Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Story of Stuff
A great must-see video for anyone thinking about trying to make changes to their consumption habits.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Reading Questions #4
1. What are the main concerns of the anti-drilling groups?
2. What are the main concerns of the pro-drilling groups?
2. What are the main concerns of the pro-drilling groups?
Readings for Week 3/#4 Gas Drilling Sides
Anti-Drilling
http://www.propublica.org/feature/new-gas-wells-leave-more-chemicals-in-ground-hydraulic-fracturing
http://www.propublica.org/feature/natural-gas-drilling-what-we-dont-know-1231
November 14, 2009 09:16 am
In new rules, DEC should ban 'fracking'
More than three years ago, I said energy production was becoming the overriding issue of the early 21st century, and that this region was smack-dab in the middle of the battleground.
And that was before drilling for natural gas in Marcellus shale surfaced as perhaps the biggest bout yet between energy producers, state regulators and the people.
Back then, in early 2006, it was proposals for windmills, the NYRI power line and a wood-burning power plant in Oneonta that snared local residents in debates about alternative energy, environmental impacts and property rights.
We can be pleased that communities of people and their elected officials helped kill two of those projects. While windmills are still being proposed and erected in the region, popular sentiment has won out in stopping or at least limiting the industrial-size wind turbines in many locations.
Enter the natural-gas drillers, who had developed the technology to extract the fuel from deep in shale and had zeroed in on forecasts for increased use of gas in the future because of the growing number of restrictions being placed on petroleum-based fuels.
Before we knew it, drillers had crept into the region and found plenty of economically depressed farmers and others who were more than willing to sign leases to allow drilling on their lands. What's the big deal about a few little drilling rigs sucking some gas out of the ground, they figured, and besides, we could use the royalties.
But then a phrase surfaced _ hydraulic fracturing _ that few people had ever heard before. And, no doubt, they wish they'd never seen it.
Fortunately, the new technology called ``fracking,'' which uses millions of gallons of water per well, mixed with chemicals, to fracture the shale and release natural gas, and permits horizontal drilling, didn't catch state leaders completely off-guard.
The regulations governing natural-gas drilling were adopted in 1992, long before the ``fracking'' technique was developed. So, as thousands of drilling leases were being signed, the governor ordered the state Department of Environment Conservation to update its rules before issuing any new permits for drilling.
That delay pushed the door wide open for opposition groups to enter, with an opportunity to influence the toughness of the new regulations and perhaps go even further and prevent ``fracking'' altogether.
And the growth of the opposition to ``fracking'' makes the activist foes of the earlier NYRI power line pale in comparison, in both numbers and strategic coordination.
But, after numerous hearings, DEC came up with its draft updated regulations for gas drilling, and they call for a lot of oversight of ``fracking,'' but do not forbid it.
Hearings are still being held and the comment period has been extended to Dec. 31, but the arguments are the same: drilling is good for energy, jobs and the economy vs. we don't want our drinking water and streams polluted, and eventually consumed.
Nearly 50 grass-roots and environmental groups have called for a ban on ``fracking.'' And you can't imagine why. I mean, the draft regs would require drillers to disclose the ``frac'' chemicals they're using, and also mandates tests of water wells within 1,000 or 2,000 feet of ``fracking.''
Great. Drillers have to tell people what poisons they're using, even though it's the by-product ``fracking'' water that's most toxic. And they have to make sure nearby water wells are clean before they pollute them.
Some of the area groups urging a ban include Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Sustainable Otsego, Action Otsego, Advocates for Springfield, Otsego County Conservation Association, Chenango Delaware Otsego Gas Drilling Opposition Group, Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, Concerned Citizens of Otego and Schoharie Valley Watch.
Some groups want to go even further, and have secured more than 1,500 signatures on a petition calling for a statewide ban on natural-gas drilling itself, concluding that the state is not equipped to guarantee its safety. The petition will be forwarded to the governor and the DEC commissioner.
The belief is that with the state's fiscal crisis and resulting budget cuts, the DEC will not have enough people in the field to enforce new regulations, even if the rules were stringent enough.
Maybe the final regulations will be tougher. If DEC officials are listening at all during the hearings being held across the region (but not in Otsego or Delaware counties), then they'll have to conclude that most people don't want natural-gas drillers consuming and ruining our water, wrecking our roads, dotting our landscapes and adding hydro-carbon emissions to our air.
And, indeed, the best way for the state to prevent the above assaults on our water and environment is to outlaw ``fracking.''
