[Watchdogs] J. Wayne Leonard: Cool the Planet With Natural Gas - WSJ.com
Andy Wilson
andy.citizen at gmail.com
Sun Dec 19 17:45:11 CST 2010
Sorry for the truncated reply earlier. Let me continue:
I agree with Paul. Vapor recovery ought to be mandated, and when there are
enough wells in a certain county to meet, in aggregate, the pollution levels
that would require a single point source (cement kiln, power plant, etc) to
obtain an air quality permit to make sure they are not putting the county
into non-attainment for air quality, and these should be dealt with under
State Implementation Plans (SIP) to get areas into compliance with law.
Perhaps I skipped too many logical steps in my analysis. Drilling (along
with driving, burning fossil fuels, etc), releases emissions of NO and NO2
or "NOx" and Volatile Organic Compounds or VOCs. NOx + VOCs + sunlight =
ozone = smog, and smog/ozone = asthma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOx#Health_effects Furthermore, prolonged
breathing in or drinking of VOCs cause cancer. So, apologies for going
immediately from drilling to asthma and cancer. But drilling on Barnett
Shale has led to unhealthy levels of NOx and VOCs, which causes more asthma
and cancer. The entire D/FW area is in "non-attainment" for air quality,
meaning that their levels of smog are unhealthy. Across the state, our air
pollution comes from approximately 1/3 energy sector, 1/3 industrial sector,
and 1/3 transportation. And if areas of Tarrant, Parker, Denton, and Wise
counties now have air pollution levelsequalling all cars and trucks from the
Metroplex, you'd better believe you will see increases in health impacts
from those emissions.
I agree that we can clean up the drilling on the shale. We can take the
lessons learned from Barnett and apply them to the drilling about to start
on the Eagle Ford shale. But until these regulations are in place, we need
to understand what increased reliance on natural gas truly means.
2010/12/19 Andy Wilson <andy.citizen at gmail.com>
> I agree with you, Paul. Vapor recovery ought to be mandated, and when
> there are enough wells in n
>
> ~~~~Andy Wilson
> Awilson at citizen.org
> (917) 238 - 0761
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 19, 2010, at 11:48 AM, "Paul Langston" <langston at zeecon.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Andy: Thank you for the letters about the Barnett Shale
> Production. I read the article of Dr. Alfredo Armendariz and found a lot
> of value in it.
> However, Dr. Armendariz' article does not specify smog, asthma nor cancer
> being caused by the drilling of the wells.
> The drilling part is where I have many years of experience. We turn the
> wells over to the Production Dept. and we move on.
> The main thrust of Dr. Armendariz' article seems to be that the production
> of these wells flow into the tanks, open vented and there is a lot of
> venting of all types of hydrocarbons and other elements.
> I agree 100% with the good Doctor. My experience with production tanks
> venting large quantities of hydrocarbon vapor into the air goes back to my
> days as a Junior Production Engineer, 1953, in the Crane Field, Crane
> County, Tx. I noticed, on a still day, large amounts of vapor coming our
> of the vent line of a battery of 4-1000 bbl. tanks. The vapor was so rich
> that it fell down to the ground. I had complete authority to study and
> solve the problem. We installed a Vapor Recovery System on the vent line
> and captured all of the vapor and gas., on all of the batteries of the
> field. The gain made the investments pay out in about three months.
> Vapor recovery is simple, cheap and profitable.
> The production people of the Barnett Shale area should be ordered to
> install this recovery equipment.
>
> I read the article about the possibility of "Frac jobs" causing natural gas
> to get into wells. I never had that experience but new problems show up
> every day. The owners should vent or shut in that water. The gas vapor is
> very dangerous and can easily explode. Any competent engineer can identify
> the origin of that gas. Gas, Water and Crude oil has "footprints" that can
> easily be identified. The owners of the wells are probably worried about
> this situation and will, most likely, help in any way.
>
> Unfortunately, a lot of new companies, new to the production business don't
> know from applesauce and the land owners have to jump right on them, even
> put them out of business.
>
> Sincerely, Paul Langston 404 Westward Ho Horseshoe Bay, Tx. 78657
> 830-598-1322 <langston at zeecon.com>
> langston at zeecon.com
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Andy Wilson <andy.citizen at gmail.com>
> *To:* Watchdogs <watchdogs at pec4u.org>
> *Cc:* Chris Perry <cp4pec at earthlink.net> ; Dale Jones<dale.jones at peci.com>; Luis
> Garcia <luis.garcia at peci.com> ; Bob Rodi <rjrodi at aol.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 18, 2010 11:53 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Watchdogs] J. Wayne Leonard: Cool the Planet With Natural
> Gas - <http://WSJ.com>WSJ.com
>
> Thanks to Bob for the link on the water issue.
