The New York Times and natural gas: Don’t facts matter any more?

You really have to wonder why the New York Times is campaigning against cleaner-burning, domestically produced natural gas.

In the latest installment (stories published yesterday and today), the Times questions the value of our country’s vast shale gas resources with little more than anonymous sourcing, two-year-old emails and analysis unsupported by fact. Ironically, author Ian Urbina did not call ExxonMobil, the largest natural gas producer in the United States, for comment. You would think an investigative journalist for one of the world’s great newspapers would have been curious to know why the world’s largest publicly traded energy company has invested billions of dollars in a so-called “Ponzi scheme.” Of course we’re doing no such thing, no matter how hard the article works to imply otherwise.

What does the Times have against an industry that supports more than 2.8 million American jobs and contributes $385 billion annually to the U.S. economy? In Pennsylvania alone, more than 48,000 jobs were created in 2010 because of the development of the Marcellus Shale resources there. U.S. natural gas production in 2010 was at its highest level since 1973 thanks to industry breakthroughs in shale gas production – facts which the Times fails to mention.

Though he did not bother talking to us, the writer did seem to put a lot of weight on the word of a retired geologist who just two years ago wrote that it was “difficult to imagine” that the “Haynesville Shale can become commercial.” Ironically, the Haynesville Shale is now the largest gas producer in the United States.

The writer also invokes the Federal Reserve to try to lend credibility to his premise that the shale gas revolution is a flash in the pan like the dot-com bubble and built upon misleading or even illegal accounting practices – in this case reserves reporting – like the Enron scandal.

A closer read and a quick Google search shows that the person he is quoting from the Fed was appointed to the Dallas Fed’s advisory committee and is a long-time shale gas opponent. The writer conveniently omits a report issued last year by economists who actually work for the Dallas Fed that notes that “the Texas experiment in the Barnett Shale proved the technical feasibility of shale gas development and brought costs within bounds that promise to give shale gas an important role in global energy supplies for decades to come.”

The current low price of natural gas, which may indeed make certain wells for some companies uneconomic to drill at this time, is in part a result of increased supply on the market. And that’s a function of the industry’s ingenuity in applying technology to tap resources that had been uneconomic to develop before. These increased supplies of domestic natural gas enhance U.S. energy security and economic competitiveness.

Risks are inherent in the oil and natural gas business. There is no guarantee that oil and gas will be found in quantities that will make it economic to produce. There is always uncertainty in predicting ultimate recoveries, particularly in the early stages of development. The U.S. oil and gas industry is experienced in reducing this uncertainty through studies and the integration of production histories and other data. For example, in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana, the U.S. Geological Survey now says 3 billion to 4 billion barrels of undiscovered oil are available – 25 times more than the original estimate made in 1995.

If the writer had bothered to call us, we would have told him that ExxonMobil’s investment approach is disciplined and based on a long-term view of global market conditions. We invest through market cycles and are not driven to hasty decisions because of day-to-day commodity market volatility. It was this long-term vision that led to the acquisition of XTO and subsequent shale gas ventures. Today, we are the largest producer of natural gas in the United States, and we are positioned to double our U.S. unconventional production over the next decade with an inventory of approximately 50,000 drillable well locations. We have strong positions in the Barnett, the Woodford, the Haynesville, the Fayetteville, the Eagle Ford, Marcellus and the Bakken Shales.

Technology development and application are and will remain key elements in maximizing the full value of these large, long-life resources. Here are some examples: Unconventional production from Haynesville increased four-fold in 2010, while production in Fayetteville doubled in 2010. The Barnett Shale, where we currently have gross production of approximately 900 million cubic feet per day of gas, is another good example of value creation through technology. We have been able to maximize long-term ultimate recovery with longer lateral lengths and improved drilling and completion efficiency. And our net unit development cost in this shale play is about $1 per thousand cubic feet equivalent, a 50 percent improvement in the last five years, which is yielding attractive drilling program returns. Our confidence in per-well recoveries in the Barnett is underpinned by a decade of production history of early vertical wells drilled in the play – hardly a flash in the pan.

On the Enron allegation, reserve filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission are taken very seriously by the oil and gas industry and come with serious consequences for misreporting. ExxonMobil takes a rigorous and methodical approach to booking proved reserves. All reserve additions are subject to a long-standing, thorough management review process regarding the reasonable certainty of recovery, which is the standard set by the SEC.

