Governor Hogan’s Plans to "Kick-Start" a Gas Expansion Across Maryland

While other states and cities are moving away from powering homes and buildings with gas—a potent climate pollutant—Maryland Governor Larry Hogan plans to spend $6.5 million this year in his effort to “kick-start” a gas expansion across Maryland. This $6.5 million is a portion of the $30 million his Administration can spend on expanding gas infrastructure after he negotiated the terms of a settlement allowing a Canadian company to acquire a local gas supplier.

Among the projects his Administration is backing: a new, 11-mile pipeline providing gas to two state-run facilities on the Eastern Shore. In repowering these state facilities, the Hogan Administration foreclosed the possibility of any other type of energy source by only requesting applications for gas. The government should be leading the way towards zero-emission buildings, especially when it comes to state facilities, not putting its thumb on the scale for gas.  

“Natural” gas is primarily made up of methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas. It’s 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere. Methane leaks during production and transportation and gas heaters themselves are inefficient. As a result, a leading scientist concludes that it may actually be better for the climate to heat your home with coal or oil than with gas. In an era of rapid climate change, we cannot wait to replace all of these polluting fossil fuels with electricity powered by clean sources like wind and solar.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, electric alternatives exist for all major energy end uses in buildings. Space heating, water heating, and cooking account for the vast majority of direct fuel usage. Electric technologies exist, and are in use today, that can supply all of these end uses.In 2017, Hogan signed a ban on fracking for gas in Maryland, saying that his administration had “concluded that possible environmental risks of fracking simply outweigh any potential benefits.” Since signing that ban, however, the Hogan Administration has continued to call gas “a bridge fuel” and has worked consistently to kick-start a gas expansion across the State.

Read the white paper here

Clean Water Advocates Challenge Army Corps of Engineers on Fracked Gas Pipeline Water Quality Review

Coalition’s Suit Says Corps Violated Clean Water Act

 

RICHMOND, VA — Today, a coalition of clean water advocates filed a suit contending the United States Army Corps of Engineers improperly issued a crucial permit for the fracked gas Mountain Valley Pipeline. Under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps is charged with issuing a permit for the pipelines’ stream crossings that allows the project’s builders to trench through the bottom of those streams, including the Greenbrier, Elk, and Gauley Rivers, and fill the crossings with dirt during construction of the pipeline. Before the Army Corps can issue this permit, the state in which construction will occur must certify the pipeline’s construction will not degrade the state’s water quality.

The permit issued to the Mountain Valley Pipeline by the Army Corps is commonly known as a “nationwide” permit, which takes a one-size-fits-all approach that can only be used when a state has done the necessary water quality analysis. Since West Virginia waived its right to do that analysis, the Army Corps can not legally issue the section 404 permit for construction of the pipeline in West Virginia.

If successful, this suit will require the Army Corps or the state of West Virginia to do another water quality impact review before the pipeline can be built through that state.

The suit was filed by Appalachian Mountain Advocates on behalf of a coalition made up of the Sierra Club, Appalachian Voices, Indian Creek Watershed Association, West Virginia Rivers Coalition and Chesapeake Climate Action Network.

In response, Sierra Club Organizing Manager Bill Price released the following statement:

“The Army Corps of Engineers has a responsibility to protect the people and places we love and their one-size-fits-all approach to this project falls far short of fulfilling that responsibility. The fracked gas Mountain Valley Pipeline is a dirty, dangerous project that threatens our water, climate and communities and it shouldn’t be built until the Army Corps has done a serious analysis of how badly it would affect the water of Virginia and West Virginia at all river and stream crossings.”

Angie Rosser, Executive Director for the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, said:

“The combination of WVDEP’s waived water quality analysis and the Army Corps’ cookie-cutter approach just doesn’t cut it for a project of this scale. This illegal move greatens the risk to West Virginia’s rivers and streams and must be addressed before any construction begins.”

