ALL THE ‘FRACKING’ FACTS @ SCIFEST AFRICA 2011 | Grocott’s Mail Online | Grahamstown News

May 8, 2011

ALL THE ‘FRACKING’ FACTS @ SCIFEST AFRICA 2011 | Grocott’s Mail Online | Grahamstown News.

Start: 08/05/2011 15:30

Timezone: Africa/Johannesburg

MEDIA RELEASE

SCIFEST AFRICA

APRIL 2011

ALL THE ‘FRACKING’ FACTS @ SCIFEST AFRICA 2011

Blurb: The definitive scientific facts about fracking are just one in a series of public lectures by South African and international scientists at Scifest Africa this year!

Body Copy:

With the fracas around proposed fracking in the Karoo reaching fever pitch, those for and against are both vocally expressing their opinion! Soon though at Scifest Africa in Grahamstown from 4 – 10 May 2011, one of the world’s leading scientific specialists on the subject will present the full “fracking” facts – as part of a fascinating lecture series by globally acknowledged authorities on various subjects at Scifest Africa this year.

Proff. Anthony Ingraffea, from Cornell University in the USA is just one of almost twenty worldwide experts on the Scifest public lecture programme. But what makes his presentation so special is not just that fracking is such a topical and hotly debated issue right now. Proff. Ingraffea will be the first person ever to give a Skype-facilitated public lecture in the fifteen year history of Scifest! And it promises to be a spectacular eye-opener, because of Proff. Ingraffea’s world renowned expertise!

Indeed, for many South Africans fracking is a recent discovery; and most of us had no idea what it was until its relatively recent arrival on news reports and in public debates. Officially known as hydraulic fracturing, fracking is used to access shale gas reserves locked in underground rock formations. This is done by drilling deepboreholes and injecting a chemical cocktail of water, sand and chemicals at extremely high pressure to crack open the rocks and release the gas.

One environmental report claims that “fracking could permanently damage the Karoo environment, cause catastrophic drinking water pollution and air pollution, be a health concern for humans and animals and cause general environmental degradation”. On the other hand, those for fracking claim that it will create jobs and that the environmental threat is ‘manageable’, albeit not guaranteed as absent. Ultimately however, a definitive scientific answer is needed to debunk the myths and fully explore the fracking facts. Proff. Ingraffea’s lecture promises to do just that!

Proff. Ingraffea is a multi-award-winning Professor of Engineering in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University and a leading authority figure on the physical effects of fracking. His research concentrates on computer simulation and physical testing of complex fracturing processes; and with his students he also completed pioneering research in the use of interactive computer graphics in computational fracture mechanics. Now, with Proff. Ingraffea’s public lecture, South Africans who are perplexed about what to believe about fracking will have direct access to a seminal presentation on the issue – whose content stems from decades of research data, intricate computer modelling and scientific insights on the subject. And it’s only happening at Scifest Africa 2011.

Proff. Ingraffea’s lecture “The Fracking Facts” will take place at 15h30 on Sunday 8 May 2011, but there are another eighteen lectures by worldwide authorities on a variety of topics throughout the week-long Scifest Africa schedule. And this public lecture series is just one of countless events, activities and exhibitions at Scifest this year – celebrating its 15^th anniversary with the most comprehensive programme ever for visitors of all ages – with SASOL, Old Mutual, the Netherlands Embassy and Department of Science and Technology as sponsors!

The full programme is available on www.scifest.org.za and direct telephonic contact can be made on (046)603 1106 for all bookings. Be there and find out exactly what the fracking facts are for yourself!

Filed under events Tagged with gas drilling, global concerns, hydrofracking, Ingraffea, Shale gas, South Af, South Africa

Energy Management Resources Reports on the Volatility of Natural Gas Prices

May 8, 2011

Energy Management Resources Reports on the Volatility of Natural Gas Prices.

Energy Management Resources Reports on the Volatility of Natural Gas Prices

Shale continues to take center stage, albeit with mixed opinions, which is adding volatility to the direction of natural gas prices.

ShareThis Email PDF Print

The new drilling technologies that have proved so successful for natural gas may now provide an impact on the world oil supply

(PRWEB) May 03, 2011

EMR – Based on last months New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), Natural Gas prices are holding between $4.20 to $4.30 per MMBtu. Many factors come into play with when pricing commodities on NYMEX; however, all eyes continue to focus on the game changer – Shale Gas. Energy Management Resources is seeing a lot of clients re-analyze their hedging strategies as a result.