It is unfortunate that the words “rigorous” and “methodical” can’t be applied to the New York Times’ recent articles. Understanding the facts surrounding the potential for development of our nation’s energy resources is every American’s business. Our economic recovery, environmental progress and energy security depends in part on a sound, stable and sensible policy and regulatory framework informed by honest, fact-filled debate. The Times’ current campaign undermines this debate and is a disservice to its readers.

CLICK TO READ THIS BLOG AND COMMENTS

Fight for Control of Land Use Heads to Del. Supreme Court

The Delaware Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case that could determine whether the state or counties have the power to regulate some aspects of land use.

The three-year-old legal battle now stands as an appeal from a Sussex County Superior Court ruling that struck down part of the state's pollution-control strategy for the Inland Bays. Oral arguments are scheduled for Wednesday.

Judge T. Henley Graves earlier this year found in favor of Sussex County and a group of landowners challenging the regulations on waterway buffers. The Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control took the matter to the high court.

DNREC argues in court documents that Graves' "sweeping decision ... has consequences that cannot be foreseen," with impacts on other regulations as well. The agency argues the regulations creating wider buffers near waterways are not zoning rules, but pollution rules.

"There are two policies involved here, environmental control and zoning; one cannot resolve the dispute by calling environmental control zoning," its attorneys wrote in court papers. "DNREC does not dispute that the county has zoning authority."

The state also points out the buffers will not affect existing land use, but only apply when the land use changes.

The Sierra Club also submitted a friend-of-the-court brief supporting DNREC's position.

The agency has said the rules were intended to control runoff of pollutants that can feed excessive algae growth and harm fish and shellfish.

The county has required 50-foot buffers along tidal waters since 1991. But the state's plan, unveiled in October 2008, wants buffers ranging from 30 feet to 100 feet along creeks, streams and rivers that flow into the Rehoboth, Indian River and Little Assawoman bays. The bays suffer from poor water quality and pollution problems. New Castle and Kent counties have 100-foot buffers, the state says.

Waterway or riparian buffers are important for several reasons -- they improve water quality, help with flood control and provide wildlife habitat, said Chris Bason, acting executive director of the Center for the Inland Bays, a nonprofit group.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Regulation Nation: Shell Ready to Move on Alaska Wells -- If Alphabet Soup of Challenges Would End

An estimated 27 billion barrels of oil are sitting just off the northern coast of Alaska in waters controlled by the United States, but despite spending more than five years and $4 billion, Shell Oil Company still can't get to it.

The company was planning to announce this week plans to move ahead with drilling three test wells in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas next summer, but it's still lacking several permits and a roadmap of how to get them.

Shell doesn't blame strict environmental protections. The company's beef is with a seemingly endless web of legal appeals and challenges available to drilling opponents.

"We're not disputing any of the high standards we're being asked to work with," said Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. "What's concerning to us is the fact that there's not any real certainty in how these processes will be met."

The Environmental Protection Agency granted an air permit in September, but the permit is still in legal limbo because it's been challenged a second time by Earthjustice and other environmental groups -- despite the fact the closest village to the proposed drilling is 70 miles away and has a population of 245. An EPA board now must weigh in again.

"The majority of them are not thinking about America," said Alaska's lone congressman, Don Young, a Republican. "They're thinking about their own little agenda."

Young said if Alaska's resources were tapped, the U.S. would not have to buy $400 billion worth of oil each year from overseas and consumers would not have to pay nearly $4 a gallon at the pump.

Young has introduced legislation that would strip away every federal environmental regulation and force the agencies to get Congress to reauthorize them. Environmental groups say it would be a disaster.

Earl Kingik is an Alaska Native from Point Hope, a small village near the Chukchi Sea. He says offshore drilling regulations are not strong enough, and points to the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico as evidence.

"The fishermen lost everything," Kingik said. "I don't want to lose everything up north. We've been living like this for thousands of years."

In addition to still needing an air permit from the EPA, Shell has to clear nine other government hurdles before it can drill. The list is an alphabet soup of federal agencies and red tape.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOERME) has to sign off on Shell's Exploration Plan. It gave conditional approval in August but needs to wait for Shell to clear other bureaucratic hurdles before granting final approval. The bureau also is considering the company's Oil Response Plan and Application for Permit to Drill.

The U.S. Coast Guard has yet to approve Shell's Safety/Security Zone application. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must issue Incidental Harassment Authorization, which would allow for the incidental killing of whales and seals.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has yet to issue a letter of authorization for the incidental take of protected polar bears and Pacific walrus. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers still must approve the Oil and Gas Structure, Nationwide permit.

And the EPA is still considering Shell's Discharge Authorization and Vessel General Permit. Most of the permits have been approved by the various agencies, but they have been challenged in court, which leads to uncertainty.