Anne Havemann, General Counsel for the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said:

“The federal and state governments have fallen short when it comes to the Mountain Valley Pipeline. The Army Corps’ blanket permit does not come close to covering the scale and scope of this massive pipeline project. We are asking the court to make the Army Corps take seriously its responsibility to protect our waters.”

CONTACT:
Doug Jackson, Sierra Club, 202.495.3045, doug.jackson@sierraclub.org
Derek Teaney, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 304.793.9007, dteaney@appalmad.org

Federal Review of Atlantic Coast Pipeline Fails People and the Environment

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s flawed analysis of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline fails the public and the environment.
An analysis of environmental impacts for the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline is completely inadequate and falls far short of legal requirements.  This is the overwhelming consensus of thousands of comments filed this week with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  The agency had issued on December 30 a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the proposed 600-mile natural gas pipeline that would go from central West Virginia, through Virginia and terminate in southern North Carolina.  April 6 is the deadline for public comments.
“FERC’s inability to provide a sound analysis of this project is a violation of the National Environmental Policy Act,” said Lewis Freeman, Chair and Executive Director of the Alleghany-Blue Ridge Alliance, a coalition of 51-organizations opposing the project. “What’s more, the Commission is poised to make a decision that will reverberate for decades based on inadequate information.”
The shortcomings of the DEIS are considerable because of its failure to:

  • Assess the true market demand for natural gas in the region of the proposed pipeline;
  • Take a hard look at the effects the proposed route planned through predominantly minority and low-income neighborhoods would have on communities;
  • Consider the devastation to mountaintops construction would have across steep, forested Appalachian ridges;
  • Provide adequate environmental information. The DEIS lacks sufficient information about the ACP and its potential environmental impacts on a wide variety of resources, including water resources, wetlands, cultural resources, threatened and endangered species and climate change implications; and
  • Identify, consider, and analyze all reasonable alternatives.

“The federal government is glossing over the massive impacts this 600-mile pipeline would have on neighboring communities and climate change,” said Alison Kelly, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. Greenlighting this pipeline without a sufficient review of the damage it would cause is a disservice to the people who life in its path and treasure this part of Appalachia.”
Greg Buppert, a senior attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said: “FERC is only telling one side of the story, and that story fails to answer the critical threshold question – is this project even necessary?”  Buppert points out that recent energy demand forecasts have cast serious doubt on the need for the ACP.  Furthermore, two-thirds of new generating capacity being added in the United States is based on renewable sources, not natural gas. Building the ACP would be contrary to the future growth of the electric utility industry.
“ACP refused to do the necessary impact analysis, so we have had to hire engineers to find out what will actually happen,” said Ben Luckett, a senior attorney with Appalachian Mountain Advocates. “We’ve learned the pipeline would create millions of cubic yards of excess dirt and rock for which ACP has no disposal plan and will level many of our scenic ridgetops, much like a mountaintop removal coal mine. We fear the most likely resting place for all of that construction spoil will be in our rivers, lakes, and streams. It is truly a slap in the face to hear FERC dismiss these impacts as ‘insignificant’ or, worse yet, to see that they have failed to analyze them at all.”
“The Atlantic Coast Pipeline environmental review failed to adequately address the threats it poses to our communities and our environment. This dirty and dangerous pipeline creates concern for significant risks of adverse impacts due to the nature of the terrain that the line would cross. Based on multiple unresolved environmental issues and potential hazards, and the magnitude of this project, FERC must reject the application. The stakes are very high and the risks are far too great,” said Kirk Bowers, Virginia Chapter, Sierra Club.
Anne Havemann, Senior Counsel at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said: “The Atlantic Coast Pipeline would be a disaster for the climate. It will trigger a massive new wave of fracking, bringing climate pollution equivalent to 20 new coal-fired power plants. FERC’s own former chairman Norman Bay said that the agency should reconsider how it analyzes environmental impacts of pipelines like ACP, including analyzing lifecycle climate emissions. FERC should heed his advice and revise its analysis, or reject the pipeline.”
Peter Anderson, Virginia Program Manager for Appalachian Voices, noted: “A couple of months ago, the former Chairman of FERC raised significant doubts that the agency adequately analyzes pipeline need and climate impacts. This draft environmental impact statement is no different. FERC should rescind this DEIS and start over, this time with final route proposals, completed surveys, climate analysis that accounts for the entire life cycle, and a critical analysis of market demand and alternatives.”
“We know that projects like these are invariably placed near communities of low-income, people of color, or the elderly. In usual fashion, the ACP places a heavy burden on the poor and elderly, perhaps by design. These folks may not have the energy, stamina, and resources to fight, and that’s what these companies are banking on. This is an example of outside interests that plan to use our resources and toxify our land for their own benefit. It’s an old story that continues to play out the same way, despite the best efforts of local people to change our energy landscape,” said April Pierson-Keating Mountain Lakes Preservation Alliance, Upshur County, WV.

