Plan B Forum

Great liberals want to destroy the only economic salvation that we have on the horizon by dispersing it throughout the world. It was thanks to GW and other Republican presidents that these fracking technologies that allow our nation to tap shale gas exist. Liberal now, having missed the development of the technology, wants to do what they can to reduce its positive effect on our economy. Louisiana is schedule to get a steal plant just because of the available of cheap natural gas. This might be hard to understand, but cheap energy is vital for a healthy economy. The president might want ten dollar a gallon for gasoline but it not good for the economy. I pray that he will stay strong and resist the liberal environmentalist; they killed ANWR but hopefully they will fail on this one. I didn’t miss that the person mentioned in the article is a democrat, but so am I.

http://news.yahoo.com/japan-eager-tap-u ... itics.html
..Japan Is Eager to Tap U.S. Natural-Gas Supply

.....TOKYO—Congress could still block efforts to expand exports of America’s newly abundant supplies of natural gas, but there’s no question where Japan stands on the prospect of ships carrying liquefied natural gas from the U.S. arriving at its shores.

“From all the aspects, U.S. LNG is a very, very shining treasure … for us,” said Hirohide Hirai, director of policy evaluation and public relations at Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Hirai, former director of the petroleum and natural-gas division at the ministry, told National Journal this week that he is confident the United States will take advantage of the increased trade opportunity by allowing LNG exports to Japan.

Hirai said that his conversations with U.S. officials, energy lobbyists, and consultants about the growing natural-gas market in Japan have left him confident that LNG exports will get a “green signal” from the U.S.

“There should be some noises, of course,” Hirai said, but he added that when he spoke to Energy Department officials about gas exports, “they didn’t say no.”

Hirai has spent a lot of time negotiating this opportunity with U.S. energy officials and his “friends” in Washington since the March 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster that has resulted in the shutdown of nuclear power plants in Japan and has shaken the country’s energy sector.

“As you know, without nuclear power, LNG is the most promising, most reliable … alternative resource for us,” Hirai said. Japan is already the world’s largest importer of natural gas, with much of it coming from politically volatile nations in the Middle East. Japan also gets about 10 percent of its gas supply from Russia and is planning to buy more, despite the risks of price-gouging by the state-controlled gas company, Gazprom.

Into the picture comes the possibility of cheaper U.S. natural gas resulting from the shale-gas boom, which could be extremely helpful to Japan’s struggling energy economy.

Developments in the United States present a unique opportunity for Japan and for the natural gas market, which is mostly dominated by government-owned or government-backed monopolies. The insertion of U.S. gas into the export market could break some of these monopolies and change the price of gas as a result.

The United States is in a good position to increase gas exports because it has a number of former gas-import terminals that could be converted into export facilities for far less than the cost of building new ones.

But some U.S. lawmakers worry that increasing exports could raise domestic prices and threaten the nation’s energy independence. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who is expected to chair the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in the next Congress, has been one of the most vocal opponents of natural-gas exports and will likely take up the issue from his new post.

“The policy needs reconsideration,” Wyden said in a statement earlier this month, referring to the current U.S. policy that favors approval of natural-gas exports to countries that share free-trade agreements with the U.S. “It could harm the nation’s ability to achieve energy independence, combat pollution, and preserve the environment.”

And Wyden’s concerns don’t even account for the possibility of exporting gas to Japan, which is not yet a U.S. free-trade partner. Japan is pushing to become part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a U.S.-led free-trade agreement to be negotiated over the next year.

On that score, Wyden said, “Any final agreement on a Trans-Pacific Partnership must not constrain the U.S. from reshaping its energy policy, which may include new treatment of natural-gas exports.”

During a meeting this week with President Obama, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda urged the parties to “accelerate discussions” on Japan joining the TPP, which could open the doors to much-needed gas imports for Japan, among other free-trade opportunities.

The Obama administration strongly supports Japan’s entry into the free-trade agreement, and the president reinforced that view during his visit to Asia this week.

Olga Belogolova is reporting from Japan through a program sponsored by the International Center for Journalists and funded by the U.S.-Japan Foundation

...

So after decades of being doled billions in corporate welfare with conservative support, energy producers are showing their gratitude by trying to sell their products on the world market to the highest bidder,without any regard for the national interest. So these corporations are acting precisely in the way that conservatives repeatedly lecture us that they should, to maximize profits for their shareholders without any sense of social responsibility. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

And liberals have what to do with this, exactly?

Scooter wrote:So after decades of being doled billions in corporate welfare with conservative support, energy producers are showing their gratitude by trying to sell their products on the world market to the highest bidder,without any regard for the national interest. So these corporations are acting precisely in the way that conservatives repeatedly lecture us that they should, to maximize profits for their shareholders without any sense of social responsibility. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

And liberals have what to do with this, exactly?