""""""
Cary Brunswick is a former managing editor of The Daily Star, a freelance writer and editor, and editor of oneontatoday.com.
Pro Drilling:
(Letter to the Editor, Daily Star, 12/15/2009)
Brunswick distorted facts on fracking
Cary Brunswick's column of Nov. 14 ("In new rules, DEC should ban "fracking") puts forward several misstatements regarding the development of clean-burning natural gas in New York of which your readers should be aware.
Some of his errors are chronological, like his claim that "the (state) regulations governing natural-gas drilling were adopted in 1992, long before the 'fracking' technique was developed." Mr. Brunswick, and your readers, should know that hydraulic fracturing has been in use for more than 60 years, and has been deployed in the production of shale for nearly three decades.
Other claims are clearly intended to strike an emotional chord, such as Mr. Brunswick's characterization of the materials used in the fracturing process as "chemicals," "poisons" and "toxic." I invite your readers to view the composition of these materials _ 99.5 percent of which is water and sand _ on the state's Department of Environmental Conservation website, or at EnergyInDepth.org. Visitors to Energy In Depth can also access the 2004 report from the Environmental Protection Agency that found fracturing to be safe, along with reports reaching similar conclusions by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Mr. Brunswick tips his hand a bit when he laments that DEC's draft regulations "call for a lot of oversight of Âfracking,' but do not forbid it." But isn't that the point of regulations _ to establish conditions under which clean-energy resources can be produced?
Sure, professional environmental activists would prefer we have no exploration at all _ but how is that consistent with the economic and security needs of the people who actually live in New York? It's not, and that's why New Yorkers should reject such a campaign.
Lee Fuller
Washington, D.C.
Fuller is policy director for Energy In Depth, a coalition of independent oil and gas producers.
Natural Gas Drilling Facts
Submitted by rlasky on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 9:43am
Did you know…
Drilling is safe; New York has among the most stringent environmental standards in the United States. Drilling has been conducted safely in New York for more than 100 years.
Industry is committed to safety and environmental protection. The last thing the industry wants is any violation of environmental law resulting in heavy fines and/or the inability to do business in New York.
Wells are open as long as they are productive, then capped, allowing for the landscape to return to its natural state.
The drilling industry uses less water than other major industries in New York, including golf courses. (Note: 36 million gallons a day is lost in the NYC system due to leaks.)
Fracturing is done well below the water table. The risk or likelihood of groundwater or well water contamination is extremely limited.
The fresh water aquifer is protected from the fracking conduit by multiple steel casings. It is reinforced with cement.
Ground water and aquifers also are protected from contamination from down hole stimulation, because of the New York’s current regulations and depth of the natural gas zone as compared to the water bearing aquifers.
Cost and lack of equipment prohibits massive drilling operations. (I.E. The Gold rush scenario will not occur.)
From an economic development perspective, exploration will bring millions of dollars into the region, benefiting residents, service businesses, and local, county and state government.
All taxes collected from the natural gas industry are collected in the form of real property – making sure tax dollars stay locally.
Natural gas exploration will help New York State and U.S. Achieve energy independence.
http://www.chk.com/Media/MarcellusMediaKits/Marcellus_Hydraulic_Fracturing_Fact_Sheet.pdf
http://www.propublica.org/feature/new-gas-wells-leave-more-chemicals-in-ground-hydraulic-fracturing
http://www.propublica.org/feature/natural-gas-drilling-what-we-dont-know-1231
November 14, 2009 09:16 am
In new rules, DEC should ban 'fracking'
More than three years ago, I said energy production was becoming the overriding issue of the early 21st century, and that this region was smack-dab in the middle of the battleground.
And that was before drilling for natural gas in Marcellus shale surfaced as perhaps the biggest bout yet between energy producers, state regulators and the people.
Back then, in early 2006, it was proposals for windmills, the NYRI power line and a wood-burning power plant in Oneonta that snared local residents in debates about alternative energy, environmental impacts and property rights.
We can be pleased that communities of people and their elected officials helped kill two of those projects. While windmills are still being proposed and erected in the region, popular sentiment has won out in stopping or at least limiting the industrial-size wind turbines in many locations.
Enter the natural-gas drillers, who had developed the technology to extract the fuel from deep in shale and had zeroed in on forecasts for increased use of gas in the future because of the growing number of restrictions being placed on petroleum-based fuels.