# # #

Contacts:
Lewis Freeman, Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance, 703-298-8107, lewfreeman@gmail.com
Greg Buppert, Southern Environmental Law Center, 434-977-4090, gbuppert@selcva.org
Ben Luckett, Appalachian Mountain Advocates, 404-645-0125, bluckett@appalmad.org

Why I'm Marching To Ban Fracking In Maryland

Guest post from Elisabeth Hoffman of HoCo Climate Change
When I march Thursday for a fracking ban, I’ll be calling on Maryland to heed the warning of the canary that is Pennsylvania. And West Virginia, Colorado, Oklahoma and the others.
No state has gotten fracking right, because fracking can’t be made safe or even safe enough.
Everywhere this industry goes, residents rise up to defend their homes and farms, their children and pets, and their forests and towns from the noise and lighting, the truck traffic and ruined roads, the polluted air and water, and even earthquakes. No regulations are sufficient to corral the fracking industry.
Other states let industry experiment on their communities. From studies in fracked areas, we know that fracking is linked to increases in asthma attacks; preterm births and high-risk pregnancies; anxiety, fatigue, migraines and sinus ailments; and hospitalizations for heart and neurological problems. New research finds a link between fracking and a form of childhood leukemia. Thanks to documents from a freedom of information request, we are also learning that Pennsylvania officials suppressed thousands of residents’ complaints about water contamination and other problems. We know too that much damage remains hidden in legal settlements: Industry pays up only after residents take a vow of silence about what happened.  
Along with the fracking come the pipelines and compressor stations and export factories that bring yet more destruction to towns, fields and forests; spikes of toxic pollution, and threats from explosions. Communities must fight not only industry but the rubber-stamping Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has cozy ties to industry and refuses to take into account the cumulative damage from these fracked-gas projects. In Pennsylvania, for example, residents are rebelling against the 350-mile Mariner East pipeline that will take fracked gas from the Marcellus Shale to export for Scotland to make plastics, of all things; the 124-mile Constitution pipeline that slashed through a sugar maple forest, before it was denied key approvals; and the nearly 200-mile-long Atlantic Sunrise pipeline, slated to cut through preserved farmland and communities in Lancaster and four other counties. Lancaster-area opponents have built The Stand, a wooden watchtower in the path of construction that will be the base for peaceful resistance should Williams Corp. show up.
My county, Howard, is one of only four in Maryland with no shale gas underground. Yet even here, fracking is elbowing its way in. Williams plans to expand and modernize a half-century-old compressor station to connect with that contentious Atlantic Sunrise project. And so we are joined quite literally to our friends fighting this pipeline. Maryland, too, must make a stand. We can’t let the fracking industry invade our state.
Of course, along with the fracking and the infrastructure comes the climate-disrupting methane, which is on the rise in fracked Pennsylvania. Fracked gas is no bridge fuel for our climate emergency.
Fracking and building pipelines is like installing more phone landlines – but with the added dangers. We need to be done with these antiquated fossil fuels, not doubling down on them.
What’s clear is that cheap fracked gas (and oil) is an oxymoron from industry’s playbook of alternate facts. Industry won’t pay for the lifetime of medical bills. Or clean up the air, soil and water. Or compensate for carved-up forests or climate chaos. Or monitor the toxic water it leaves underground.  Or cover the losses to the tourism industry and property values. These costs and much more remain off the industry’s books, instead showing up in our community and household balance sheets.
Even the prospect of fracking is discouraging investment in Western Maryland’s tourism businesses. Industry is fighting this ban too hard – with ads and in the state legislature – for us to be persuaded (as some have claimed) that it has little interest in Maryland. Perhaps industry just doesn’t want to be told what to do.
Yet that’s exactly what we must do. Maryland is where we say no to the whole fracking package. Instead, we’ll invest in renewables and efficiency. As a friend in fracked Pennsylvania says: “Good neighbors don’t ask you to put yourself in harm’s way so they can turn a profit. Good neighbors don’t engage in practices that may have long-term consequences for the health and welfare of the community. Good neighbors are neighborly. They don’t knowingly pollute the air, soil and water. They don’t ruin roads and disturb tranquility. Good neighbors are invested in the community, less interested in extracting wealth than building lasting bonds. Good neighbors leave a place better for having been there.”
Join me this Thursday in marching to ban fracking in Maryland.
##