Well, perhaps I should have been more precise. There is an element among liberal democrats, extreme environmentalist, that see carbon based fuels as poison to the earth mother. They would prefer that we suffer poverty and economic deprivation than to explore for oil and gas. I don’t know how big they are but evidently there is enough of them; they were able to block ANWR and off shore drilling. You would expect corporations to look out for the interest of their stock holders, but they don’t have the final say the government does and in this cast it is the federal government; especially since we founded this research.

Sounds to me like the Japanese are simply willing to pay more for the gas than American companies. Which is why they're willing to ship the stuff halfway across the planet.

So what's the government supposed to do? Spend even more money subsidizing natural gas so it becomes more lucrative to keep it Stateside?


Also, off-shore drilling hasn't been blocked. New permits continue to be issued, albeit at a slower pace than before the BP disaster.

Grim Reaper wrote:Sounds to me like the Japanese are simply willing to pay more for the gas than American companies. Which is why they're willing to ship the stuff halfway across the planet.

So what's the government supposed to do? Spend even more money subsidizing natural gas so it becomes more lucrative to keep it Stateside?

No, allow only the export of surplus gas after our domestic needs have been met first. It is better to use the gas to provide jobs for our people than to sell it overseas.

Also, off-shore drilling hasn't been blocked. New permits continue to be issued, albeit at a slower pace than before the BP disaster.

I understand that the east and west coast are off limits. The BP spill was extreme negligence; the government should insure it never happens again while expanding off shore exploration. We have got to have the oil but we can’t stand the pollution.

liberty wrote:[There is an element among liberal democrats, extreme environmentalist, that see carbon based fuels as poison to the earth mother. They would prefer that we suffer poverty and economic deprivation than to explore for oil and gas.

Since you have already forgotten your own words, I will remind you that the accusation you made was this:

liberty wrote:Great liberals want to destroy the only economic salvation that we have on the horizon by dispersing it throughout the world.

So tell us genius. Who are these liberal democrats who are in favour of these exports. The only democrat quoted in the article you posted has come out against it, which you would have known if you actually understood what you were reading before posting it.

So go on. tell which liberal democrats are behind these exports to Japan. Name some names, provide some quotes.

Scooter wrote:

liberty wrote:[There is an element among liberal democrats, extreme environmentalist, that see carbon based fuels as poison to the earth mother. They would prefer that we suffer poverty and economic deprivation than to explore for oil and gas.

Since you have already forgotten your own words, I will remind you that the accusation you made was this:

liberty wrote:Great liberals want to destroy the only economic salvation that we have on the horizon by dispersing it throughout the world.

So tell us genius. Who are these liberal democrats who are in favour of these exports. The only democrat quoted in the article you posted has come out against it, which you would have known if you actually understood what you were reading before posting it.

So go on. tell which liberal democrats are behind these exports to Japan. Name some names, provide some quotes.

Well excuse me for trying to be provocative. I don’t know who they are but if they are willing to spike tree to hinder lumbering and burn building for being too big you can bet they will do all they can to sabotage the benefit from natural gas fracking. Are you saying they are not liberals?

Do you listen to yourself? Explain how someone who is opposed to fracking would be supportive of using it in order to export the gas produced by it.

You are demonstrating yourself to be more of moron than usual, and that's saying something.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something here...

But if the natural gas has already been produced, (through the fracking process, which I fully support) then what would be wrong with selling it to Japan, or any other export market?

The production and refining process has taken place in the US, (creating US jobs, that can't be exported, for obvious reasons) and then the product is being exported, helping the US offset it's balance of trade deficit....

Where's the problem?

Lib, it looks to me, like you wanted to make the "a lot of liberals want to stop us from fully exploiting our energy resources" point...

(A point which could be made quite legitimately)

And then chose an article which really doesn't relate to that point to try to back it up...

Lord Jim wrote:Lib, it looks to me, like you wanted to make the "a lot of liberals want to stop us from fully exploiting our energy resources" point...

(A point which could be made quite legitimately)

And then chose an article which really doesn't relate to that point to try to back it up...

Jim in this thread I had two goals: One goal was to promoted a discussion on energy production and the US federal government's proper place in it and the other was to sound out my liberal friends here on liberal extreme environmentalist. I was curious to see if anyone here supports the thinking. The story, the tittle and such were just tool to that end.

Then I guess you failed on both counts. That's what happens when a moron begins with idiocy for a premise.

The story, the tittle and such were just tool to that end.

Well, you can wind up tittling on yourself that way....

And also wind up being the one who looks like the tool....