Shell officials say they can move forward with some of the permits tied up in court battles, but the EPA air permit must be in hand before they can proceed. Pete Slaiby is confident the company will succeed this time.

The decision rests with the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board, a panel that hears challenges when permits are issued. In March, a three judge panel rejected Shell's air permit ruling its calculations for how much pollution would be produced by the drilling rigs were wrong.

Environmental Appeals Board members are appointed by the EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson. All three judges on the Shell case are registered Democrats and one, Kathie Stein, was an activist attorney for the powerful Environmental Defense Fund.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE AND VIDEO

North Dakota surpasses oil production record

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota oil drillers have outdone last year's record crude production and are nearing a milestone of a half-million barrels of oil a day, according to an Associated Press analysis confirmed by state and industry officials.

The AP count based on current drilling activity and production estimates found the state already has surpassed the 113 million barrels produced through all of 2010.

Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, confirmed the numbers on Wednesday and said the state should end the year with about 150 million barrels of oil.

"Those are significant numbers for home-grown domestic crude," said Ness, whose group represents about 250 companies working in the state's oil patch.

Record drilling, strong crude prices and favorable fall weather have pushed production in the state's oil patch, said Lynn Helms, director of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources.

The state Industrial Commission said crude production in September totaled 464,122 barrels a day, or nearly 123,000 more barrels than September 2010. The state Industrial Commission said crude production through September totaled about 105.8 million barrels.

September statistics are the latest available because oil production numbers typically lag at least two months, but current drilling activity indicates the state likely surpassed last year's record sometime in October, Ness said.

North Dakota sweet crude prices have been nudging $100 a barrel this week, up about $25 a barrel from last year.

Helms said the state would surely hit the half-million daily barrel mark by year's end.

"We should be about there," said Helms, the state's top oil regulator. He earlier had predicted the state to reach 475,000 barrels by the end of 2011.

A record 204 rigs were drilling in western North Dakota in the past week, nearly all aiming for the rich Bakken and Three Forks formations. Helms expects about a dozen more rigs working by the end of the year.

The state had a record 6,071 producing oil wells in September, up 120 from August, and nearly 1,000 more than a year ago.

"It looks like we will continue drilling wells at a record pace," Helms said.

Still, oil production has been slowed by the lack of crews to perform hydraulic fracturing, a process that uses pressurized fluid and sand to break open oil-bearing rock 2 miles underground. Helms said an additional 10 so-called frack crews are slated to be working in western North Dakota by next spring, bringing the number to 45.

The ability to move crude to market is keeping pace with North Dakota's oil production, said Justin Kringstad, director of the North Dakota Pipeline Authority.

The so-called daily takeaway capacity for North Dakota and eastern Montana at present is about 773,000 barrels, including 438,000 by pipe and 335,000 by rail, he said.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Guest Post: Announcing Frac Baby, Frac!

We have a tremendous story to tell here in North Dakota. The energy industry is leading to unprecedented opportunities for our citizens, our state and our country. We face challenges to be sure – but we can meet those challenges. The media focus on negative aspects of energy development is misguided at best.

We are introducing a new website www.fracbabyfrac.com to spread the truth about energy development in North Dakota. Please check out this website and give me your feedback.

A recent editorial in The Forum (October 31, 2011) decried the oil impact on tourism. Apparently, our state is better off when hotels and motels have rooms that go un-rented during the week so that tourists can get a room on the weekend! I love North Dakota but tourism will never have the economic impact of our energy and agriculture sectors.

This media focus on the negative misses the bigger point – even those directly involved in the Bakken can sometimes lose sight of the magnitude of this story. North Dakota will be the #2 oil producing state by the end of 2012. We are already rivaling some of the smaller OPEC countries in oil production.

North Dakota currently has about 6,000 producing wells and we are nearing 500,000 barrels a day in oil production. Texas is the #1 oil producing state at over 1.2 million barrels per day – but Texas has 150,000 wells!

The average Bakken well pays over $10 million to mineral owners, $6 million in tax revenue and $1.5 million in wages over its productive life. We will drill another 2,000 wells in 2012 – these numbers are staggering.

But this blessing faces serious headwinds with the EPA and other federal agencies. Our success in the Bakken is not a given. Just look at Alaska. Alaska’s oil production is less than 600,000 barrels a day and dropping. Alaska has vast energy resources, perhaps even some unconventional oil plays like the Bakken but federal regulations and extreme environmental groups have put much of Alaska’s resources off limits. As good as the story is for North Dakota we should not be producing more oil than Alaska.