>
> As for the smog, asthma, and cancer, I point you to research done by Dr. Al
> Armendariz while at SMU (he's now the Region 6 Administrator for the EPA)
> that showed that drilling on the Barnett Shale was causing more NOx and smog
> precurosr pollution than all of the cars and trucks and mobile sources in
> the Dallas/Ft Worth region combined. There are also significant problems
> from VOCs, especially benzene:
> <http://lyle.smu.edu/%7Eaja/barnett-shale.html>
> http://lyle.smu.edu/~aja/barnett-shale.html<http://lyle.smu.edu/%7Eaja/barnett-shale.html>
> TCEQ air quality monitoring has backed up his research. The Mayor of Dish,
> TX has moved his family out of the city because according to the air
> monitoring that he and the city are doing, it is not safe to breathe the
> air.
>
> I never impugned the character of oil and gas people. I agree with you that
> most of the people in the industry are good folks. But whether people are
> good-intentioned doesn't always mean that wells are properly sealed. It
> doesn't mean accidents don't happen. And it doesn't mean that people go
> above and beyond what current regulations require-- they follow the rules as
> currently constituted. Right now, neither the Railroad Commission nor TCEQ
> has statutory authority to require air quality permits for drilling, as none
> of the individual drilling operations or condensers or feed in lines have
> enough emissions to require a PSD under the Clean Air Act. If all you have
> to do is fill out the paperwork to get a PBR at the Railroad Commission,
> you're not likely to do much more. Or perhaps I'm wrong and you can point
> to me where drillers are using BACT-level vapor recovery, etc as they would
> be required to if they had to get a PSD from TCEQ? Or how they're
> preventing upsets and flaring the way other point sources of pollution are
> required to?
>
> As for your question of whether I have any information from the Railroad
> Commission, I would highly recommend you read the staff report from the
> Sunset Commission that points out major dysfunction at the commission, its
> inability to deal with drilling on the Barnett Shale, and the conflicts of
> interest created by Commissioners raising money from regulated industries.
> <http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/82.htm#rct>
> http://www.sunset.state.tx.us/82.htm#rct I would also point you to the
> Sunset Committee hearing that happened this last Wednesday and the major
> problems state legislators and members of the public have. They're going to
> be majorly reorganized during this Legislative session, largely because they
> are almost completely beholden to the industries they "regulate." There is
> also a new extensive study on how they are inflating natural gas prices for
> Texas consumers on average 100% more than what their own internal auditors
> are recommending in rate cases.
> <http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/overrated>
> http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/overrated I would also recommend
> this extensive news story about the dysfunction at the Railroad Commission
> and how it is putting Texans' lives and health at risk due to their
> dysfunction as an agency. <http://video.pbs.org/video/1701383129>
> http://video.pbs.org/video/1701383129
> So, no, I do not have information from the Railroad Commission because they
> are a body only slightly less trustworthy than the PEC Board and management
> during the Bennie Fuelberg era.
>
> ~~Andy Wilson
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Bob Ochoa < <robob at txwinet.com>
> robob at txwinet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here you go, Paul. Click on the link.
>>
>>
>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704098304576021852120669280.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704098304576021852120669280.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>>
>> Bob Ochoa
>> Editor
>> Hays County Roundup
>> <http://www.hayscountyroundup.blogspot.com>
>> http://www.hayscountyroundup.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, December 17, 2010, at 01:08 PM, Paul Langston wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Dear Andy: Your letter of Dec. 17, 2010 sounds very bad.
>>>
>>> I am a Pet Eng., a Registered Professional, spent most of my life in the
>>> "Oil Patch". I was one of the early pioneers of well fracturing back in
>>> 1953 in Odessa, Tx. I have drilled, completed, fractured wells all over the
>>> world in thirty odd years and I have not heard of all this spoiled water,
>>> asthma and cancer that you talk about.
>>> Has all this grief developed just in the Barnett Shale play? Do you have
>>> any info from the Railroad Comm?
>>> The folks that I worked with all those years in the oil business were
>>> good folks who do their best to not cause harm in their daily work. They
>>> have families, too.