Before we knew it, drillers had crept into the region and found plenty of economically depressed farmers and others who were more than willing to sign leases to allow drilling on their lands. What's the big deal about a few little drilling rigs sucking some gas out of the ground, they figured, and besides, we could use the royalties.
But then a phrase surfaced _ hydraulic fracturing _ that few people had ever heard before. And, no doubt, they wish they'd never seen it.
Fortunately, the new technology called ``fracking,'' which uses millions of gallons of water per well, mixed with chemicals, to fracture the shale and release natural gas, and permits horizontal drilling, didn't catch state leaders completely off-guard.
The regulations governing natural-gas drilling were adopted in 1992, long before the ``fracking'' technique was developed. So, as thousands of drilling leases were being signed, the governor ordered the state Department of Environment Conservation to update its rules before issuing any new permits for drilling.
That delay pushed the door wide open for opposition groups to enter, with an opportunity to influence the toughness of the new regulations and perhaps go even further and prevent ``fracking'' altogether.
And the growth of the opposition to ``fracking'' makes the activist foes of the earlier NYRI power line pale in comparison, in both numbers and strategic coordination.
But, after numerous hearings, DEC came up with its draft updated regulations for gas drilling, and they call for a lot of oversight of ``fracking,'' but do not forbid it.
Hearings are still being held and the comment period has been extended to Dec. 31, but the arguments are the same: drilling is good for energy, jobs and the economy vs. we don't want our drinking water and streams polluted, and eventually consumed.
Nearly 50 grass-roots and environmental groups have called for a ban on ``fracking.'' And you can't imagine why. I mean, the draft regs would require drillers to disclose the ``frac'' chemicals they're using, and also mandates tests of water wells within 1,000 or 2,000 feet of ``fracking.''
Great. Drillers have to tell people what poisons they're using, even though it's the by-product ``fracking'' water that's most toxic. And they have to make sure nearby water wells are clean before they pollute them.
Some of the area groups urging a ban include Delaware-Otsego Audubon Society, Sustainable Otsego, Action Otsego, Advocates for Springfield, Otsego County Conservation Association, Chenango Delaware Otsego Gas Drilling Opposition Group, Catskill Citizens for Safe Energy, Concerned Citizens of Otego and Schoharie Valley Watch.
Some groups want to go even further, and have secured more than 1,500 signatures on a petition calling for a statewide ban on natural-gas drilling itself, concluding that the state is not equipped to guarantee its safety. The petition will be forwarded to the governor and the DEC commissioner.
The belief is that with the state's fiscal crisis and resulting budget cuts, the DEC will not have enough people in the field to enforce new regulations, even if the rules were stringent enough.
Maybe the final regulations will be tougher. If DEC officials are listening at all during the hearings being held across the region (but not in Otsego or Delaware counties), then they'll have to conclude that most people don't want natural-gas drillers consuming and ruining our water, wrecking our roads, dotting our landscapes and adding hydro-carbon emissions to our air.
And, indeed, the best way for the state to prevent the above assaults on our water and environment is to outlaw ``fracking.''
""""""
Cary Brunswick is a former managing editor of The Daily Star, a freelance writer and editor, and editor of oneontatoday.com.
Pro Drilling:
(Letter to the Editor, Daily Star, 12/15/2009)
Brunswick distorted facts on fracking
Cary Brunswick's column of Nov. 14 ("In new rules, DEC should ban "fracking") puts forward several misstatements regarding the development of clean-burning natural gas in New York of which your readers should be aware.
Some of his errors are chronological, like his claim that "the (state) regulations governing natural-gas drilling were adopted in 1992, long before the 'fracking' technique was developed." Mr. Brunswick, and your readers, should know that hydraulic fracturing has been in use for more than 60 years, and has been deployed in the production of shale for nearly three decades.
Other claims are clearly intended to strike an emotional chord, such as Mr. Brunswick's characterization of the materials used in the fracturing process as "chemicals," "poisons" and "toxic." I invite your readers to view the composition of these materials _ 99.5 percent of which is water and sand _ on the state's Department of Environmental Conservation website, or at EnergyInDepth.org. Visitors to Energy In Depth can also access the 2004 report from the Environmental Protection Agency that found fracturing to be safe, along with reports reaching similar conclusions by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy.
Mr. Brunswick tips his hand a bit when he laments that DEC's draft regulations "call for a lot of oversight of Âfracking,' but do not forbid it." But isn't that the point of regulations _ to establish conditions under which clean-energy resources can be produced?
