Showing posts with label shale gas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label shale gas. Show all posts

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Too Much Natural Gas Is Going Up In Flames

Photo: Lynn Senick

Exclusive: Shale causes rise in waste gas pollution


· By Henning Gloystein and Alessandra Prentice

LONDON | Wed May 2, 2012 1:18pm EDT


LONDON (Reuters) - The shale energy boom is fuelling a rise in the burning of waste gas after years of decline, a World Bank source told Reuters ahead of the release of new data, giving environmentalists more ammunition against the industry.

Global gas flaring crept up by 4.5 percent in 2011, the first rise since 2008 and equivalent to the annual gas use of Denmark, preliminary data from the World Bank shows.

The increase is mostly due to the rise in shale oil exploration in North Dakota, propelling the United States into the top 10 gas flaring countries along with Russia, Nigeria and Iraq.

The preliminary data - which will be released in detail later in May - shows that global gas flaring crept up to around 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2011, up from 134 bcm the previous year.

Flaring is used to eliminate gas at mineral exploration sites, and is released via pressure relief valves to ease the strain on equipment.

"The challenge in North Dakota is that there is a lot of initial exploration and production going on, and often some flaring is necessary at that stage," the source at the World Bank's Global Gas Flaring Reduction Partnership (GGFR) said.

"We are hopeful that when the full data is released, both policymakers and companies in North Dakota will pay more attention to this issue and take the necessary steps to minimize flaring."

The data will draw further criticism to the industry, which some activists already condemn on environmental grounds.

"Environmental regulations to stop flaring are taking a real kick in the teeth because the financial crisis has put the emphasis on increasing competitiveness, while anything that is seen as diminishing competitiveness is not getting any political traction," Charlie Kronick, senior climate campaigner at Greenpeace, said.

Britain's annual gas consumption is just under 100 bcm, and Norway's yearly production just above that - which makes the 140 bcm flared globally over a third more than Europe's top consumer and producer, respectively.


In current market terms, 140 bcm of gas would be worth over $100 billion in barrels of oil equivalent.


ECONOMIC WASTE

Gas flaring has fallen more than 20 bcm since 2006 - despite a slight increase between 2008/2009 - but the rise in 2011 indicates that companies and countries must continue to scale up their efforts to reduce global flaring, the GGFR said.


Despite massive oil and gas reserves, many top flaring countries suffer from chronic power shortages and stagnating gas export volumes which experts say could be addressed if they used the gas instead of burning it.


"It is key to show producers and governments that there is a win-win solution - in many cases you're saving the gas and putting it to a positive use and sometimes you're building energy infrastructure that can be a catalyst for future economic benefit," Michael Farina of U.S. energy engineering group GE Energy said.

In Iraq, the World Bank says that the gas flared is enough to fuel all of the country's electric power needs, most of which is unmet or generated by heavy fuel and crude oils, while Nigeria also faces substantial losses from flaring.

"Nigeria loses billions of naira to wasted gas while the nation's power projects are crippled as a result of lack of gas supply," Nigerian pressure group Social Action said.

The wasted gas also causes immense environmental damage, both locally and on a global scale.

The World Bank estimates that the flaring of gas adds some 360 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in annual emissions, almost the same as France puts into the atmosphere each year or the equivalent to the yearly emissions from around 70 million cars.


If this waste were to take place within the European Union's carbon emissions trading scheme, the flaring would cost some 2.5 billion euros ($3.30 billion) at current market value of 7 euros per metric ton of CO2.


Estimating that flaring amounts to around 4.5 percent of global industrial emissions, environmental group Greenpeace says current legislation fails to tackle the issue.

"The problem is that international oil companies are not penalized for flaring gas," Greenpeace's Kronick said.

The damage flaring does to local communities is also immense.

Social groups in Nigeria say that flaring in the Niger Delta, where some 30 million people live, has gone on for 40 years and led to acid rains, causing many illnesses.

"Flaring of gas endangers human health and reduces agricultural productivity," Nigeria's Social Action group said. ($1 = 0.7571 euros)

(Additional reporting by Oleg Vukmanovic, editing by William Hardy)

Read more here at The Marcellus Effect.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Major Gas-Fired Power Plant Proposed for Asylum Township, PA

The Susquehanna River at Old Mill Park, French Azilum, PA
Photo: Carol Manuel

Today the Rocket-Courier, a weekly newspaper published in Wyalusing, PA,  printed an article announcing Moxie Energy's plan to propose a gas-fired power plant to be built in Bradford County, PA, in Asylum Township.  This troubling news is fraught with problems.  I hope the Asylum Township Planning Commission, which will review the proposal, if and when it is formally presented, will have the foresight to recognize the inadvisability of such a plan.  The facility would need a large parcel of land.  One spot that has been considered is a  30-acre tract owned by Larry Fulmer located on Route 187. However, Tom Hughes, Chair of the Asylum Township Planning Commission,  made it clear to me that nothing is decided about location at the present time. In fact, Moxie has not made any formal overtures yet.  This is all speculation right now.  Any action will take time, perhaps years, before a power plant would become a reality there.

