Skip to comments.No 'Incredibly Small' Wars Against Energy by Obama
Posted on 09/22/2013 6:40:42 AM PDT by Kaslin
Look closely at the energy-related news stories of the past dozen or so days, and, between the lines, youll see a theme: government makes predictions and assertions that cannot be backed up by data to protect or project preferred messaging.
The unusual collaboration of the University of Texas (UT) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) conducted a first-ever detailed examinationmore than 500 wells were analyzedof individual drilling sites to determine the total amount of escaped methane from shale gas operations. The study was released on September 16 by the National Academy of Sciences. The New York Times story on the study opens with: Drilling for shale gas through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, appears to cause smaller leaks of the greenhouse gas methane than the federal government had estimated. It reports: Previous E.P.A. estimates relied on engineering calculations, and other studies gathered data via aircraft flights over drilling sites.
Why does this matter? Because environmental groups have used previous methane-leak estimates to claim that leaks offset the environmental benefits of the clean-burning natural gas the wells produce. Such claims are used to bolster fracking opposition. A September 17 press release from the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works states: methane leakage from shale gas development is not releasing nearly as much methane as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had predicted. EPAs grossly exaggerated estimates have been widely used by critics and far-left environmentalists to discredit the benefits of hydraulic fracturing.
The exaggerated estimates of methane leaks came from a study released two years ago when two Cornell University scientists, Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea, reported catastrophic levels of methane were being leaked by fracking operations. According to Forbes, a slew of experts discredited the research, which just reviewed EPA data and relied on estimates and hypotheticals.
Jon Entine cites the Park Foundation as the source of funding for much of Cornells anti-fracking research. Park also funded the anti-fracking Gasland movies. Entine states: Two years ago in an interview for an investigative story on Park and Howarth for Ethical Corporation, the Cornell professor blurted out to me that he was recruited by a Park Foundation family member who thought a university study criticizing fracking and challenging the green credentials of shale gas would advance the cause.
The Associated Press Big Story titled: Study: Methane leaks from gas drilling not huge, concludes: While methane concentrations in the atmosphere have been rising since 2007, federal scientists say theyve found no sign that gas or oil drilling is contributing because the methane emissions come from a different part of the globe.
Opposition to fracking also uses threats to the water supply and earthquake fears to scare people.
Back in 2011, the EPA blamed fracking for groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. Reports declared: For the first time, federal environmental regulators have made a direct link between the controversial drilling practice known as hydraulic fracturing and groundwater contamination. Then, after the report was found to be flawed, in June, the EPA announced: that it does not plan to finalize or seek peer review of its draft Pavillion groundwater report. Now, as of September 11, the EPA has officially washed its hands of the investigation. Marcellus Drilling News explains: Now, with hardly a peep, the EPA published an official notice in yesterdays Federal Register that theyve turned the lights out on their Pavillion investigation. Referencing the EPA Pavillion study, on May 16, 2012, Investors Business Times states: if eventually upheld, [it] would be the first time that drilling for natural gas itself contaminated water from underground aquifers. Apparently, by admission that it will not finalize or seek peer review of the final draft report, the EPA couldnt uphold its findings.
Reporter Mark Green posted an overview of a September 12 briefing he attended, regarding a peer-reviewed study done on hydraulic fracturings impacts. The study, Green says, is hailed by the author as the first comprehensive look at the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing. The study was conducted at the 1000-acre Inglewood oil field in the heart of Los Angeles and concludes: energy development using fracking and horizontal drilling technologies is safe, doesnt threaten water supplies or cause earthquakes. The study specifically examined groundwater, seismic activity, well integrity, and air emissions.
At the briefing, the studys lead author Dan Tormey, a hydrologist, geochemist, and civil engineer, talked about how the public receives their information. Tormey told of addressing the public with the facts, when an audience member said: Gasland is our facts, and youre trying to present these as your facts. Tomey told the crowd at the September 12 briefing: I found that really interesting because the first-generation studies were really a data-free zone, and the purpose of this study was to be very data-rich. He added: Facts have a longer row to hoe than fear.
Some of the study results Green cited include: Fracking had no detectable effect on vibration and did not induce earthquakes, and emissions associated with high-volume hydraulic fracturing were within standards set by the regional air quality authority.
Climate Change News
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release its fifth Assessment Report (AR5) on September 27. But leaked copies indicate that it will dial back on the alarm. On September 16, the Financial Post published a graph from AR5 (figure 1.4, chapter 1). The IPCC graph shows that climate models predicted temperatures should have responded by rising somewhere between about 0.2 and 0.9 degrees C over the same period. But the actual temperature change was only about 0.1 degrees, and was within the margin of error around zero. In other words, models significantly over-predicted the warming effect of CO2 emissions for the past 22 years.
Facts like these, as the Pointman blog puts it, are giving the feeling in the air that the IPCC is having a final solitary drink in the Last Chance Saloon, before riding out to be permanently swallowed up by the badlands outside of town.
Adding to the feeling in the air, on September 17, the Heartland Institute, in cooperation with the Science & Environmental Policy Project, and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2013 Report: Climate Change Reconsidered IIwhich focuses on facts rather than fear and cites dozens of peer-reviewed papers. The NIPCC report is 1200 pages long and was prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries (an Executive Summary and a Summary for Policymakers is available). The goal of the NIPCC report, according to Jim Lakely, Director of Communications for the Heartland Institute, is to inform the public, scientific community, and media that the upcoming IPCC report doesnt have all the science to make informed judgments.
In his review of the NIPCC report, Paul Driessen states: The NIPCC authors conclude that existing climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even ten years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation, until they have been validated [by comparison to actual observations] and shown to have predictive value.
Driessen adds: the deficient models are being used to devise and justify policies, laws and regulations that stigmatize and penalize hydrocarbon use, promote and subsidize wind and solar energy, and have hugely negative effects on jobs, family energy bills, the overall economy and peoples lives.
Which brings us to the coal news.
Cal Thomas, in a September 18 column addressing climate change, says: Too many people have too much invested in perpetuating this fiction. Hence, in the face of facts, on September 20, the EPA released the latest attack in Obamas war on coal: new limits on carbon-dioxide emissions from all future power plants built in the United States that are so strict, they essentially serve as a moratorium on all new coal plants for decades to come because they require technology that is not yet viable. In 2010, the Government Accountability Office found that commercial deployment of Carbon Capture Sequestration was possible in 10 to 15 years contingent upon overcoming economic, technical, and legal challenges that have yet to be met.
Bottom line? they want complete control
It is time for tea party revolution 2.0
Resist we mush!
This is why the next President must be a conservative. By simply undoing all the idiotic Executive Branch regulation you’ll get the economy booming again and I mean booming - growth of 5-7%, so hot that the FED will fear runaway inflation.
The productivity gains will be enormous and we’ll forget Obama and Democrat control of the Congress like some childish nightmare. Perhaps Cruz, but I suspect Rand more likely, will lead the charge in killing off these agencies. There are about a good dozen that if killed the economy would bloom.
Then you use the Commerce Clause as a giant wrecking ball on all the state, county and local regulation that acts as a restraint on trade. The US is supposed to be a giant free trade zone, let’s make it so.