EPA Releases Proposed Rule Requiring Natural Gas Processing Plants To Start Reporting Toxic Pollution

EPA RELEASES PROPOSED RULE REQUIRING NATURAL GAS PROCESSING PLANTS TO START REPORTING TOXIC POLLUTION

Proposal is a Victory for Open Government, Transparency, and the Public Right to Know
Washington, D.C. – In response to a petition by nineteen environmental and open-government groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today released proposed regulations that will require natural gas processing plants to start publicly reporting the toxic chemicals they release.
“Today’s proposal by EPA marks significant progress for public health, the environment, and the right to know,” said Adam Kron, senior attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project.  “The oil and gas industry releases an enormous amount of toxic pollutants every year, and communities deserve to know what they’re facing.  We hope EPA will move swiftly to finalize and implement this simple yet vital public-reporting rule.”
The proposed regulations come in response to a 2012 petition filed by the Environmental Integrity Project and eighteen partner organizations.  The groups asked EPA to require facilities in the oil and gas extraction industry to report their toxic pollution to the federal Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), an online public database that has existed for thirty years and to which most other industries have long reported.
EIP’s co-petitioners are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, CitizenShale, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthworks, Elected Officials to Protect New York, Environmental Advocates of New York, Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper, PennEnvironment, PennFuture, Powder River Basin Resource Council, Project on Government Oversight, Responsible Drilling Alliance, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sierra Club, and Texas Campaign for the Environment.  The groups filed a lawsuit against EPA in January 2015 to compel EPA to respond to the petition, which the agency finally did in October 2015.
“This welcome step from EPA is long overdue,” said Amy Mall, senior policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council.  “People deserve to know what toxic chemicals are being released near their homes, schools and hospitals. Yet, for too long, the oil and gas industry has been exempt from rules that apply to other industries. We will hold the next administration accountable for putting an end to that special treatment.”
Under EPA’s proposed regulations, approximately 281 to 444 natural gas processing facilities across the U.S. would have to start reporting their releases of toxic chemicals, including xylenes (which can cause breathing problems, headaches, and neurological problems), formaldehyde (which is a carcinogen and damages the respiratory system), and benzene (which can cause cancer).   Not included in EPA’s decision are well sites, compressor stations, pipelines, and other smaller facilities that employ fewer than 10 people.
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register this morning, and can be found here.
“The oil and gas industry knows its polluting our neighborhoods,” said Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate for Earthworks. “EPA isn’t proposing to make them stop, just requiring these companies to let people know about toxic pollution released near their homes, schools, and workplaces. And while this rule would cover just natural gas processing plants, by the time they finalize this rule, EPA should also add the well heads, pipelines, compressor stations and other oil and gas infrastructure.”
In support of its proposed rule, EPA has stated that there are 517 natural gas processing facilities in the lower-48 states as of 2012 (a subsequent estimate found 551 facilities in 2014), and more than half of these plants would meet the Toxics Release Inventory’s chemical reporting thresholds for twenty-one different toxic chemicals, including benzene (a carcinogen), hydrogen sulfide, n-hexane, and methanol.
Congress established the Toxics Release Inventory in 1986 to inform the public about the release of sometimes carcinogenic chemicals (such as benzene) from industries in the wake of the deadly 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which toxic gases killed thousands of local residents.
In 2012, EPA estimated that the oil and gas extraction industry emits at least 127,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants every year, all of which are TRI-listed chemicals.  Based on these estimates, the oil and gas extraction industry releases more toxic pollution to the air than any other industry except for power plants.
The Energy Information Administration’s website provides a current listing of natural gas processing facilities across the U.S.
QUOTES FROM ORGANIZATIONS THAT PETITIONED OR SUED EPA:
Anne Havemann, General Counsel at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network: “The public has a right to know when toxic and harmful pollution is released, and this right does not end at fracked-gas processing facilities.  We’re glad to see EPA acknowledge that right with today’s proposed rule.”
George Jugovic, Jr., Vice President of Legal Affairs at PennFuture:  “EPA’s decision to add natural gas processing plants to the Toxics Release Inventory will add critically needed information about the level of toxic chemicals being released by an industry that generally seems adverse to informing the public about the potential health risks of living near these facilities.  The only way for state and local governments to make informed decisions about protecting public health is to increase transparency about the nature and level of toxic chemicals being released by the shale gas industry. This is an important step forward to protecting and informing citizens and their families.”
Joseph Otis Minott, Executive Director and Chief Counsel of Clean Air Council: “A true victory for the many residents of Pennsylvania that live in gas shale areas. They have suffered from this polluting industry for years. The gas industry has been far too secretive about its toxic emissions.”
 
