Science

Natural Gas Flip-Flop

Big environmental groups were for fracking before they were against it.

|

The world's projected natural gas supplies jumped 40 percent last year. Until a decade ago, experts believed it would be technically infeasible to exploit the natural gas locked in 48 shale basins in 32 countries around the world. Then horizontal drilling, combined with hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, was introduced. The shale gas rush was on, and last year the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) dramatically raised its estimate of available natural gas.

The ability to produce clean-burning natural gas from shale could transform the global energy economy. Right now we burn about 7 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas to generate about 24 percent of the electricity used in the United States. The U.S. burns a total of 23 TCF annually to heat homes and supply industrial processes as well as produce electricity. Burning coal still produces about 45 percent of U.S. electricity.

A rough calculation suggests that 100 percent of coal-powered electricity generation could be replaced by burning an additional 14 TCF of natural gas, boosting overall consumption to 37 TCF per year. The EIA estimates total U.S. natural gas reserves at 2,543 TCF, which suggests that the U.S. has enough natural gas to last about 70 years if it entirely replaced the current level of coal-powered electricity generation. 

Similarly, it should be possible to replace all current U.S. gasoline consumption with about 17 TCF of natural gas per year. So replacing coal and gasoline immediately would require burning 54 TCF annually, implying a nearly 50-year supply of natural gas. And replacing dirtier coal and gasoline with natural gas would reduce overall U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by about 25 percent.

The national green lobbies initially welcomed shale gas. In 2009, for example, Robert Kennedy Jr., head of the Waterkeeper Alliance, called it "an obvious bridge fuel to the 'new' energy economy." Local environmental activists were not as enthusiastic, arguing that fracking contaminates drinking water and causes other forms of pollution. After a while, some of the national lobbies began to come around to the locals' side. In the words of the journalist Matt Ridley, "it became apparent that shale gas was a competitive threat to renewable energy." Josh Fox, director of the anti–natural gas documentary Gasland, put it bluntly on Kennedy's radio show: "What's really happening here is not a battle between natural gas and coal. What's happening here is a battle between another dirty fossil fuel and renewable energy."

Indeed, natural gas is cheaper than renewable sources of energy, even if you include the costs of carbon capture and sequestration. The EIA's Annual Energy Outlook for 2011 calculates the levelized costs of electric power generation for various fuel sources. (Levelized costs include all capital, operating and maintenance, fuel, and transmission costs for building plants now that would switch on by 2016.) Electricity produced using natural gas in a combined cycle generating plant comes in at $66 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, offshore wind clocks in at $243 per megawatt-hour, photovoltaic at $211, solar thermal at $312, geothermal at $102, and biomass at $113. The only renewable sources that are close to competitive with natural gas are onshore wind at $97 per megawatt-hour and hydroelectric at $86.

Ridley cites five claims against fracking: Fracking fluids contain dangerous chemicals that might contaminate groundwater; wells allow gas to escape into aquifers; well wastewater is contaminated with salt and radioactive elements that pollute streams; fracking uses too much fresh water; and drilling damages landscapes.

The shale that contains natural gas lies below thousands of feet of impermeable rock, so the fracking process itself will not contaminate drinking water aquifers, which generally are only a few hundred feet below the surface at most. A 2010 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection report noted that, according to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Watershed Management, "no groundwater pollution or disruption of underground sources of drinking water have been attributed to hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations."

As with conventional wells, it is possible that natural gas can escape into aquifers if the wells are not properly sealed using steel and cement casings. An April study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found elevated levels of natural gas in groundwater wells within 3,000 feet of active gas well sites. The researchers concluded that the source is likely leaky casings. More reassuringly, the study "found no evidence for contamination of the shallow [water] wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids." In any case, should their findings stand up to subsequent research, the problem is not fracking but improperly sealed well casings.

What about radioactive contamination of streams by well wastewater? The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection announced that after checking samples taken downstream from the wastewater plants that had treated gas well water, it found that "all samples were at or below background levels of radioactivity; and all samples showed levels below the federal drinking water standard for Radium 226 and 228."

As far as using too much fresh water is concerned, Ridley points out that gas drilling in Pennsylvania uses about 60 million gallons per day, which compares to 1,550 million gallons used by public water systems. Ridley also notes that each well site takes up about six acres to extract gas beneath 1,000 acres, which is largely left alone once a well begins producing.

