tagged w/ hydrolic fracturing
-
Today, multinational corporations use their considerable resources to steamroll local councils and win sweetheart deals.
By Ellen Cantarow
If the world can be seen in a grain of sand, watch out. As Wisconsinites are learning, there’s money (and misery) in sand -- and if you’ve got the right kind, an oil company may soon be at your doorstep.
March in Wisconsin used to mean snow on the ground, temperatures so cold that farmers worried about their cows freezing to death. But as I traveled around rural townships and villages in early March to interview people about frac-sand mining, a little-known cousin of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” daytime temperatures soared to nearly 80 degrees -- bizarre weather that seemed to be sending a meteorological message.
In this troubling spring, Wisconsin’s prairies and farmland fanned out to undulating hills that cradled the land and its people. Within their embrace, the rackety calls of geese echoed from ice-free ponds, bald eagles wheeled in the sky, and deer leaped in the brush. And for the first time in my life, I heard the thrilling warble of sandhill cranes.
Yet this peaceful rural landscape is swiftly becoming part of a vast assembly line in the corporate race for the last fossil fuels on the planet. The target: the sand in the land of the cranes.
Five hundred million years ago, an ocean surged here, shaping a unique wealth of hills and bluffs that, under mantles of greenery and trees, are sandstone. That sandstone contains a particularly pure form of crystalline silica. Its grains, perfectly rounded, are strong enough to resist the extreme pressures of the technology called hydraulic fracturing, which pumps vast quantities of that sand, as well as water and chemicals, into ancient shale formations to force out methane and other forms of “natural gas.”
That sand, which props open fractures in the shale, has to come from somewhere. Without it, the fracking industry would grind to a halt. So big multinational corporations are descending on this bucolic region to cart off its prehistoric sand, which will later be forcefully injected into the earth elsewhere across the country to produce more natural gas. Geology that has taken millions of years to form is now being transformed into part of a system, a machine, helping to drive global climate change.
“The valleys will be filled… the mountains and hills made level"
Boom times for hydraulic fracturing began in 2008 when new horizontal-drilling methods transformed an industry formerly dependent on strictly vertical boring. Frac-sand mining took off in tandem with this development.
“It's huge,” said a U.S. Geological Surveymineral commodity specialist in 2009. “I've never seen anything like it, the growth. It makes my head spin." That year, from all U.S. sources, frac-sand producers used or sold over 6.5 million metric tons of sand -- about what the Great Pyramid of Giza weighs. Last month, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Senior Manager and Special Projects Coordinator Tom Woletz said corporations were hauling at least 15 million metric tons a year from the state’s hills.
By July 2011, between 22 and 36 frac-sand facilities in Wisconsin were either operating or approved. Seven months later, said Woletz, there were over 60 mines and 45 processing (refinement) plants in operation. “By the time your article appears, these figures will be obsolete,” claims Pat Popple, who in 2008 founded the first group to oppose frac-sand mining, Concerned Chippewa Citizens (now part of The Save the Hills Alliance).
Jerry Lausted, a retired teacher and also a farmer, showed me the tawny ridges of sand that delineated a strip mine near the town of Menomonie where he lives. “If we were looking from the air,” he added, “you’d see ponds in the bottom of the mine where they dump the industrial waste water. If you scan to the left, you’ll see the hills that are going to disappear.”
Those hills are gigantic sponges, absorbing water, filtering it, and providing the region’s aquifer with the purest water imaginable. According to Lausted, sand mining takes its toll on “air quality, water quality and quantity. Recreational aspects of the community are damaged. Property values [are lowered.] But the big thing is, you’re removing the hills that you can’t replace. They’re a huge water manufacturing factory that Mother Nature gave us, and they’re gone.”
It’s impossible to grasp the scope of the devastation from the road, but aerial videos and photographs reveal vast, bleak sandy wastelands punctuated with waste ponds and industrial installations where Wisconsin hills once stood.
Read more: http://www.utne.com/environment/how-rural-america-got-fracked.aspx#ixzz1wBsPwsFKToday, multinational corporations use their considerable resources to steamroll local... more
-
-
I realize that bitching about petty politicians is far more important than actually DOING something about things that really matter to most people.
But here is a fantastic song/video that addresses a hugely overlooked crisis in a very educational way.
FRACK THE FRACKIN’ FRACKERSI realize that bitching about petty politicians is far more important than actually... more
-
-
As the New York moratorium on fracking continues to hang in jeopardy, towns within the state are taking it upon themselves to issue fracking bans locally, what may become a last-ditch effort to keep fracking out if the moratorium is lifted. Over 20 cities, including Buffalo, Ithaca, Syracuse, and others in the Finger Lakes regions, have passed bans through the "municipal home rule" to keep fracking outside of their city limits.