CONTACT:
Tom Pelton, Environmental Integrity Project
(443) 510-2574
tpelton@environmentalintegrity.org

Natural Gas in Virginia: Dominion’s proposed pipeline and how we can stand together to fight back

Update as of November 13th, 2014:On October 31st, Dominion Resources submitted a pre-filing request to FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, which asks them to begin the environmental review of the pipeline. Landowners, community members, and activists around the state are continuing to mobilize and fight Dominion’s FERC requests at every step of the process. CCAN has partnered with local groups on the ground to launch a petition to Governor McAuliffe asking him to renounce his support of the pipeline. Our goal is 10,000 signatures–help us reach our goal and stop the Atlantic Coast Pipeline by signing here! 

As of November 12th, Dominion gave final notice and threat to sue the 189 landowners along the path of pipeline who have not issued permission for Dominion to survey their land. If you have received a letter from Dominion and need more information, please contact: info@augustacountyalliance.org.
 
As Virginians, we’ve been fortunate enough so far to be free of fracking—the dangerous process of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas.
But just because we aren’t on top of the Marcellus Shale or Utica Shale basins, doesn’t mean we’re not connected with our neighbors battling fracking wells in their backyards, or that the dangers of our nation’s natural gas boom aren’t already threatening Virginia.
Dominion Resources recently partnered with Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, and AGL proposed a $5 billion, 550-mile pipeline that would cross through Virginia to connect natural gas production in West Virginia to consumption in North Carolina.
Starting in West Virginia, Dominion’s Atlantic-Coast Pipeline (previously known as the Reliability Pipeline) would enter through Highland County, heading into Nelson County and across the Shenandoah Valley on its way to North Carolina. The pipeline would also have an extension connecting to Hampton Roads. The  proposed route would go through the George Washington National Forest and the backyards of Virginian families.
Leaks, explosions, and other accidents are not unlikely for a project of this scale, and hundreds of Nelson County residents raised their safety and environmental concerns last week at Dominion’s first public meeting in Nelson County.

Here’s a close up of the contested route, provided by groups helping to organize local residents to fight back:

The proposed route of Dominion’s Reliability Pipeline, a $2 billion, 450-mile pipeline that would cut through Virginia on its way from West Virginia to North Carolina.