There's another argument against fracking. In the April issue of Climatic Change, a team of researchers led by the Cornell ecologist Robert Howarth suggested that the greenhouse gas emissions released by natural gas production are worse than those produced by burning coal. Natural gas is methane, which on a molecule per molecule basis has a much greater ability to trap heat from the sun than carbon dioxide does. Howarth claims that methane leaking from natural gas wells contributes so much to global warming that the benefits of substituting it for coal are overwhelmed.

There are a number of problems with this study. Climatologists generally consider the effect of methane over a 100-year period, for example, but Howarth used a 20-year period, a change that automatically quadruples methane's warming effect. And now the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory has done a life cycle analysis of gas versus coal. The lab concluded that "average natural gas baseload power generation has a life cycle global warming potential 50 percent lower than average coal baseload power generation on a 20-year time horizon." So even accepting Howarth's two-decade horizon, natural gas is much better than coal.

No industrial process is completely benign, and all have environmental consequences. The relevant question is: Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Are people better off using the resource than they would otherwise be? Of course, any company that damages some else's property should be fully liable for the costs. But if you're worried about man-made global warming, natural gas remains the affordable way to supply lower-carbon energy to the world as technologists work to bring renewable energy costs down. 

Ronald Bailey (rbailey@reason.com) is reason's science correspondent.

Advertisement

NEXT: Live Chat with Cory Maye Tonight

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well clearly, like the H&R story about the ecoterrorists that attack GM food farms, the spectre of a corporation or other private entity engaging in such an enterprise as fracking is unacceptable because we all know that corporations are evil.

    1. Cops arrest man threatening to shoot people in Redding emergency room

      An Anderson man apparently seeking quicker attention for mental health treatment threatened to shoot himself and others in the emergency room of Mercy Medical Center in Redding, police said.

      Officers arrested Jesse M. Whitlow on Saturday afternoon and recovered a loaded .22 caliber pistol in his car and numerous .22 caliber rounds in his pants pocket, Redding Police spokesman Bart Langley reported.

      Whitlow was arrested for investigation of possessing a concealed, loaded weapon, of being an ex-felon possessing a firearm and ammunition, and of resisting arrest. Nothing else happened.

      http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/…..t-man.html

  2. The shale that contains natural gas lies below thousands of feet of impermeable rock, so the fracking process itself will not contaminate drinking water aquifers, which generally are only a few hundred feet below the surface at most.

    This has been shown to be true time and time again, the fracking process being used for 60+ years. Yet some people object to it, again and again, for the same fallacious reason.

    Obviously, there’s more behind this objection for fracking that a simple concern for water: I suspect simple, unadulterated and crass luddism. Some people just don’t want other people to enjoy low-cost energy, a classic case of “I have mine and I don’t want you to have yours.”

    1. I’m from Upstate NY. While visiting my parents this summer, I spoke with a few people about fracking. The reasons to be against fracking included:

      – The oil and gas companies hire a rough type of crowd that aren’t likely to care about the community.

      – T. Boone Pickens said something sort of racist once and he pushed natural gas, so of course natural gas is the worst.

      – 10 years ago, somebody signed an agreement for their land, and the oil companies are paying ten times as much for people who have only signed up recently.

      – Gasland is the gospel, and if we start fracking, soon you’ll be able to light a match on your tap water will stay on fire.

      – The pipelines will kill the natural beauty of the regions.

      In other words, it mostly boils down to NIMBYism.

      1. Can you direct me to that rough type of crowd? They can frack all they want.

      2. There are some idiots in oil crews but there are idiots no matter what. The oil industry creates a wide variety of jobs from you “rough” pipfitters (most are 20 somethings who are no more rough than your typical frat boy, to skill equipment operators, welders, electricians, machinists, etc, to engineers, and consultants. Creating productive jobs is never bad for the community.

        1. You show me a roughneck and I’ll show you a man that works his ass off, parties harder than most,makes a damned good living, takes no shit off anyone ever and works hard for all that he has till the day he dies. It is a productive job that tends to spawn productive men.

          1. Precisely the type that we seek to inhibit, intimidate, harass, tax, and regulate out of existence. We are more comfortable with the leisure class of welfare recipients and government cubicle drones — they don’t feel so threatening…and their votes are in our pocket.

          2. Buddy of mine unwrapped the chain off a drillstem, tossed it to the side as usual, and fell to the ground. His lumbar muscles were torn up–nobody knows quite why–and he’s wheelchair bound for life.

            We live the good life because guys like him risk their asses to do the dirty jobs.

            1. They used chains to make up up pipe in the “old days” but thats long gone. Pipe spinners do the job now. Roughnecks are relative weinies these days so I doubt any “lumbar” damage takes place anymore.

