But environmentalists worry that by reducing the amount of sulfur and dust emitted from burning coal, blending makes coal more acceptable in the short-term and stalls the conversion to cleaner or renewable fuels. They say coal blending strengthens the case for companies — and countries — that want to continue to rely on coal for decades. “Does it help with acid rain? Yes,” said Allen Hershkowitz, a specialist in Appalachian coal fields at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group based in New York. “It hurts us when it comes to global warming.” Coal remains a particularly dirty form of electricity generation when it comes to producing climate-changing gases. The global warming calculus for coal blending is less clear. Blending makes it easier to feed a power plant with exactly the right coal mixture at which its boilers work most efficiently. This means the plant can burn less coal and emit less greenhouse gas. How much less — and how does that improvement compare with switching to other fuels — varies a lot depending on the power plant and the coal it burns without blending. Better operating efficiency at the power plant helps offset the cost of blending, which can add up to 4 percent to the price tag of the coal. China does not just have an ancient civilization, it also has a lot of very old coal. Much of it has been tightly compressed over millions of years. That has pluses and minuses. Chinese coal releases a lot of heat when burned and has very little moisture left, two very desirable features, according to coal traders. But Chinese coal deposits also contain a lot of sulfur as well as so-called fly ash — dust that is not combustible and contributes to particulate air pollution. China also has some deposits of young coal which has fairly low heat content and requires blending before it can be burned. China has the third-largest coal reserves, after the United States and Russia, and consumes more coal than any other country. It accounted for nearly half the 7.3 billion metric tons burned around the world last year. Four-fifths of China’s reserves, however, do not comply with the country’s standards for industrial use, according to the government-run China Coal Research Institute. Complicating matters, the China’s environmental regulators have signaled plans to reduce further the allowable levels of sulfur. China led the world last year in clean energy investments, with $54.4 billion, according to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts. But coal is still China’s dominant energy source, accounting for 73 percent of electricity capacity. Because coal-fired plants run day and night — while alternatives like wind turbines<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/wind_power/i…>and hydroelectric<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/hydroelectri…>dams only run when enough wind or water is available — coal accounted for 83 percent of electricity generation last year. China has led the world in recent years in the construction of high-efficiency coal-fired power plants. These plants heat water to higher temperatures and pressures than earlier designs, so that less coal is burned to produce the same kilowatt-hours of electricity. But the newer power plants need coal of a precise makeup, making it even harder for China to rely exclusively on domestic coal fields. To meet the needs of the new plants, China has gone on a twin binge of importing coal and buying coal mines abroad. Wood Mackenzie, the global energy consulting company, predicts that Indonesia will be the world’s fastest-growing exporter of coal in the next five years because of Chinese demand. While coal blending facilities may provide a short-term environmental benefit, they also make it possible for countries like China to plan on consuming a lot more coal for decades into the future. People have been blending coal for more than a century, often in surprisingly simple ways. Richard Elman, the chairman of the Noble Group, one of the world’s largest commodity companies, is skeptical of newer blending technologies. He says bulldozers have been roughly mixing different grades of coal at power plants and mines for years. A single coal mine may have different qualities of coal in different seams, and will often stir them together with bulldozers before shipment so as to provide a mixture that better meets the customer’s specifications, he said. In the United States, big engineering companies like Bechtel and the Roberts & Schaefer subsidiary of KBR have been designing elaborate systems of conveyer belts that take coal arriving by rail and barge and distribute it to various stockpiles, blending it along the way. The most elaborate approach, developed in Europe and put into effect here, is to build a series of silos, each containing a different grade of coal. A large conveyor belt and scales are mounted underneath the silos. Coal from each silo is sprinkled onto the conveyor belt, then the mixture is dropped into rail cars, ships or a storage yard. “It’s not easy for this new technology to be accepted, so I’m using my network because I believe this would be good for the country,” said Li Anqing, the retired top administrator of Lianyungang’s big coal port, who is now the general manager of the operation here. Bob Williams Jr., the vice president for sales and marketing at Roberts & Schaefer, said that using specially built silos for blending coal is an unusually expensive approach, and would barely be considered except at large coal ports. But Mr. Au said that the blending cost per ton using silos, about $5, had not changed for the last several years. By contrast, coal prices have doubled in the past five years, to $130 a ton in China for coal with high heat content. So blending costs have halved as a percentage of the overall cost of coal. That reduction in relative costs, combined with tighter regulations in China aimed at reducing acid rain, have increased its attractiveness. “Blending didn’t make sense prior to 2003 as prices of coal were low,” Mr. Au said. But now, Petrocom is making plans for dozens of coal-blending facilities in China, to accommodate a flood of imports that could last for decades. [View Less]

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC June 2011