Shale continues to take center stage, albeit with mixed opinions, as compared to previous robust projections. These mixed opinions are adding some volatility to the direction of natural gas prices. Yet, it looks like North American producers are scaling back due to economics.

Here are the some facts regarding the economics of shale gas:

There are 2,300 drilled but yet to be completed wells in the Haynesville, Marcellus, Eagle Ford and Barnett plays alone. As a result, producers have an inventory position whose cost structure will continue to put price caps on future price increases.
There are potential environmental hazards that can be associated with the process of drilling for shale gas. Consequently, larger investments may be needed to deal with any new regulatory oversight and unanticipated regulations.
Storage and pipeline capacity limits are being tested, as U.S. dry natural gas production is expected to grow by about 5.4 Bcf/d through 2015 from the 2010 average.

What some know about this game-changer is that the new drilling technologies that have proved so successful for natural gas may now provide an impact on the world oil supply. Oil brings much higher returns than gas, so many investors have already begun to pressure Boards of Directors about their investments. While debt rollovers, new equity offerings, and asset lease sales have financed the shale gas boom, disappointing cash flows are leading some investors to jump off the bandwagon. A thousand cubic feet (Mcf) of U.S. natural gas once sold for a tenth of the price of a barrel of oil, but now that spread has widened tremendously – One (1) Mcf of gas now sells for a twentieth, or less, of the price of a barrel of oil. Major shale producers see today’s gas prices making the economics of shale gas, as well as conventional gas, increasingly unprofitable. Weak cash flows have spurred investor concerns that these companies may no longer be able to meet wellhead break-even costs at those prices.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation announced they had decided to sell all of its Fayetteville Shale assets and its equity investments in Frac Tech Holdings, LLC and Chaparral Energy, Inc.
Chesapeake also announced ramped up investments at the Niobrara oil/shale formation, primarily an oil play, situated in northeastern Colorado and parts of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Voyager Oil & Gas has made similar investment decisions. It will reduce production in its Bakken shale formation and refocus on its Niobrara fields.
In response to deteriorating, if not negative profit margins, other shale gas producers are suddenly redeploying their rigs to drill for more lucrative oil. That includes the likes of Petrohawk Energy Corporation, EOG Resources, Forest Oil Corporation, and Quicksilver Resources.

Low natural gas prices are the result of many factors and the technology behind shale gas is seen as the central game changer, as it may assume a similar role in oil exploration. Although the potential environmental impacts of producing shale gas are being questioned, shale gas producers are redeploying their drilling dollars to oil targets searching for higher returns. According to Baker Hughes last week, the number of natural gas rigs operating in the US fell for a fifth consecutive week to a ten-month low. By shifting from gas to oil, the technology has lifted hopes of the first significant rise of onshore U.S. oil production in decades. In five to eight years, the technology could add a million barrels of oil a day to U.S. supplies.

Analysts stress the importance of this switch in exploration activity. Moving from shale gas to oil won’t be without consequences for future gas supply, as the effect of more rigs drilling for oil will have an impact gas prices. The oil exploration industry has already moved to riskier finds, such as Alberta tar sands and deep-water drilling. There probably isn’t a whole lot of “easy oil” left to find. Thus, the oil industry thinks it can benefit from the shale gas technology developed by its siblings in the natural gas sector.

About Energy Management Resources:
Energy Management Resources (EMR) helps energy intensive industrial and commercial companies across North America optimize their energy requirements. The costs, risks and regulatory issues associated with high demand energy consumption are complex. We take the complexity out of the equation to reduce your operating expense and manage your company’s risk.

###

Filed under Economics Tagged with environmental effects, gas drilling, investment, natural gas

Landowners join together to prepare for hydrofracking – Utica, NY – The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York

May 8, 2011 2 Comments

Landowners join together to prepare for hydrofracking – Utica, NY – The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York.

Landowners join together to prepare for hydrofracking

At issue: Properties in Oneida and Madison counties

Featured Business »

By BRYON ACKERMAN

Observer-Dispatch

Posted Apr 21, 2011 @ 06:41 PM

Last update Apr 21, 2011 @ 10:51 PM

Landowners representing more than 10,000 acres in Oneida and Madison counties have formed a partnership with a goal of allowing hydraulic fracturing to safely occur on their property.

Their land includes sections of Oneida County south of Route 5 — property in municipalities such as New Hartford, Paris, Marshall, Sangerfield, Vernon, Vernon Center and Augusta, said Brymer Humphreys, the administrator of the group.

Humphreys, a New Hartford farmer and town Planning Board member, said the landowners in the partnership are in favor of hydraulic fracturing, but they want to contract with a natural gas company that will work with them to address issues such as whether well water would be impacted.