    2. Yes, this, plus the people who planned to make a killing in renewable energy off of taxpayers are very worried now. Those “business” (rony capitalists) men and their politician friends and any greenies with investments in renewables will all try to convince the rest of the greenies how bad it is. But it won’t be because they are greedy, it will be so very noble.

      The last factor is that it is killing their long-time dream of a perfect, renewable future.

      1. I’m not sure I like your tone there, you’re trying to play on our fears.

        1. Are you cereal?

  3. Of course, any company that damages some else’s property should be fully liable for the costs.

    Of course. But, you see, most environmentalists are not really concerned with other people’s private property – that’s yucky. They simply want man to go away.

  4. Oh no, liberals supported an idea until evidence showed it didn’t work as they expected, which to go by the headline s a bad thing.

    And here I though empirical evidence being the basis for your decisions was a prudent approach to policy making.

    1. What evidence? I’m not talking about the hit piece Gasland, either. Show me a real scientific study that the fracking process itself, not improper disposal of fracking liquids or bad well casings, is a threat to the water supply.

      1. But but but, MSL, you can’t frack without improperly disposing of your fracking liquids or building bad well casings. These are corpurashuns we’re talking about here. If babies could be used as an additive to fracking fluid, they’d use em, even if it cost more. Pure Unadulterated Evil.

        1. I don’t think the corporations would use babies. Now puppies, that’s a different story. Especially since puppies are easily attainable at the Amish puppy mill down the road from the well.

    2. Re: Richard Bottoms,

      Oh no, liberals supported an idea until evidence showed it didn’t work as they expected, which to go by the headline s a bad thing.

      There’s no such empirical evidence, Dicky. These environmentalists changed their mind about NatGas and fracking because it was expedient to do so.

    3. Is the word ‘liberal’ just another word for asshole? It’s the only consistency I see in all of its uses.

    4. …they found it worked better than expected and their anti-prosperity proclivities kicked in…

  5. Electricity produced using natural gas in a combined cycle generating plant comes in at $66 per megawatt-hour. By contrast, offshore wind clocks in at $243 per megawatt-hour, photovoltaic at $211, solar thermal at $312, geothermal at $102, and biomass at $113. The only renewable sources that are close to competitive with natural gas are onshore wind at $97 per megawatt-hour and hydroelectric at $86.

    This still shows that Nat Gas electric power is a better investment than building a wind farm or playing beaver.

    1. But, but, natural gas prices wouldn’t necessarily skyrocket 🙁

    2. Playing beaver is probably far more harmful to the environment than natural gas anyway.

      1. Heh heh. He said “beaver”. That’s cool!

        1. Word has it that Beavis and Butthead are due for a reprise on MTV. All new episodes this fall.

  6. Fossil fuel? Thats not true, its not.

    Y’all need to get your facts correct or would you like to explain

    how methane got on the moon Titan how again?

    I thought so.

    1. Re: BTD CEO,

      Yeah, I thought the same thing.

      Josh Fox, director of the anti?natural gas documentary Gasland, put it bluntly on Kennedy’s radio show: “What’s really happening here is not a battle between natural gas and coal. What’s happening here is a battle between another dirty fossil fuel and renewable energy.”

      Oh? So swamps are really fossil swamps? Cow farts are fossil cow farts?

      And yet these same science-illiterate assholes admonish the rest for not accepting that “the science is settled!”

      1. And yet these same science-illiterate assholes admonish the rest for not accepting that “the science is settled!”

        The part that got me is:

        “What’s really happening here is not a battle between natural gas and coal. What’s happening here is a battle between another dirty fossil fuel and renewable energy.”

        The primary combustion byproducts of natural gas are water vapor and CO2. This ass-hat doesn’t realize that is primarily what he exhales when he breaths. Perhaps he should do us all a favor and stop breathing.

        1. The difference between the CO2 you exhale and the CO2 you get when you burn fossil fuels is that the CO2 you’re exhaling comes from the carbon in food, which was fixed from the atmosphere relatively recently (and will likely be fixed again, thus being somewhat carbon-neutral) while fossil fuel emissions unleash reserves of carbon that were locked away millions of years ago, over the course of millions of years.

          So there actually is some sense in this.

