Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on August 1, 2012
‘Gasland’ movie doesn’t tell the whole story
We can all agree that natural gas is a clean and abundant energy resource in the U.S. In fact, there is so much natural gas in this country that there is general consensus that it has fundamentally changed the nature of energy policy.
As former chief of staff and acting deputy administrator of the EPA during the Clinton Administration, I’ve seen how you can protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. That’s how I know that in developing natural gas, we can maintain this balance and safeguard our environment. The numerous and comprehensive federal and state regulations that govern natural gas development—as well as industry’s own efforts to ensure environmental stewardship – have protected local air, land and water. This is fact.
Yet in my more than three decades working on environmental policy, I have never encountered an issue that is discussed with more passion, and, sadly, far too little truth and science. No doubt, people who live in communities where development occurs—particularly in areas new to development—have questions. And, industry should and does endeavor to answer them openly and honestly.
Unfortunately, what should be a genuine debate over what constitutes appropriate and adequate regulation has devolved into a steady stream of fear mongering by extremists who are held to no standard of fact.
I’ll give you one example. The signature scene in the film Gasland shows a man lighting his tap on fire. What the film’s director didn’t show the audience was that the man’s water well had been drilled through four pockets of shallow naturally-occurring methane. State regulators determined well before the movie was released that the flaming tap water had nothing to do with natural gas development.
Additionally, the film’s charges of mass contamination of the water supply from hydraulic fracturing have been proved wrong. This week, the EPA concluded after extensive testing that drinking water in Dimock, Pennsylvania was safe. Dimock has been a cause celebre for people who want to incite fear over water contamination and hydraulic fracturing.
But again, the facts don’t support their position. The claim that there is no such thing as safe hydraulic fracturing is flatly disproven by more than six decades of its use.
Far from the media spotlight, the Energy Information Administration recently released some very encouraging environmental news. New data shows that U.S. carbon emissions have receded to mid-1990s levels—due significantly to America’s use of its cleaner and abundant natural gas, made possible by hydraulic fracturing technology.
According to an EIA monthly report, for the first time ever, natural gas produced as much electricity as coal. And that’s not all. The safe and responsible development of this vast resource drives economic growth; provides generations of workers with good-paying jobs; produces affordable, clean electricity; and contributes to revenue used by communities and states across the country.
For these reasons, along with its economic and energy security advantages, President Obama and Governor Romney both routinely tout the benefits of natural gas.
The natural gas community is committed to joining in efforts to elevate the public dialogue. This includes participating in state regulators’ public disclosure registry at fracfocus.org. It means public forums to answer community questions. It means partnerships that address local concerns—from upgrading area roads to taking care to ensure wildlife habitats are protected.
The industry is responsible for nearly 3 million jobs and $400 billion in economic activity. Thanks to low natural gas prices, the average U.S. household is expected to have an extra $926 in disposable income each year for the next three years.
As we continue in this important national discussion, there are genuine disagreements on policy. But it is quite another thing to disagree on facts. Our nation’s energy debates deserve better and too much is at stake to let this conversation unravel. American natural gas can be an integral part of a solution that unites our nation behind a cleaner and more sustainable energy path. With a shared commitment to responsible development, it’s time we make full use of this American resource for our economy and our environment.
Robertson is the senior vice president for legislative & regulatory affairs at America’s Natural Gas Alliance, and a former chief of staff and deputy administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration.
12 Comments on "‘Gasland’ movie doesn’t tell the whole story"
SOS on Wed, 1st Aug 2012 5:09 pm
Very insightful article with some good advice: It is good policy to support an industry that can sustain our energy needs safely and in abundance far into the future.
The benefits to most of us are a blessing but natural gas has enemies. Enviromentalists, nuclear power, coal, oil, rail roads, all have a vested interest in stopping natural gas.
Heavy industry, electrical power companies, state/federal governments that will collect mineral royalties and taxes, citizens interested in reasonably priced abundant energy and a balanced budget all have a vested interest in supporting natural gas.
Support policies that favor this industry. Dont let peak politics form another coalition harmful to the larger good.
Arthur on Wed, 1st Aug 2012 5:32 pm
This is the movie we are talking about:
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/04/23/gasland/
Rick on Wed, 1st Aug 2012 8:05 pm
“We can all agree that natural gas is a clean and abundant energy resource in the U.S.”
It is still produces greenhouse gases, so it’s not clean, but cleaner compared to oil / coal.
Beery on Wed, 1st Aug 2012 10:33 pm
“We can all agree that natural gas is a clean and abundant energy resource in the U.S…”
No. Actually, we can’t. Its abundance is questionable and it is not ‘clean’ by any stretch of the imagination.
Norm on Wed, 1st Aug 2012 11:42 pm
If you do a little chemical equation balancing, burning methane gas CH4, reacting it with O2, then compared to burning fossil fuels, i.e. C8H10, gives an improved ratio in the exhaust. There is more water vapor, and less CO2.
The effect is not huge, but thats why people refer to methane gas being ‘clean’ or better for greenhouse gasses. I get the impression that many people are ignorant of basic chemistry and dont understand that underlying advantage.
Asides from less CO2, the real subject is whether you are wrecking somebody’s drinking water, by getting the gas from fracking.
keith on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 12:11 am
If fracking is so safe why did the industry need the Bush admin. to exempt it from EPA standards? Why does the industry refuse to release the chemicals involved? As for clean drinking water, there has been many cases in the U.S. of false testing results being released. There are better ways to do things to solve our energy problems, but there’s no big money in it.
MrEnergyCzar on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 12:42 am
The 100 year estimates are way too high. Since we’re using more now in place of coal, we probably have 15 years left of gas…
MrEnergyCzar
BillT on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 1:34 am
Keith, you are correct. The above piece was sponsored by the gas industry. No energy source is ‘clean’ unless it is sunlight. To harness any other by mechanical or chemical means is polluting. It is the degree that is being debated. Mother Nature doesn’t debate, she just does. At this point, she is changing the climates of the world to adjust to the new conditions and we pay the price.
BillT on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 1:37 am
SOS, you are obviously heavily invested in these boondoggles or you work for an oil/gas company…lol. No rational, impartial person would think as you do. People come first, not profits or even energy. Even wild animals are smart enough to not foul their own nests.
DC on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 4:11 am
Well I can agree that NG is slighly less dirty than coal, but thats about as far as Id go. As for abundant…well…thats a funny story too. In Canada NG production peaked in early 2000, and the US still imports about 1/5th of its supply. If fraking has created such a glut, I wonder why the US hasnt just shut off the tap from up north and south too, and let the price rise? Frakers are losing there shirts and exhausting wells all over the place, yet the US still imports a huge % of its needs. If fraking peoples drinking water hasnt given the US of OIl NG independence, then what is going on here?
A very curious thing. The US is squealing like a litter girl over supposed Chinese ‘dumping’ of solar panels, yet NG from Mexico and Canada have not caused anything like a similar response from the all-powerful US oil cartel, why is that?
Smoke and mirrors….
Beery on Thu, 2nd Aug 2012 8:21 pm
Norm, you are talking about gas killing us a little slower. I want more for the human race than that. We need to reverse the damage, not slow it.
Lichtstrom on Sat, 4th Aug 2012 6:59 am
PV Photovoltaics is in now cheaper than Electricity from Gas. By the Way PV is really clean and can be used anywhere! Here in Austria cost came down for bigger PV Systems for only 1 EUR per Watt!