Please take a minute and post a comment on www.fracbabyfrac.com about what the Bakken means to you. Click here for more on this subject.

Together we will tell the story about North Dakota.

Rep. Bette Grande represents District 41 in North Dakota’s legislature and is a candidate for the NDGOP nomination for the US House.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

U.S. energy policy: A slow national suicide

With Keystone XL delay, America continues its slow economic strangulation

In 1969, three unrelated events occurred that have since been combined with political bungling to slowly strangle the U.S. economy. Moammar Gadhafi overthrew King Idris of Libya. He nationalized Western oil company reserves with no retribution from the U.S. Sensing our weakness, all of the other OPEC nations abrogated their concession agreements with U.S. companies. The Arab producers cut back production and embargoed the U.S. because of our support for Israel. Middle East despots have been in the driver's seat ever since, and as the Arab Spring seems increasingly likely to empower Islamists, things are unlikely to get better.

Also that year, an oil spill from a drilling platform off Santa Barbara was the catalyst for the current environmentalist efforts to prevent all exploration on the continental shelves on the East and West coasts and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. crude production went into irreversible decline.

Finally, in 1969 synthetic crude oil from the Athabasca tar sand of Alberta, Canada, began to be produced. It has been transported without incident to U.S. refiners by pipeline for 40 years. There is now an environmental movement to prevent the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to deliver additional tar sands crude from Alberta to the U.S. to make up for declining U.S. production. Opponents of Keystone XL won a victory this month when President Barack Obama refused to sign off on the pipeline's proposed route, forcing at least a year's delay as the project is reconfigured.

These are the same environmentalists, of course, who block exploration on the continental shelves and ANWR, which adds to the U.S. and global oil shortage, driving up prices that make the Athabasca tar sands projects viable. In any event, if Keystone XL is blocked, a pipeline will be built to Canada's West Coast for Chinese deliveries. This will reduce China's need for Middle East crude and increase our requirements for supplies from people who want to destroy the U.S.

The administration continues to push for wind and sun projects (see the Solyndra debacle). Multiple studies show that wind power does not reduce carbon dioxide because of the inefficient cycling operations in fossil fuel plants to provide instant power into the grid when the wind stops blowing.

As for solar, to provide a measurable amount of power it would be necessary to cover a major portion of the Mojave Desert with mirrors to collect heat at the peak of the day and again would require cycling of fossil fuel plants to make up for when the sun doesn't shine.

The same radical opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline has expanded to the production of natural gas from the Marcellus shale formation, which stretches from New York through Pennsylvania and Maryland into West Virginia, with unsubstantiated claims of impending disaster for the water tables. Hydro-fracturing has been used in secondary/tertiary oil and gas recovery for 60 years in the West with no detrimental effect on the environment or water supplies, and coupled with horizontal drilling is responsible for raising crude production in the Dakotas to slow U.S. declines. Maryland has a moratorium on shale gas production.

Much-maligned Big Oil still has the only technology capable of developing additional energy supplies, shorn of government impediments. Meanwhile, anti-nuclear activists have stopped all consideration of nuclear power in the U.S. in the wake of Fukushima — which, despite being the worst nuclear meltdown in history, caused no nuclear-related deaths.

CFP of France was thrown out of the Middle East, along with the U.S. companies, in 1974. The country immediately launched a focused strategy to reduce reliance on Mideast oil. Today France has the world's most sophisticated high-speed electric rail system, produces 80 percent of its power by nuclear plants and reprocesses its spent nuclear fuel. The Nissan Renault Leaf pure electric car is now in mass production. By 2030, France will be essentially carbon dioxide free except for jet fuel and diesel fuel for heavy truck transportation.

Sun and wind will never become a significant portion of our energy mix. High-priced oil since the 1970s has created 40 years of extensive conservation; there is little more to be gained. We can either emulate the French and in parallel aggressively expand our fossil fuel resources or face a slow, brutal economic decline against rising Asian power, coupled to increasing risks from an increasingly volatile region that controls the world's oil supplies.

The garrote is an unpleasant execution by slow strangulation. It is extremely difficult to commit national suicide by turning the handle ourselves, but we are trying.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate

A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

“I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Click Here to View Article

Old Boats Get New Life In Annapolis

COMMENT: These boats could probably been repowered for no more than $10,000 to $15000 each, assuming they needed repowering at all. Instead, you and I paid an absurd price through grants that no rational person would have paid.






Annapolis Mayor Joshua J. Cohen announced that the City has received the first of two cutting-edge propulsion systems, mounted on Harbormaster boats, helping to save the Bay while saving the City money.