Lord Jim wrote:

The story, the tittle and such were just tool to that end.

Well, you can wind up tittling on yourself that way....

And also wind up being the one who looks like the tool....

You never know until you try. Ok, I will take a direct approach.

Do you consider Scientific American a "liberal democrat, extreme environmentalist" publication? Just wonderin'

And can you articulate any good reason (other than Dick Cheny's say-so) why the hydraulic fracturing industry--which mixes literally hundreds of toxic chemicals with massive amounts of potable water from the nation's underground aquifers--should be specifically exempted from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act? Is energy independence really more important than water (the source of life itself)?

Safety First, Fracking Second
Drilling for natural gas has gotten ahead of the science needed to prove it safe

By The Editors | Wednesday, October 19, 2011

A decade ago layers of shale lying deep underground supplied only 1 percent of America’s natural gas. Today they provide 30 percent. Drillers are rushing to hydraulically fracture, or “frack,” shales in a growing list of U.S. states. That is good news for national energy security, as well as for the global climate, because burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal. The benefits come with risks, however, that state and federal governments have yet to grapple with.

Public fears are growing about contamination of drinking-water supplies from the chemicals used in fracking and from the methane gas itself. Field tests show that those worries are not unfounded. A Duke University study published in May found that methane levels in dozens of drinking-water wells within a kilometer (3,280 feet) of new fracking sites were 17 times higher than in wells farther away. Yet states have let companies proceed without adequate regulations. They must begin to provide more effective oversight, and the federal government should step in, too.

Nowhere is the rush to frack, or the uproar, greater than in New York. In July, Governor Andrew Cuomo lifted a ban on fracking. The State Department of Environmental Conservation released an environmental impact statement and was to propose regulations in October. After a public comment period, which will end in early December, the department plans to issue regulations, and drilling most likely will begin. Fracking is already widespread in Wyoming, Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania.

All these states are flying blind. A long list of technical questions remains unanswered about the ways the practice could contaminate drinking water, the extent to which it already has, and what the industry could do to reduce the risks. To fill this gap, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is now conducting comprehensive field research. Preliminary results are due in late 2012. Until then, states should put the brakes on the drillers. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie set an example in August when he vetoed a bill that would permanently ban fracking, then approved a one-year moratorium so his state could consider the results of federal studies. The EPA, for its part, could speed up its work.

In addition to bringing some rigor to the debate over fracking, the federal government needs to establish common standards. Many in the gas industry say they are already sufficiently regulated by states, but this assurance is inadequate. For example, Pennsylvania regulators propose to extend a well operator’s liability for water quality out to 2,500 feet from a well, even though horizontal bores from the central well can stretch as far as 5,000 feet.

Scientific advisory panels at the Department of Energy and the EPA have enumerated ways the industry could improve and have called for modest steps, such as establishing maximum contaminant levels allowed in water for all the chemicals used in fracking. Unfortunately, these recommendations do not address the biggest loophole of all. In 2005 Congress—at the behest of then Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of gas driller Halliburton—exempted fracking from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Congress needs to close this so-called Halliburton loophole, as a bill co-sponsored by New York State Representative Maurice Hinchey would do. The FRAC Act would also mandate public disclosure of all chemicals used in fracking across the nation.

Even the incomplete data we now have suggest specific safety measures. First, the weakest link in preventing groundwater contamination is the concrete casing inside well bores [see “The Truth about Fracking,” by Chris Mooney]. Inspection of casings should be legally required. Second, the toxic fluid that is a major by-product of fracking is routinely stored in open pits, which can overflow or leach into the soil. It should be stored in tanks instead. Third, gas companies should inject tracers with the fracking fluid so inspectors can easily see whether any of the fluid ends up in the water streaming from residents’ faucets. Finally, companies or municipalities should have to test aquifers and drinking-water wells for chemicals before drilling begins and then as long as gas extraction continues, so changes in groundwater are obvious.

It is in the industry’s interest to accept improved oversight. Public opinion is turning against fracking. That is unfortunate, because more natural gas could benefit everyone. With basic precautions, we can enjoy both cleaner energy and clean water.

source

Should we just trust the gas and oil drillers when they say they need less regulation? (Didn't somebody famous once say, "Trust, but verify"? )

Should Oil and Gas Investors Fear the FRAC Act?

In June, Democrats introduced the FRAC (Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals) Act via companion bills in the House and Senate. The FRAC Act seeks to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act so that hydraulic fracturing would be regulated on a federal level.

Hydraulic fracturing is the technique that, combined with horizontal drilling, has allowed domestic E&Ps like Devon Energy, Southwestern Energy, and XTO Energy to unlock massive shale deposits like the Barnett and the Fayetteville.