I think a more reliable project wouldn’t include the risk of gas leaks and explosions. A smarter investment would be putting that $2 billion into energy efficiency, wind, and solar energy for our region.
Instead, it’s very clear that Dominion is moving too far, too fast towards natural gas, yet another dangerous fossil fuel — and one comprised mostly of methane, a powerful heat-trapping gas known to leak at high levels during the fracking process.
In fact, Dominion Virginia Power’s Integrated Resource Plan proposes 6-7 new fossil fuel plants in Virginia over the next 15 years, and Dominion Resources (DVP’s parent company) is fighting hard for a $3.8 billion liquefied natural gas export facility in Cove Point, Maryland. It’s clear that this pipeline is one major piece of Dominion’s region-wide push to keep us locked into climate-harming fracked gas for decades to come.
Unless we stop it.
Groups of concerned citizens across the Commonwealth are banding together to resist this pipeline—and to resist all dangerous, new natural gas pipelines and infrastructure that are a threat to our state.
Please check out the following organizations that are coordinating regional resistance to the pipeline and supporting homeowners along the proposed routes. Join their mailing lists for immediate updates on the pipeline routes as they continue to unfold:
Friends of Nelson County

Shenandoah Valley Network

  • Serves Augusta County, Frederick County, Page County, Rockingham County, Shenandoah County, Warren County
  • Working to protect and sustain the rural landscapes, communities, and ecosystems of the Shenandoah Valley by working with strong local citizens’ groups, promoting smart local land use, and effective land protection strategies
  • http://www.svnva.org/

Augusta County Alliance

Highlanders for Responsible Development

  • Highland County, VA
  • Highlanders for Responsible Development is a citizens’ group that promotes stewardship of Highland County’s unspoiled landscape, natural resources and exceptional quality of life. We support policies and activities that are based upon informed community discourse, democratic decision making, prudent land use and sustainable economic development.
  • http://www.protecthighland.org

Visit us back here for more updates as they unfold. CCAN will be keeping all eyes on the pipeline route and the proposal process to make sure we inform supporters with the first opportunity for public comments and other actions we can take statewide to stop the pipeline.
For updates on the pipeline project: http://www.nelsoncounty-va.gov/pipeline-information-and-updates/

Maryland to Sue Gas Company Over Fracking Spill

It seems the news just keeps getting worse these days for those in the Marcellus Shale gas-fracking business. First there was the damning new Cornell University study which revealed the worse-than-coal climate impacts of the natural gas drilling procedure. Then, the Chesapeake Energy Corporation experienced the mother of all bad press days when one of its Pennsylvania wells experienced a massive blowout, spewing thousands of gallons of frack fluid into a nearby stream. In a poetic touch, the blow-out occurred on the one-year anniversary of the gulf oil spill.

While nowhere near the scale of the BP blowout, the Chesapeake Energy frack-up certainly echoed the massive gulf disaster in terms of the outrageous incompetence and recklessness of the well’s owners.

According to a Pro-Publica article it took the company a full 13 hours to respond to the accident. The reason for the egregious delay: despite widespread fracking activity in the Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale, the state did not have a single team of specially trained fracking accident responders, and instead had to fly in workers from Texas. In the end, thanks to the holdup, it took no less than two days from the time of the accident before workers managed to cap the spill. Continue reading

Natural Gas

Cross-Posted from: HERE

Part 2

This is my second post in a 3 part series about what role natural gas can play in a low carbon sustainable future, and what role it should play. Part 1 is right here. This post is going to explore the reasoning against and for natural gas use.

I will cover the environmental/social justice, carbon emissions, and national security arguments surrounding natural gas.