          1. And the plants will thank us!
            Where did all the talk of carbon MONoxide
            go? Did they get that problem under control?
            The unintended end game of the environmentalist is NO HUMANS. Or at least carefully herded and harvested ones. That’s where the UN comes in. Agenda 21, Codex, WTO. All hail the New World Order. And if you don’t like it you will be first labeled, then ostracized and credibly destroyed then offed!
            Buzz

          2. that dang CO2 that was locked away will now be loosed for all eternity?
            what makes you think that present temperatures are the correct ones? according to your indepth discussions with Gaia?

          3. Metazoan,

            The moron called natural gas “another dirty fossil fuel”. Since the primary combustion byproducts of natural gas are water vapor and CO2 he is saying that one or both are “dirty“. Since the CO2 and water vapor that you exhale is chemically the same thing it also must be “dirty“. Your comment is non sequitur.

    2. Dinosaurs on the moon!!! Kewl!

      1. What do you think motivated the lunar landing? It certainly wasn’t the lunar whales.

        1. …lunar sperm oil, you say?

    3. on a broader note I actually suspect the biogenic theory of oil may be wrong – or at least I wouldn’t be surprised if it were. A lot of shit of it doesn’t make sense. There seems to be too much oil and it’s in too many places for it to have been made by buried algae. And if new land bumps up from the tectonic plates, how the hell is coal, supposedly old swamps, undergound? And oil fields frequently refill after numerous years. And they’ve done studies that show that water and carbon dioxide under pressure and with certain types of rocks can form hydrocarbons.

      I think carbon is just FAR more of a varied element than current science realizes.
      Even crazier I wouldn’t be surprised if it were the other way around; that the ingredients for life first came from mineral-produced hydrocrabons. It wouldn’t seem like lightning strikes wouldn’t make enough primordial soup to start forming cells.

      Not sure of anything, just saying I wouldn’t be surprised.

      And admit it, if oil is actually produced on a regular basis from the earth, that’s exactly the kind of shit that you’d hear in history class, the strupid shit you hear about humans believing long ago. Like “Hey, did you know that 200 years ago people thought oil came from ancient deposits of algae and that it was bound to run out?” “Really? Ha! Dumbasses!”

      1. I think carbon is just FAR more of a varied element than current science realizes.

        Theoretical phase diagram of carbon

        Note that it’s still theoretical, but that’s some complicated phase transition action.

        Carbon, Fuck Yeah!

        1. Here’s an article about liquid carbon.

          Appears to be unreactive. I think that vaporous carbon is the only reactive species of elemental carbon. But, trying to prove it either way is extremely difficult.

      2. Carbon is already assumed to be able to bond to practically anything in nearly indefinitely long chains, so I don’t think science missed the boat on this one.

      3. Edwin, I agree for many of the reasons you sited.

        1. well just note I’m saying I suspect it, and I wouldn’t be surprised in the if it ended up being true

          1. not saying I outright believe it to be true

          2. Yes, I can read.

      4. And fossils too! If new land bumps up from the tectonic plates, how the hell are fossils, supposedly from dead plants and animals underground?!

    4. Methane was placed on Titan to test our faith! Just like fossils were placed in the ground to test our faith… and, uh, turn into coal and oil. Er, yeah.

      1. yeah, that’s the ticket.

      2. Get out of here, you pikers! This is our gods’ turf!

  7. Goddamn protesters disgust me. Who the FUCK cares what some fucking nobody with a sign thinks.

    1. Re: Zuo,

      Who the FUCK cares what some fucking nobody with a sign thinks.
      Reason pays Ron Bailey to care. That’s who.

  8. This subject is fracking stupid, almost as stupid as the last fracking episode of BSG.

    1. Thanks for clearing that up. I have a friend who says “frack” incessantly, and I’d been wondering where it came from.

    2. The last episode of BSG was morally satisfying to the show’s creators and depressing for the rest of us. Frack this!

      1. For those who have not seen it, the plot line actually fits with this thread. They decided (WARNING: Spoiler Alert)
        that they would break up into small village-like groups and forget about any technology. I presume they would still use fire and the wheel.

        But BSG continually had a number of good episodes where they surprised me. They would raise an interesting issue (black markets, abortion) in the context of a few space ships holding the last few thousand humans and the story line would not just take the standard progressive view.

    3. After 30 some comments we finally get a BSG reference. I’m surprised.

      And the finale sucked, although not as much as the Lost finale since at least the battle aboard the Cylon colony was pretty cool.

  9. THreadJack:
    NHL Winnipeg Jets release new logo
    http://jets.nhl.com/club/news……1&navid=DL|WPG|home

    1. Not bad- still prefer the original. Next thing you know they will let someone wear Bobby Hull’s #9.

      So you’re Bettman’s valet? Was it you who suggested the wildly successful sunbelt expansion to him?