Big Oil's lobbyist, the API, has been hootin' and hollerin' about the implications of federal frac fluid oversight, saying that domestic production would drop "significantly" if servicers like Halliburton and Baker Hughes had to report the chemical components added to the water that's pumped downhole and used to fracture hydrocarbon-bearing rock. One industry estimate puts the additional cost of compliance at $100,000 for each new natural gas well.

Big Oil (and especially Small Oil), you know I often stick up for you, but I suspect you're crying wolf this time.

The oil patch is an extraordinarily entrepreneurial place. If certain chemicals are banned from frac fluid, I have every confidence that the contractors will be able to formulate an alternative that doesn't break the economics of the stimulation job. Further, that compliance estimate sounds like a serious exaggeration.

Why am I sympathetic to this legislation? For one, state regulatory bodies can become quite cozy with industries that drive the local economy. Second, while the risk of polluting an aquifer seems remote, given that most horizontal drilling occurs much deeper in the earth, I do recognize that there are some rather nasty chemicals involved here, and they have been and will continue to be spilled on the surface. That poses enough of a threat to drinking water to get me concerned.

According to local media reports, a recent frac job performed by Schlumberger for Chesapeake Energy in the Haynesville shale play saw some frac fluid spilled, and 17 cows died.

To be clear, the outright ban of hydrofracking would strike an incredibly damaging blow to the industry and to our domestic energy supply (hello, Russian gas imports!), but I don't foresee such a threat to the overall practice. No matter what your opinion of members of Congress, I don't think any of them are that stupid.

As far as better chemical disclosure goes, I'm all for it. Let's just make sure that our representatives realize what a good thing we have going with shale gas, and that they don't strangle the goose that's laying golden energy eggs.

source

liberty wrote:

Grim Reaper wrote:So what's the government supposed to do? Spend even more money subsidizing natural gas so it becomes more lucrative to keep it Stateside?

No, allow only the export of surplus gas after our domestic needs have been met first. It is better to use the gas to provide jobs for our people than to sell it overseas.

Just how would that work? Who would determine whether "our domestic needs have been met"? How would the price be set, if not by the current system of supply and demand on the world market? How much would this massive new regulation of the gas and oil industry cost? (And why would that industry ever agree to it, if they can't even agree not to contaminate our drinking water?)

A decade ago layers of shale lying deep underground supplied only 1 percent of America’s natural gas. Today they provide 30 percent. Drillers are rushing to hydraulically fracture, or “frack,” shales in a growing list of U.S. states. That is good news for national energy security, as well as for the global climate, because burning gas emits less carbon dioxide than burning coal.

Well, let's try to not to break our arms patting ourselves on the back...

I've lost count of all the "win-wins" there...

Econoline wrote:Do you consider Scientific American a "liberal democrat, extreme environmentalist" publication? Just wonderin'

No they always seemed nonpolitical to me, like any good scientist.

url=http://www.fool.com/investing/value/200 ... c-act.aspx]source[/url][quote="libertyNo, allow only the export of surplus gas after our domestic needs have been met first. It is better to use the gas to provide jobs for our people than to sell it overseas.

[/quote]

Just how would that work? Who would determine whether "our domestic needs have been met"? How would the price be set, if not by the current system of supply and demand on the world market? How much would this massive new regulation of the gas and oil industry cost? (And why would that industry ever agree to it, if they can't even agree not to contaminate our drinking water?)[/quote]

The US energy department would make the decision and coordinate enforcement. The goal would be to insure cheap natural gas for US homes and factories. That might be somewhat socialist, but that is the way I see it. My interest is what is best for my children, grandchildren and country.

Does anyone here have any clue about how much water is used in the fracking process, and how tenuous the safe water supply in this country is becoming?

Guinevere wrote:Does anyone here have any clue about how much water is used in the fracking process, and how tenuous the safe water supply in this country is becoming?

That's a trademark secret.

From the Denver Business Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/ ... l?page=all

The amount of water used each year for hydraulic fracturing at Colorado oil and gas drilling sites is enough to supply 166,000 to 296,000 people for a year for household use, according to a report released Wednesday by Western Resource Advocates, a Boulder environmental group.

The report offers a somewhat larger estimate of fracking water use in the state than a report in March from the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission.

The Western Resource Advocates report says that fracking in the state uses 22,100 to 39,500 acre-feet of water a year. One acre-foot equals 325,851 gallons, enough water to cover one acre to the depth of one foot.

The report is titled “Fracking Our Future: Measuring Water and Community Impacts from Hydraulic Fracturing”.

The report cites Colorado Oil and Gas Association data indicating that a typical fracking job uses 1 to 5 million gallons of water.