“We believe it’s something that’s going to happen in New York, and we want to have the best control of how it’s done as we can,” Humphreys said of hydrofracking. “We’re concerned about being able to get a reliable company – have some inspections of their proceedings and have them provide outlines as far as what they have to do to protect us as landowners and our neighbors.”

Opponents of hydrofracking, however, say there is no way to guarantee it can be done safely. Issues have been raised with potential effects such as decreased property values, polluted drinking water and damaged roads from the heavy traffic involved with the drilling.

A statewide moratorium on hydrofracking is in place until at least July 1, but the state Department of Environmental Conservation review process will take longer than that to complete, DEC spokesman Michael Bopp said. No hydrofracking permits will be issued in the state until the DEC study process is done, he said.

High-volume, horizontal hydrofracking involves mixing chemicals with millions of gallons of water and pumping the mixture into wells to create fractures in rock formations to allow natural gas to be harvested.

Southern Oneida County is located above part of the Marcellus Shale, a large rock formation under the surface of the earth that has been targeted for hydrofracking in New York and other states such as Pennsylvania.

The part of the county south of Route 5 also is above the Utica Shale, which has the potential for natural gas but has not been tested for hydrofracking, said Jeff Miller, an educator at Cornell Cooperative Extension of Oneida County.

The partnership

The landowners’ group, which is called the Pine Energy Madison and Oneida Partnership, has contracted with a company called Pine Energy Management, which will represent the landowners in negotiations with natural gas drilling companies, Humphreys said.

Most people in the partnership have wells, so they’re concerned too about whether there would be effects on water and the environment, Humphreys said. That’s part of the reason for forming the group, he said.

No natural gas companies have directly approached residents in Oneida County about leases, but landowners – such as those who have signed on with Pine Energy Management – have been talking with go-between people who would help them with signing a lease, Miller said.

By forming a larger group of landowners in Oneida and Madison counties, the partnership will have greater negotiating power with natural gas companies, said Mark Wagner, the co-owner of Pine Energy Management.

The company is based in Colorado and is planning on opening an office in the Oneida-Vernon area, said Wagner, who is a petroleum engineer with 31 years of experience in the industry.

The goal is to allow the industry to move into the area for drilling, but to do so in a way that landowners are comfortable with, Wagner said. The company will help in negotiations, develop drilling plans, make sure concerns such as water and road-use are addressed and provide oversight of the drilling, he said.

“We work at the pleasure of the landowners – not the energy companies,” Wagner said.

Carleton Corey, owner of The Mum Farm on Red Hill Road in New Hartford, has concerns about hydrofracking — including whether water would be impacted.

He’s glad the landowners are working together because if they’re going to allow the practice, they should at least make sure it’s done right, he said.

So much contradictory information exists that he thinks landowners should get their water tested now, so they can measure if there are changes if drilling begins, he said.

“I don’t quite know what to believe,” he said.

Preparing and learning

The town of New Hartford has been looking into the issue of hydrofracking and is in the process of developing legislation for ordinances to regulate the practice, town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said.

If the town decides to allow hydrofracking, very strict rules would have to be put in place, he said. Tyksinski would consider instituting a town moratorium on hydrofracking until the issue is further reviewed, he said.

Tyksinski isn’t yet sure whether he is for or against hydrofracking, but he does have concerns about whether the drilling would affect water supplies and the potential for the drills to be abandoned if the practice becomes no longer profitable, he said. Those issues will be considered as the town develops its ordinances, he said.

“We don’t want polluted water up here in the town of New Hartford,” he said. “I don’t think any community does.”

When the state moratorium ends, the focus likely will be on parts of the state south of Oneida County because there are more expansive areas located above the Marcellus Shale, said Miller, of Cornell Cooperative Extension.

“I’m not sure we’re going to be a hotbed for activity, which is a good thing,” Miller said, adding that the county can watch what happens in other locations first. “So that we can learn from them.”

Filed under Leasing Issues Tagged with gas drilling, landowner coalitions, leasing, Madison Co., NY, Oneida Co.

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate

May 7, 2011

Fracking the Future – How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health and Climate.

Unconventional gas drilling is emerging as one of the most controversial energy & environmental issues in the United States and around the world today.

Advancements in extraction technologies, particularly horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing (fracking), have enabled drillers to reach previously inaccessible gas in geological formations underlying several areas of the U.S.

Increasing public awareness of the threats posed by America’s dependence on foreign oil and dirty coal to public health and the global climate have led many – including some environmental organizations and progressive politicians – to embrace gas as a “bridge fuel” to help America kick its dirty energy addiction.