      1. Was it you who suggested the wildly successful sunbelt expansion to him?
        Hells no

        1. Then you must be the one who convinced him to rig the ’08-’09 season so that Cindy Crysby would get his Stanley Cup.

          1. if the NHL was rigged the Rangers would win the cup every year.

            1. Leafs, the Leafs would never lose…ever!

              1. Go Wings!

        2. Perhaps you felt bad for Collie Campbell’s talentless boy, and told him not to suspend that giant Chara or any other Bruins to they could eke their way to a rare cup win.

      2. Sorry, we snagged your old unis and made some minor modifications. Didn’t expect you back so soon.

        1. Columbus won’t need those colors much longer (nice pickups btw – Wiz, Carter, etc)

      3. Hockey, history and No. 9
        http://www.winnipegfreepress.c…..01718.html

        1. Go Wings!

  10. “Of course, any company that damages some else’s property should be fully liable for the costs.”

    For once the libertarian party line is actually good enough for this one. Hundreds of years of common law already provide legal remedy for such situations, from “nuisance” to the thing where your land is expected to stay up and not cave in, and others.

    1. the thing where your land is expected to stay up and not cave in

      PLEASE, someone tell me there’s a word for that.

      1. yeah I forgot the word

        1. right of support

          I thought it was a more complicated word than that, That’s why I couldn’t remember/be sure.

          Basically you’re entitled to your land to retain the same topography and grade and if someone nearby excavating for mining causes a cqave in he’s responsible for your loss of value/real estate. Same with buildings and party or land improvements/buildings and the soil

          1. right of support

            Not as much fun as I thought it would be. Thx anyway.

            1. Go Wings! Oh…sorry.

  11. This overall is another case where liberals just spew recycled shit they hear elsewhere.
    “TAP WATER THAT CATCHES FIRE!!! TAP WATER THAT CATCHES FIRE!!!!”

    1. Liberals scream and yell in the shrillest fashion about global warming, then complain about a lower-carbon power source. The entire philosophy isn’t any serious thinking, it’s just babbling old memes.

      1. Hey, AGW is real.

        1. actually Ron, i was hoping that you would do a piece on the hundreds of thousands of overused pesticides and fertilizers that end up in streams and not in the lawns and gardens where they were originally applied. then contrast that information with the gnat-strainers on fracking…

  12. if they use rigid steel pipes for the well liners, what the hell do they put for the curve and the horizontal section? Maybe something hard but somewhat flexible? Does anyone know this?

    1. The drawing isn’t to scale. Ordinary well casing has the ductility to bend that far over the 1/4 mile+ length of the bend.

  13. one problem here that is relevant is: what the hell does this country have to offer if we keep refusing to use our natural resources? We like to make fun of Canada as some cold isolated place with nothing in it, but in reality they’re starting to have a lot more going for them than we will it seems. Timber, oil sands, fertilizer production, etc. They’re willing to use their natural resources, the modern globalized world has fierce competition and we’ll be end up as poor chumps if we’re not willing to sell stuff to people, to actually compete. It’s no fucking wonder we don’t got no jobs.

  14. But like, there was an earthquake in Arkansas… or something…

  15. Ronald,

    Your claim about Howarth deliberately using only a 20-year period is a blatant lie. Howarth used both a 20 and a 100 year period, and I related this fact to you on a previous thread a couple of months ago. I even posted a link directing you to the portion of the study which deals with BOTH periods!

    It’s also bizarre that in an article purporting to be about green groups changing positions on fracking, you discuss Robert Kennedy Jr. for a length of one sentence. If that’s all the “big environmental” groups you can come up with which have flipped, it’s fair to say you must be in a really disingenuous mood.

    1. Though it’s probably pointless, I post the link yet again. Page 8:
      http://graphics8.nytimes.com/i…..th2011.pdf

      1. your study confirms the articles statments

        1. No, it doesn’t, and repeating a lie does not make it more true.

        2. Global Warming Potentials are calculated commonly in 20, 100 and 500 year periods, not solely in 100 year periods as Ronald states. Howarth did exactly what other climatologists do, and Ronald lied about it.