Yet red flags are everywhere.  This whole plan ignores the elephant in the room.  Power plants need natural gas, and therein lies most of the problems.  Extracting natural gas from deep in the earth's surface is a very dirty process.  Water, air, and soil contamination are very common.  The industry will tell you that the gas industry has a very safe record.  They can claim a 95% safety record.  However, a 5% failure is very significant when we consider how many wells there are now and how many more are coming soon.  For every one thousand wells, we are talking about fifty wells where an accident, spill, or blowout will occur.  Who will volunteer to live next door to these 50 wells?

The article also presents reasons why this gas-fired power plant is a great idea.  By citing these benefits, it admits that there are problems with the industry, for example, using good water from the Susquehanna River.  This plant would not require river water.  A casual reading of that statement might look good to the local people who are concerned about the millions of gallons of water being taken out of the hydrolic cycle, never to be suitable for anything ever again.  Of course, another ploy is to dangle money out there to hook people into thinking they might have a better life.  During the building phase, this project is expected to have a payroll of $40 million and indirect income of $80 million.  It would be completed in 2015 and then provide a steady tax base and provide a whopping 25-30 high-paying jobs. 

Next the issue of noise and visual impacts are addressed,  thereby admitting that these issues are problematic and that people do become concerned about them, especially because they live near these industrial areas.  The promise is that efforts will be made to minimize these problems.  Air pollution would be low compared to older plants, they claim.
This shift away from inefficient, dirty power is both a local benefit and a regional benefit in terms of air quality.
The article does not remind readers that the air pollution caused by the extraction process all over the area will already have had major impacts on public health and the environment.

Next we have the problem of waste.  All wastes will be managed on-site in accordance with state and federal regulations and will be shipped off-site for recycling or disposal.  Well, on-site waste management is not always good.  We know that sludge pits are sometimes just plowed under in the clean-up process, putting toxic chemicals into the ground, at least the stuff that didn't leak through tears and holes in the plastic liners.  Admittedly, frack pits are not involved in these power plants, but the industry has a bad record in regard to waste disposal.  How careful will it be this time?   As for off-site disposal, will it go to New York?

Moxie Energy calls this natural gas energy "clean power."  I don't think this lie is going to be so easily perpetrated on the public anymore.  We are smartening up.  When considering the entire cycle of getting this "magical" energy source from deep in the ground to our homes, we are not talking about a clean process at all. 

Let us hope that the Asylum Township Planning Commission will not approve this proposal.  Here is some basic information about Asylum Township government:

Today, Asylum Township is run by a board of Supervisors and has an active Planning Commission, which consists of 5 members. In 2003, the planning commission adopted a comprehensive plan. Although the Township currently has no zoning regulations, they do have a set of regulations for their own subdivisions and land development projects that was updated in the summer of 2008.

The Township boasts an historic landmark; the French Azilum Site is open to the public during the months of May through October and remains to be a popular tourist and educational site for locals and visitors alike. Aside from the Historic Site, there is a public Asylum Township park (Old Mill Park) that is open from dawn to dusk and has boat access to the Susquehanna River and picnic sites.

If you wish to express your opinion about this gas-fired plant proposal in Asylum Township, call the Asylum Township Planning Commission secretary, Billie Jo Tuttle, at 570-265-4339.
Call 570-265-4339

LINK to the article about the proposed gas-fired power plant as it appeared today in the Rocket-Courier.

Related reading:

Read about Professor Howarth's recent study concerning natural gas compared to coal, "Natural Gas From Fracking Could Be 'Dirtier' Than Coal"

Here is an article which appeared in the NYT April 11, 2011, entitled "Studies Say Natural Gas Has Its Own Environmental Problems."

Another article worth looking at: "Cornell Scientist Tarnishes Natural Gas's Clean Image"

Finally, read the letter submitted by Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro, and Anthony Ingraffea, entitled "Methane and the Greenhouse-Gas Footprint Of Natural Gas From Shale Formations"


A gas-fired power plant

Doesn't this look appalling appealing?

Sunday, April 24, 2011

Natural Gas From Fracking Could Be Dirtier Than Coal

I'm hearing a lot of talk lately about natural gas being a great bridge fuel while we figure out what to do next, facing peak oil and what not.  Well, according to a Cornell University study released and published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters, getting natural gas out of the ground could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal.  While natural gas has been described as clean-burning and producing less carbon dioxide than coal,  hydrofracking produces dangerous methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas.  Horizontal gas drilling can account for up to twice the methane emissions than conventional gas drilling.

Robert Howarth, Tony Ingraffea, and Renee Santoro analyzed data from published sources, industry reports, and Powerpoint presentations from the EPA.  The study is the first peer-reviewed paper on methane emissions from shale gas, and one of the few exploring the greenhouse gas footprints of unconventional gas drilling.

Read more here:  LINK