Sure, professional environmental activists would prefer we have no exploration at all _ but how is that consistent with the economic and security needs of the people who actually live in New York? It's not, and that's why New Yorkers should reject such a campaign.
Lee Fuller
Washington, D.C.
Fuller is policy director for Energy In Depth, a coalition of independent oil and gas producers.
Natural Gas Drilling Facts
Submitted by rlasky on Tue, 01/12/2010 - 9:43am
Did you know…
Drilling is safe; New York has among the most stringent environmental standards in the United States. Drilling has been conducted safely in New York for more than 100 years.
Industry is committed to safety and environmental protection. The last thing the industry wants is any violation of environmental law resulting in heavy fines and/or the inability to do business in New York.
Wells are open as long as they are productive, then capped, allowing for the landscape to return to its natural state.
The drilling industry uses less water than other major industries in New York, including golf courses. (Note: 36 million gallons a day is lost in the NYC system due to leaks.)
Fracturing is done well below the water table. The risk or likelihood of groundwater or well water contamination is extremely limited.
The fresh water aquifer is protected from the fracking conduit by multiple steel casings. It is reinforced with cement.
Ground water and aquifers also are protected from contamination from down hole stimulation, because of the New York’s current regulations and depth of the natural gas zone as compared to the water bearing aquifers.
Cost and lack of equipment prohibits massive drilling operations. (I.E. The Gold rush scenario will not occur.)
From an economic development perspective, exploration will bring millions of dollars into the region, benefiting residents, service businesses, and local, county and state government.
All taxes collected from the natural gas industry are collected in the form of real property – making sure tax dollars stay locally.
Natural gas exploration will help New York State and U.S. Achieve energy independence.
http://www.chk.com/Media/MarcellusMediaKits/Marcellus_Hydraulic_Fracturing_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Reading Response Week 3/#3 Cuba: Life After Oil
Reading Response Week 3/#3 Cuba: Life After Oil
1. How did the Cubans effectively handle the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of fossil fuel imports?
2. After reading the TC Local Plan or the Kinsdale Relocalization Plan do you think relocalization is an effective response to reduced energy availability? What are the merits? What are the drawbacks?
1. How did the Cubans effectively handle the collapse of the Soviet Union and the loss of fossil fuel imports?
2. After reading the TC Local Plan or the Kinsdale Relocalization Plan do you think relocalization is an effective response to reduced energy availability? What are the merits? What are the drawbacks?
Monday, January 25, 2010
Reading Response Week 3/#2 Eating Fossil Fuels
Reading Response Week 3/#2 Eating Fossil Fuels
1. Write a thoughtful response/summary of the reading.
2. Answer the following two questions:
A. How have fossil fuels added to the dangerously vulnerable situation of modern agriculture?
B. What lessons, if any, can the US learn from North Korea’s agricultural collapse?
3. Three thoughtful questions.
4. Vocab
Due by 9:30am on Tuesday, January 26th. (Be sure to check that your time post on your blog is set to EST)
1. Write a thoughtful response/summary of the reading.
2. Answer the following two questions:
A. How have fossil fuels added to the dangerously vulnerable situation of modern agriculture?
B. What lessons, if any, can the US learn from North Korea’s agricultural collapse?
3. Three thoughtful questions.
4. Vocab
Due by 9:30am on Tuesday, January 26th. (Be sure to check that your time post on your blog is set to EST)
Friday, January 22, 2010
Rober Moses -- NYC Highway development
This video depicts some of the construction projects led by Robert Moses discussed in the Joyride chapter.
"Joyride" from The Geography of Nowhere
Reading Response Week 3/#1 Joyride
1. Write a thoughtful response/summary of the reading.
2. Answer the following two questions:
a. How did the car/tractor shape American culture and American’s lifestyle?
b. How did energy contribute to the post-WWII housing boom and suburban development?
3. Three thoughtful questions.
4. Vocab
Due by 9:30am on Monday, January 25th. (Be sure to check that your time post on your blog is set to EST)
1. Write a thoughtful response/summary of the reading.
2. Answer the following two questions:
a. How did the car/tractor shape American culture and American’s lifestyle?
b. How did energy contribute to the post-WWII housing boom and suburban development?
3. Three thoughtful questions.
4. Vocab
Due by 9:30am on Monday, January 25th. (Be sure to check that your time post on your blog is set to EST)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