        3. Oh wait, there’s even more evidence that accusing Howarth of only using a 20 year horizon (proven false in the link I gave) and stating that climatologists only use 100 year horizons is inaccurate and slanderous: The dreaded IPCC, which uses 20, 100 and 500 year horizons.
          http://www.ipcc.ch/publication…..-10-2.html

          1. I don’t think you are reading Ronald’s article correctly. It says that in the 20 year time period the warming rate is higher and then points out the problems with this, he doesn’t deny that he uses a 100 year time scale at all, but only that the 20 year is exaggerated. Also you give one study by the IPCC but they are an aggregate of lots of research so it doesn’t mean that they represent most climate scientists on something like time scale, just the majority within a subset that use those numbers. BTW I think AGW is possible (even probable, im not an expert on the subject) i just think there are better ways of dealing with climate change other than centralized government control over production processes.

  16. Don’t you just love our bought and paid for Government??

    http://www.net-privacy.us.tc

  17. and drilling damages landscapes.

    As opposed to square miles of wind turbines or solar panels?

    1. Yes, but wind turbines are good for birds.

      1. Yes so are tall buildings, picture windows, fast cars, domestic cats. The people must be eliminated. All hail the New World Order.

  18. I guess if it does contaminate the groundwater, there’s always bioremediation.

  19. “In his column from our August/September issue, Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey…”
    LOL….that is too funny!

  20. Why is this about face a surprise to anybody? For as long as I have been paying attention to politics, the Environmentalist Left has been absolutely reliable; they are always in favor of energy technology for just so long as it is in no danger of being of any practical use to anybody. They want energy that does no harm to the environment (an absolute impossibility) and which does not generate any wealth for anybody (which is an absolute imbecility).

    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the environment that rounding up the board of directors of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace and deep fat frying the lot would do a lot to solve.

  21. Ron,

    The Kochs called. They said thanks for writing the second puff piece on fracking in the last few months. With absolutely nothing to add on the subject since you last wrote it, it is always a good journalistic exercise to just write the same piece again for absolutely no Reason, and use pretty graphics that simply must explain everything and absolve all issues. The gorilla in the room are the pieces that the NYT did. To not acknowledge them is to admit that this is just not a piece of serious journalism.

    1. NYT = serious journalism?
      the same people who claim study after study found nothing wrong with the AWG info. from the East Anglica bunny and the Mann…
      Hint: the above was in the hit piece on the Kochs in the Times Magazine…another piece of serious journalism…

  22. It doesn’t matter what the anti-fracking types say, we’re fracking up a storm.

    In 2005, fracked natural gas was 4% of our total natural gas consumption. Today, it’s 23%.

    That’s a 600% increase in market share, in only 6 years.

    It’ll be 50% of market in a little while.

    Let the nutters scream. They don’t matter.

  23. The study by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) that disputes the Howarth et al (2011) peer-reviewed study which concluded that methane/natural gas is about as dirty from a greenhouse gas/global warming perspective as coal was:

    a) never properly published,
    b) absolutely not subjected to the gold-standard of peer review, and,
    c) pretty thoroughly debunked by a comparative analysis by David Hughes, Post-Carbon Institute (2011).

    These are very important points that the Author, Bailey,leaves out. Competent scientists do not offer a “straw-person” analysis like this and expect to be believed.

    I have to assume Baily is not a scientist and thus must feel free to select his facts and offer his opinions as if they meant something. They dont.

    Stanley R Scobie, Ph.D., Binghamton, NY.

    ##############

  24. Essay: Bottled Greenwash

    By Anthony Henry Smith

    If fracking poisons any part of the state’s drinking water supply, public reaction will certainly result in increased profits for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s not-for-profit bottled water company and for his associates in the for-profit bottled water industry.

    Kennedy’s idea of selling water and donating all profits after expenses to environmental causes is contradictory on the face of it. The manufacture and distribution of bottled water does more damage to the biotic and physical environment than the so-called profits could possibly mitigate.

    Glaciers in Norway are melting due to global heating. Some of this melt water is shipped by tanker to North America where it is distributed widely as bottled water. On the other side of the planet, potable water from the South Pacific island nation of Fiji is shipped to 40 countries around the world, even though those who live and work there have suffered from water shortages.

    The distribution area for exotic water includes New York, and fracking obviously would greatly increase bottled water sales in the state. Fracking in New York is all the more likely if Kennedy, who has recently and only half-heartedly spoken out against fracking nationally, continues to waffle on fracking in New York.

    Read complete easy HERE: http://un-naturalgas.org/weblo…..greenwash/

  25. year. Until a decade ago, experts believed it would be technically infeasible to exploit the

  26. Thanks. Mantolama fiyatlar?, s?ve, kat silmesi, mantolama nedir mantolama | | s?ve modelleri |

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.