The question, though, is whether the state and the courts will uphold the cities' rulings.
The home rule is designed to allow residents to pass laws that protect their health and environment from invading industries like oil and gas development. There is an abundance of evidence that fracking threatens drinking watersheds and wells, releases radiation, causes major sickness and disease, and even could contribute to earthquakes.
New York City's drinking water is protected, with lawmakers vowing to keep drilling operations contained to areas outside the watershed. However, there is still concern that if fracking operations cause major earthquakes, it could shatter the city's antiquated water tunnels that deliver drinking water from upstate.
In order to protect people who live outside the city, where legislators are eager to lift the moratorium and start drilling, local bans may be the only option left.
Yet a few months ago, the town of Dryden, NY, after recently passing a local ban, was slapped with a lawsuit from Anschutz Exploration Corporation, an oil and natural gas company that had already spent millions and leased thousands of acres in the area.
Their legal team is claiming that regulatory authority of oil and gas development goes to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, a state agency that, as they believe, should supersede any local ordinances passed. The city of Dryden is arguing that the law can dictate how, but not when or if the company is allowed to operate. Depending on which side the judge agrees with, it could set a major precedent for the rest of the state.
In another case, the city of Morgantown, WV was not so lucky when it enacted a ban against fracking and was promptly sued by Northeast Natural Energy. The judge ruled in favor of the energy company, remarking that the state has exclusive control over oil and gas development, and that they "didn't establish that fracking threatened the community’s right to clean air and water."
So the question remains - can state governments overrule the choices of local governments when it comes down to the health and safety of its citizens? New York State Senator James Seward thinks not - he's proposed a bill that will allow cities to keep fracking out of their borders without being usurped by the state.
By Laurel Whitney | 29 January 12As the New York moratorium on fracking continues to hang in jeopardy, towns within the... more
-
-
Considering the rate at which natural gas resources are being developed, and the sudden push from industry to export the product, it might come as a surprise that the Senate’s Energy Committee hadn’t had a hearing on liquified natural gas (LNG) since 2005.
Last Tuesday, for the first time in six years, Senators brought the issue back to the Capitol spotlight, as they considered the impact of exporting LNG on domestic prices.
In order to export or import natural gas, companies can either transport it through pipelines, or ship it as liquefied natural gas (LNG). LNG is natural gas cooled to -260 degrees Fahrenheit, at which point the gas becomes a liquid. Back in 2006, LNG imports far outstripped exports, and industry used that trade deficit to push for a massive expansion of domestic drilling, relying heavily on the argument for American “energy security.”
Now that that expansion is well-underway, with the infamous Utica and Marcellus shales the frontier of rapid development, utilizing controversial fracking and horizontal drilling techniques, the industry is eager to start exporting LNG to international markets where the fuel fetches a much heftier price.
The Senate hearing comes in the wake of a massive 20-year, $8 billion deal between the British BGGroup and Houston-based Cheniere Energy.
The amount of LNG represented in that deal alone amounts to roughly 3.3 percent of all current U.S. natural gas consumption.There are currently four other export applications on the desks of the Department of Energy (Dominion Energy’s Jordan Cove project, which I wrote about here, is another), and together they would be the equivalent of 10 percent of current U.S. natural gas use, according to Chris Smith, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Oil & Gas at the DOE.
Exporting that amount of LNG alone is, lawmakers worry, enough to impact domestic prices. Earlier this year, when the DOE approved the export permit for the Sabine Pass LNG project in Louisaiana (where the Cheniere LNG would ship off towards Europe), the department admitted that the project would raise gas prices in the U.S. by more than 10 percent.
Speaking at the hearing last Tuesday, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon put Smith on the spot as to the rational of that decision:
Clearly, the department believes that raising natural gas pries by 10 percent meets the public interest test required by the Natural Gas Act…My question is, does the department believe that raising gas prices by five times that amount would be in the public interest?”
The agency must determine whether the export projects are in the “national interest” during the approval process.
These first five proposed export deals represent, as Reuters referred to the Cheniere deal, “a new chapter in the shale gas revolution that has redefined global markets."
Many energy experts, environmentalists, and lawmakers like Senator Wyden are concerned that, despite the rhetoric, a massive expansion of natural gas drilling won’t actually improve America’s energy security or self-reliance, but will only help the gas companies reach more lucrative foreign markets, leaving Americans to clean up the mess and pay for any pollution, spills, or long-term ecosystem degradation, as well as paying higher natural gas prices.