Environmental/Social Justice/Carbon Emissions: So it turns out, natural gas drilling is exempt from clean water laws. Thank you Vice President Cheney. Apparently natural gas companies do not have to disclose the chemicals they are using in a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, where millions of gallons of water, sand, and chemicals are injected at a very high pressure down and across into horizontally drilled wells. This causes the rock layer underground such as shale to crack, and the natural gas from the shale flows up from the well since the sand particles injected hold open the fissures. Hey, I wonder what happens to the chemicals? Apparently gas drilling has degraded water in hundreds of wells in Colorado alone. Ohio had it’s own report on contmination problems from the drilling of natural gas. Another fear from drilling and the pipelines that carry the gas is of an explosion. In fact, Ohio has it’s own report of a drilling related explosion. Here is how Pro Publica described it…

A spark ignited the natural gas that had collected in the basement of Richard and Thelma Payne’s suburban Cleveland home, shattering windows, blowing doors 20 feet from their hinges and igniting a small fire in a violent flash. The Paynes were jolted out of bed, and their house lifted clear off the ground. Fearing another explosion, firefighters evacuated 19 homes in the small town of Bainbridge. Somehow, gas had seeped into the drinking water aquifer and then migrated up through the plumbing.”

For a good graph of all the natural gas accidents that have occurred state by state, check here.

What’s the counter-argument? Well, if you’re the Natural Gas Industry, you would point to the regulations natural gas does have. But who trusts the suppliers to tell you that natural gas is clean? The above information clearly shows it’s not clean. The legitimate argument you would get from the part of the environmental community that is pro-natural gas(or apathetic about natural gas), would be to compare the extraction process of natural gas to oil drilling, or to how we extract and store our coal. I know many could consider the effects of mountaintop removal to be worse. The implications of oil spills are also pretty daunting. Coal slurry dam disasters can be absolutely devastating. The counter-argument regarding extraction would be that compared to coal mining and oil drilling, natural gas extraction is the lesser of the evils.

What about emissions? This again depends what you’re comparing the natural gas to. I would consider this a valid source, since although it’s on the natural gas industry’s page, the source they’re taking this emissions profile from is the Energy Information Administration(EIA). It’s also along the lines of what I’ve read from both pro and anti natural gas sources.

Fossil Fuel Emission Levels
– Pounds per Billion Btu of Energy Input
Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal
Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000
Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208
Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457
Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591
Particulates 7 84 2,744
Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016
Source: EIA – Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998

As you can see natural gas has about 56-57% of the CO2 emissions of coal, and 71% of oil. Carbon Monoxide is comparable to oil, and far less than coal. Nitrogen Oxide is another greenhouse gas, and is far less concentrated in natural gas than coal and oil. When it comes to sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury, natural gas is far cleaner. So this is how one could look at the glass half-full for natural gas. On the other hand, with greenhouse emissions that at best are 50% of coal(which is extremely dirty), I wouldn’t exactly call natural gas a clean fuel. The issue we run into again though is that in a country that’s nearly 50% dependent on coal, we could have a World War 2 style effort to produce clean renewable energy, and it would still take a considerable amount of time to displace the coal. The same goes for coal intensive developing countries such as China and India. Time we don’t have. The argument can be made, and it has been made, that while we’re adding renewables to the mix, we need to also increase our use of natural gas in order to displace coal so that we can more dramatically reduce emissions. In fact, there is considerable evidence that Britain is going to double it’s Kyoto targets, and achieve a 23% reduction below 1990 levels by 2012 in emissions, largely because it switched to natural gas from coal. Of course there were measures to increase usage of renewables and to have a smarter transportation system, but natural gas was a significant factor in this achievement.