54 page report at: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf

But recent revelations about the dangers that unconventional gas drilling poses to drinking water supplies, public health and the global climate are raising important questions about how “clean” this gas really is.

Scientists studying the impacts of unconventional gas drilling warn that gas is likely to have a greater influence on water, air and climate than previously understood. Major scientific bodies have cautioned against a national commitment to gas as a bridge fuel, citing the need for further research into the potential consequences of continued reliance on this fossil fuel.

A growing number of land owners, former gas industry executives and elected officials are also challenging the notion that gas is as clean as its proponents argue, and questioning whether unconventional gas drilling can be done without threatening drinking water supplies, air quality and the global climate.

Yet the gas industry continues to benefit from lax oversight and several exemptions from existing public health protections, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and parts of the Clean Water Act that apply to other fossil fuel extraction industries. Recent attempts by federal agencies and lawmakers to improve oversight of gas operations have been met with strong resistance from the gas industry and its alliance of front groups and defenders in the media.

The gas industry’s influence in Washington has grown tremendously thanks, in large part, to the rapid consolidation of the gas industry into the hands of the largest oil companies in the past few years. Not long ago, the industry was made up primarily of what its proponents call “mom and pop” companies—small operators that drilled chiefly for conventional gas.

But with recoverable deposits of that relatively ‘easy’ conventional gas dwindling in the Lower 48, larger drillers have turned their focus to the more difficult and expensive unconventional gas plays.

Oil giants such as BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron now dominate the gas industry. The industry’s chief front group, Energy In Depth (EID), goes to great lengths to maintain the “mom and pop” image of the industry, claiming it represents small and independent gas producers.

However, its own documents prove that its early funding – and ongoing financial support – comes from many of the largest oil and gas interests.

EID and other gas lobby groups argue that federal oversight and increased scrutiny and accountability measures would harm the industry’s development and risk jobs. But big oil companies have made that same “economy-killing” argument for decades – a strategy they learned from tobacco companies and the chemical industry – while amassing record profits and enjoying spectacular growth.

Through intensive lobbying, campaign contributions and other forms of influence, these oil and gas companies have successfully thwarted efforts to hold the gas industry accountable for its impacts on health and the environment.

Now the same companies that brought us the Exxon Valdez spill, the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, Chevron’s destruction of the Amazonian rainforest in Ecuador and countless other pollution examples, want the public to blindly trust them – with zero federal oversight – as they pursue drilling for much riskier unconventional gas throughout the country.

The question is, given the oil industry’s track record of environmental and health disasters, can the public trust them to get it right with the more challenging unconventional gas?

This report is designed to shed light on the rapidly changing composition of the gas industry and to raise important questions about whether the rush to exploit unconventional gas may be coming at too high a cost to the environment.

While coal and oil certainly pose their own significant challenges to health and climate, it is important to recognize that unconventional gas is also a dirty fossil fuel and does not belong in any credible definition of “clean energy.”

Given the extensive uncertainties surrounding the impacts potentially connected to the unconventional gas industry’s current drilling practices, it is only prudent at this point to insist on a pause for further evaluation. In fact, as a direct result of the recent Chesapeake gas well blowout in Pennsylvania that spilled drilling chemicals onto nearby properties and waterways, a former gas company executive called for a moratorium on all fracking operations near waterways in Arkansas’s Fayetteville shale region, stating that:

“There is no reason on Earth, if they are going to close it down there, they shouldn’t close it down here.”

It is becoming increasingly clear that the unconventional gas boom is happening too fast, too recklessly and with insufficient concern for the potential cumulative impacts on our most critical resources – clean air, safe drinking water and a stable climate.

DeSmogBlog joins those who are calling for a nationwide moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and other troublesome practices in the unconventional gas industry. Until independent scientists and experts conduct further studies, the public simply cannot trust the fossil fuel industry to continue with this dirty energy boom.

See: http://www.desmogblog.com/fracking-the-future/desmog-fracking-the-future.pdf for the full 54 page report

Filed under Save the Planet Tagged with Climate Change, energy policy, gas drilling, gas industry, government action, Health effects, Organizational reports, regulation, water contamination

Fracking the Future DeSmogBlog

May 7, 2011

Media Centre. Media Resources

“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO

Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

Coal is Clean

Media Centre

Tags: media center

Welcome to the DeSmogBlog Media Centre. If you’re looking for information on noted climate change skeptics, or on the use of PR techniques and spin by politicians, scientists, and in the media, you’ve come to the right place.