As proof of the industry’s intention to tie into a global market, Wyden held up a graph of LNG prices worldwide, showing that prices are up to three times higher overseas than they are in the United States.
Showing the graph, Wyden warned, "Exports in the United States are going to make natural gas like the oil market. That’s why I’m concerned about what these price hikes could mean for our businesses and our consumers.”
Some other interesting bits from Wyden's testimony:
“I’m trying to get my arms around where the department is going to draw the line. Given the fact that prices overseas are many times higher than North American prices, my question really deals with how high do you think the price of the natural gas in the United States can go up as a result of these exports and still meet the public interest test?
"Is there anything else you can tell me about how the department is going to draw the line so we can tell American businesses and consumers that they’re going to be able to get affordable natural gas as a result of this new export policy?”
“We’re going to be looking at impact on GDP. We’re going to be looking at jobs. We’re going to be looking at impact on a balance of trade. Some of those factors will be affected by the price itself. So we understand the importance that price holds."
“We also understand that natural gas at these export levels remains an inherently local domestic commodity. Prices are higher in Asia, but if you compare natural gas with oil, oil is a globally fungible commodity where you have enough transportation infrastructure to move oil from market to market. Whereas the ability to couple prices in the United States with prices in Asia, there simply isn’t the infrastructure that would allow you to do that at this point in time.”
Also providing testimony was Jim Collins, director of underground utilities for the city of Hamilton, Ohio. Collins argued that exporting LNG would tie the country to international markets, and would increase domestic prices and cause Americans’ utility bills to rise. Collins is no anti-gas crusader. He supports the use of natural gas as a transportation fuel and electricity producer, but is worried that the export strategies of gas companies will leave Americans worse off.
Today, the vast majority of natural gas exports from the United States travel through pipelines into Mexico and Canada. Only about 5 percent of natural gas exports currently leave our borders as LNG from coastal ports. (I dug deeper into the natural gas trade numbers in this earlier post.)
As of last year, there were 11 LNG terminals in the United States, only one of which — Sabine Pass — is approved for exports. That the industry is lobbying so hard to open up other terminals for overseas shipping is proof that the "energy security" claims they're making to rally favor around rapid shale gas development are disingenuous at best.
It's worth noting that natural gas imports are still far greater than exports, and current natural gas demand still outstrips domestic supply. If "energy security" were the real goal, then the companies should be content closing the gap of domestic supply and demand.
But because the gas industry intends to tie into the more lucrative foreign markets as soon as possible, Americans will wind up paying higher energy bills, and will be left with all the risk, and cleaning up all the industry's pollution and waste. Which is why so many energy experts, environmentalists and lawmakers see natural gas exports as a lose-lose for America.
By Ben Jarvey | 16 November 11Considering the rate at which natural gas resources are being developed, and the... more
-
-
The Fossil Fuel and Natural Gas industries have launched an all out publicity blitz to skew the conversation around the highly controversial practice of Hydraulic Fracturing (Hydrofracking). Their targeted commercial spots on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and other channels during the main news casts are insidious in how they seek to make the sheep feel good about being lead to slaughter. The spots expertly lull viewers into a feeling of safety, security, and hope by focusing on 'creating jobs' and having 'energy independence' and enough energy to last for '100 years'. They FAIL to mention a few, pesky details that might dampen public opinion and get in the way of the 3 trillion dollars the fossil fuel industry stands to make in the process.
Comedian and satirist Julianna Forlano hosts this special edition of The Ironic News Report. Watch it while you can! (Like before it gets suppressed for being true.)
http://youtu.be/acBDTpZ2aLEThe Fossil Fuel and Natural Gas industries have launched an all out publicity blitz to... more
-
-
The Fossil Fuel and Natural Gas industries have launched an all out publicity blitz to skew the conversation around the highly controversial practice of Hydraulic Fracturing (Hydrofracking). Their targeted commercial spots on Fox, CNN, MSNBC and other channels during the main news casts are insidious in how they seek to make the sheep feel good about being lead to slaughter. The spots expertly lull viewers into a feeling of safety, security, and hope by focusing on 'creating jobs' and having 'energy independence' and enough energy to last for '100 years'. They FAIL to mention a few, pesky details that might dampen public opinion and get in the way of the 3 trillion dollars the fossil fuel industry stands to make in the process.
Comedian and satirist Julianna Forlano hosts this special edition of The Ironic News Report. Watch it while you can! (Like before it gets suppressed for being true.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acBDTpZ2aLEThe Fossil Fuel and Natural Gas industries have launched an all out publicity blitz to... more
-