>>>
>>> Sincerely, Paul Langston 404 Westward Ho Horseshoe Bay, Tx
>>> 78657
>>> 830-598-1322
>>> <langston at zecon.com>langston at zecon.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Andy Wilson
>>> To: Milton Hawkins
>>> Cc: Chris Perry ; Dale Jones ; Luis Garcia ; Watchdogs ; Bob Rodi
>>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Watchdogs] J. Wayne Leonard: Cool the Planet With Natural
>>> Gas - <http://WSJ.com>WSJ.com
>>>
>>> I don't disagree that natural gas is a cleaner option than burning coal,
>>> but we need to be aware of the other problems associated with it as a fuel.
>>> I don't want to say "Natural gas is the answer for PEC" if that means more
>>> water is spoiled, more of our neighbors develop asthma, more of them get
>>> cancer from drilling up on the Barnett Shale. Also, we need to be
>>> circumspect about the price of natural gas. While it is at near historic
>>> lows, that means that there is little place else for the price to go than
>>> up. California tried this in the 1980s and 90s-- building natural gas
>>> burning plants instead of coal-- and look at how volatile and unaffordable
>>> their energy prices became.
>>>
>>> Also, let's be a little wary about what the guy hawking natural gas says
>>> about why it is the answer. I mean, not like he has any financial incentive
>>> to sell people on natural gas as a solution.
>>>
>>> His statistics are very different than those that came out of Texas A&M
>>> and the cost-effective way that wind reduced both CO2 and other regulated
>>> pollutants like NOx and SOx. Compliance with the Texas Renewable Portfolio
>>> Standard has not increased prices for Texas consumers, Texas wind is among
>>> the cheapest cost resources in the state, and we have the most installed
>>> capacity of any state. I agree with his contention that renewable energy
>>> mandates in areas with little or no renewable resources is not cost
>>> effective, just as mandating the use of oil, coal, or natural gas in areas
>>> with little of those resources may not be cost effective. But this is
>>> Texas, and we have the 2nd most wind potential of any state, and the 2nd
>>> most solar potential of any state.
>>>
>>> For those of you who are skeptical, please take a look at Mike Sloan's
>>> Powersmack article for today. It also includes the links to the Larry Weis
>>> presentation I referred to several days ago.
>>> <http://powersmack.org/clean-energy-is-affordable-energy/>
>>> http://powersmack.org/clean-energy-is-affordable-energy/
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Milton Hawkins <<milton.hawkins at gmail.com>
>>> milton.hawkins at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> J. Wayne Leonard: Cool the Planet With Natural Gas - <http://WSJ.com>
>>> WSJ.com
>>>
>>>
>>> From the article:
>>>
>>> There are already more than 300 natural gas-fired electricity plants in
>>> the U.S., but according to a Congressional Research Service Report (CRS) of
>>> January 2010, we are only using 40% of their 171,000 megawatts of overall
>>> capacity. By substituting this unused gas-fired capacity for an equivalent
>>> amount of coal-based generation, the CRS report noted, we could almost
>>> immediately reduce CO2 emissions in the U.S. electricity sector by more than
>>> 10%, or more than 240 million tonnes.
>>>
>>> Ultimately, we'll have to retrofit conventional coal plants with new
>>> technology to capture and sequester carbon if we are to achieve more
>>> substantial reductions in global CO2 emissions. But while we work to develop
>>> an economically viable technology for retrofitting carbon, gas-fired
>>> generation offers the country a cost-effective approach to begin reducing
>>> emissions.
>>>
>>> Mandating the use of renewables, on the other hand, is much less
>>> attractive: Despite their allure, they displace only a modest amount of CO2
>>> at a very high price. According to the Northbridge Group, mandating that 20%
>>> of every utility's generation portfolio come from renewables—a proposal
>>> currently before the Senate—would cost $225 more per household each year
>>> than achieving the same CO2 reduction by increasing the use of existing
>>> natural gas- powered generators.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Sent using Google Toolbar
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Watchdogs mailing list
>>> <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>Watchdogs at pec4u.org
>>> <http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs>
>>> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image.tiff>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Watchdogs mailing list
>>> <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>Watchdogs at pec4u.org
>>> <http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs>
>>> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <image.tiff>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3321 - Release Date: 12/17/10
>>> 01:34:00
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>>
>>> Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3321 - Release Date: 12/17/10
>>> 01:34:00
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Watchdogs mailing list
>>> <Watchdogs at pec4u.org>Watchdogs at pec4u.org
>>> <http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs>
>>> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>>>
>>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Watchdogs mailing list
> Watchdogs at pec4u.org
> http://pec4u.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/watchdogs
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3323 - Release Date: 12/18/10
> 01:34:00
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3325 - Release Date: 12/19/10
> 01:34:00
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pec4u.org/pipermail/watchdogs/attachments/20101219/8695af81/attachment.html>
More information about the Watchdogs
mailing list