Since we launched the site in January 2006, we’ve compiled an extensive collection of resources. Please use this media centre to full advantage for your own reporting.

Should you want more information on a particular issue, skeptic or group, and cannot find it here, please feel free to contact us at brendan [at] desmogblog [dot] com.

As always, we’re always happy to receive tips from our readers. Please submit those to editor [at] desmogblog [dot] com. Spin is everywhere, and it’s clouding climate science and confusing the public. Help us in our mission for sound reporting on climate science. After all, you can’t spin Mother Nature.

About DeSmogBlog
DeSmogBlog exists to clear the PR pollution that is clouding the science on climate change. An overwhelming majority of the world’s climate scientists agree that the globe is warming and that the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels is to blame. We know that the risks are incalculable and, increasingly, we understand that the solutions are affordable and wise choices for many reasons.

DeSmog Research Database
A database of individuals, “think” tanks, PR pros and corporations actively involved in clouding the science on climate change.

Resources and links to climate science websites

The Scientific Consensus
Here is a review by Science magazine that looked at 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change.” Not one of these studies disagreed with consensus view on climate change.

G8 Climate Statement (PDF)
Here is a 2005 joint declaration on the realities of global warming signed by the heads of the chief scientific advisors for all the G8 countries (China, Canada, Brazil, Russia, United States, Japan, Italy, India, Germany).

IPCC: The Scientific Basis
Here is the latest report issued by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – supported by the world’s leading climatologists.

The Royal Society – A guide to facts and fictions about climate change (PDF)
“This document examines twelve misleading arguments (presented in bold typeface) put forward by the pponents of urgent action on climate change and highlights the scientific evidence that exposes their flaws. … This document has been endorsed by the Council of the Royal Society, and draws primarily on scientific papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals and the work of authoritative scientific organisations, such as the IPCC and the United States National Academy of Sciences.”

RealClimate.org
This is a climate change website run by leading climate change scientists. Here you will find out about the latest climate science, as well as information on the scientific myths on climate change.

The Scientific Case for Human-Induced Global Warming
Here is an article written by renowned author, and DeSmog contributor, Ross Gelbspan, that summarizes the scientific evidence on man-made climate change.

Climate Backgrounder
Here is a backgrounder on climate change written by DeSmogBlog writer Richard Littlemore.

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Country (also check here )

NationMaster GHG and Environment Statistics

Calculate your household’s carbon emissions

Helpful resources for researching the backgrounds of climate change “skeptics” and PR professionals

Exxon Secrets
Run by Greenpeace USA, ExxonSecrets exposes the campaign ExxonMobil has run for more than a decade to fund climate change skeptics and delay action to fix the problem.

PR Watch
Run by the Center for Media and Democracy, this site offers information on PR professionals in all sectors, including the fossil fuel industry and climate change. The CMD is run by John Stauber, author of 5 books on the PR industry, including Toxic Sludge is Good for You and Trust Us, We’re Experts.

Media Matters: Conservative Transparency
Run by Media Matters for America, this website reports the funding received by conservative US “think” tanks.

US Senate Lobby Filing Disclosure Program
A searchable database containing all US lobbyists, who they work for and the policies they are lobbying to change.

Government of Canada Lobbyist Registration
A searchable database containing all Canadian lobbyists, who they work for and the policies they are lobbying to change.

The Legacy Tobacco Documents
This site contains the entire library of documents relating to the Master Settlement Agreement between the US and the tobacco industry. In this searchable database you will find that many of the self-proclaimed climate change “skeptics” were also involved in confusing the public about the harmful effects of cigarette smoke.

DNS Stuff
Type in any website address in the “WHOIS” Lookup and see who really owns a website. We are constantly amazed at the information we find using this site.

Open Secrets
Check out this site for detailed information and analysis of industry donations to US politicians.

Dirty Energy Money
Run by Oil Change International, this site tracks the oil, gas and coal industry money flowing into the U.S. Congress.

Government of Canada Corporate Registry
Find out the who’s who of a corporation or a non-profit registered under Canada’s corporate registry act. For example, we found that the founding directors of a non-profit called The Natural Resource Stewardship Project were also lobbyists for the energy industry.

News Tips and Confidential Information
Have some interesting news stories, or some information that you feel needs to get out? Fill out our news tips form or fax your information to our confidential fax line at (604) 736-9902. Your anonymity is guaranteed.

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR E-NEWSLETTER

Get our Top 5 stories in your inbox weekly.

DESMOG TIP JAR

Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science.

DESMOGBLOG SPECIAL REPORT

How Unconventional Gas Threatens our Water, Health, and Climate

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.