The LNG Exception? One big outlier in all of this emissions data is the additional environmental damage and life-cycle pollution of Liquefied Natural Gas(LNG). Here, natural gas is frozen to -260 degrees to become a liquid, and then shipped on giant tankers, often halfway around the world to countries that use it. This is what we import. According to a study by the Carnegie Mellon Institute, when you take into account the full life-cycle of carbon dioxide emissions of coal versus LNG, their total CO2 emissions are “comparable”. I quote that since I want to add context and say that according to their findings, LNG has 89% of the carbon dioxide of coal, although that isn’t mentioned, so you’ve got to pull out a handy calculator. It’s also worth noting that this is only taking into account carbon dioxide emissions, and not nitrogen oxide emissions, which is also a greenhouse gas. If you note the chart above, you’ll see that if you take NO2 into account for the full life-cycle, the greenhouse emissions comparison of the life-cycles of LNG and coal won’t be quite as close. The important thing to take away from this information on LNG is that it’s considerably dirtier than ordinary natural gas, and can approach the pollution of coal. Whether or not you call them “comparable” depends on your criteria. Coal is still dirtier, but not by as much as it was before we accounted for LNG. When it comes to transportation, the US Department of Energy says LNG that’s used for our transportation needs doesn’t save energy use or greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy Independence!(or not?) One of the things that natural gas advocates say is that that the US has large supplies of natural gas, and that we can use natural gas to help us become energy independent by using it in our cars. It’s very interesting then to note a natural gas analysis all the way out to 2030 by the Energy Information Administration. Two very telling charts are on page 8, which show natural gas supplies by region in the world, and by country in 2008. Let me rank them by region. In order of trillion cubic feet we’ve got the Middle East with 2549, Eurasia with 2020, Africa with 490, Asia with 415, North America with 283, Central and South America with 262, and Europe with 167. The other chart shows the US currently has 3.4% of the world’s natural gas reserves. That should sound familiar to our current oil dilemma. Additionally, if you look at natural gas production over the last 30 years, you’ll see that even as our demand has increased, our production levels have remained the same. Compare that with what’s a steady increase in our natural gas imports, and take a look at who we’re getting those imports from. Then glance back up at which regions of the world have most of the remaining supplies.

This information leads to one conclusion regarding our national security. If we dramatically increase US natural gas consumption(and even if it only holds steady), we’re inevitably going to be importing more and more of our natural gas each year from the countries around the world that we’re trying to become energy independent from when it comes to oil. Additionally, this imported gas would be in the form of LNG, which means it would be more polluting than the dry domestic natural gas. This raises 2 concerns. The first is that on our current course, we’re going to have the same dependency problems with natural gas with currently have with oil. The second is that the idea of replacing coal with natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sounds good, until you’re importing LNG and the amount of greenhouse gas emissions you’ve cut is far less than anticipated or desired.

So, to sum up what this part 2 analysis has brought to light…

Extraction/Social Justice? At worst drilling for natural gas is just as bad as coal and oil. At best, it’s dirty and can harm communities, but not as dirty as coal or oil, and won’t cause as much harm to communities as coal.

Carbon Emissions? Natural gas is 56% as carbon intensive as coal, 71% of oil, and has less emissions in other important areas as well such as NO2, sulfur, and mercury. However, when you bring LNG into the equation and calculate for lifecycle emissions, you’re no better than oil for transportation, and marginally better than coal for baseload power.

International Security? US natural gas production is reaching its limits, our imports are increasing as our demand goes up, and the parts of the world which have the natural gas do not like us. This means increased use of natural gas will not solve our energy independence problem.

Stay tuned for my verdict on the role of natural gas, what it will be, and what it should be, in PART 3.

Energy: A tar-nished reputation

This is a crosspost from this blog: http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/tar-sands-column/

So I have a column in the Diamondback today. I want to correct a couple of small things that the editors changed. I put “tar sands” everytime I discussed them, but they were changed to “oil sands” for some reason. Other thing is when I mention natural gas is being used to extract the oil from the sands, I say I would rather us be using that natural gas to replace coal plants because it is cleaner than coal. For the record I do recognize natural gas is not clean and not what we should be pursuing, I just would rather us burn it to replace coal rather than burn it to extract tar sands oil.

http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2009/03/03/Opinion/Energy.A.TarNished.Reputation-3656037.shtml

Energy: A tar-nished reputation

Matt Dernoga

Issue date: 3/3/09 Section: Opinion

Last week, President Barack Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discuss energy. The United States and Canada share the largest energy trade partnership in the world, with Canada supplying the United States with more oil and natural gas than any other country. A major point of interest has been the Canadian oil sands, from which Canada is extracting increasing amounts of oil to export to the U.S. Continue reading