Only a dozen of these hybrid diesel-electric-solar propulsion systems exist worldwide and Annapolis was awarded grant money to purchase two of the twelve. The system updates were available through grants awarded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Canadian Government. The EPA funded $300,000 of the $400,000 price tag to update both boats and the Canadian government funded the remaining $100,000. Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association (MARAMA) was responsible for securing the EPA grant for Annapolis.

The patrol boat will be used to collect mooring fees and will also be used as a water rescue boat as needed. The second boat, due to arrive in Annapolis in January of 2012, will have the propulsion system mounted on a pump out boat.

“As part of the City’s Clean & Green initiative, this project addressed the need for resources on the water directly affecting the health of the Bay,” Mayor Cohen said. “I want to thank the Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association for leading the effort to get the EPA grant money for this project. It’s one more example of how municipalities are relying on partnerships to generate large outcomes with limited budgets.

The patrol boat is operated by the Harbormaster’s office and will run on battery power for one-half of its life cycle, which is about 20 years. Overall, the city will see a 50% savings in fuel costs over the life of the boat.

“The new Harbor Patrol Boat being rolled out today blends hybrid diesel, electric and solar technology to ensure that public funds are well spent in carrying out important public-sector functions,” said U.S. Senator Ben Cardin. “From collecting fees to water rescue, this new patrol boat is state-of-the-art and will provide the City of Annapolis with an important resource.”

“The EPA is pleased to see cleaner, more efficient diesel engines in the Annapolis Patrol Boat and the pump out boat, each of which will help bring cleaner, healthier air to the Annapolis Harbor and its surrounding communities,” said EPA Mid-Atlantic Regional Administrator Shawn M. Garvin. “We are proud of our partnership with MARAMA and the City of Annapolis working to sustain needed operations while doing what’s necessary to protect people’s health and the environment.”

The City of Annapolis owned both the patrol and pump out boats prior to the addition of the new hybrid systems. The vessels were sent back to the original builder, Metalcraft Marine in Kingston, Ontario for the state-of-the-art updates.

MARAMA executive director, Susan Wierman, is very pleased that the project has been a success. “The Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association is proud to be involved in the unique Annapolis Diesel Engine Boat Repower Project,” she said. “Embracing new technologies is an important component of improving air quality. This project is a good example of what can be accomplished when people come together with a common goal and work together to come up with solutions that improve air quality for all.”

The City of Annapolis’ two diesel powered harbor boats are fitted with a Steyr Hybrid D solar-electric-bio-diesel propulsion system. The system operates the boats on solar power and batteries for up to three hours at speeds up to six knots without a requirement to turn the diesel engine on. Three-quarters of the harbor is subject to a six knot speed limit imposed by state law. By using emergent solar and renewable fuel technologies fuel consumption is reduced by up to 50% and emissions by over 50% in a given period.

Because of the new engines, in low speed situations, the diesel engine will not even be required. This is a key element in the program as ninety percent of the harbor patrol and pump out boat activities are conducted at speeds less than six (6) knots. At these speeds, under ordinary circumstances the diesel will not be used, therefore will burn no fuel, and emit no pollutants.

Due to gains in efficiency, the Steyr engine will produce 20 to 35 percent more power than the existing engines when needed for higher speeds. They also weigh less than the engines being replaced and burn significantly less fuel. Additionally, the new replacement engines will burn bio-diesel fuel providing even more environmental benefits.

For more information on the patrol boat, contact the Harbormaster’s Office at 410-263-7973

Click Here to View Article

Prince Philip blasts 'useless' wind farms

Britain's Prince Philip has launched a fierce attack on "absolutely useless" wind farms, in the latest outburst from the famously outspoken consort, a report said on Sunday.

The husband of Queen Elizabeth II said that onshore wind farms would never work and accused their supporters of believing in "fairy tales," a senior executive from a wind farm company told the Sunday Telegraph newspaper.

"He said they were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace," said Esbjorn Wilmar, of Infinergy, which builds and operates turbines.

"I was surprised by his very frank views."

Wilmar, who met the prince at a reception in London, said his attempts to argue that onshore wind farms were one of the most cost-effective forms of renewable energy received short shrift from Philip.

"He said, 'You don't believe in fairy tales do you?'" the executive recalled.

"He said that they would never work as they need back-up capacity."

Wilmar suggested the prince could put wind farms on his land, but he said that Philip responded: "You stay away from my estate, young man."

The prince's views put him at odds with the government, which plans to build more wind farms.

The Duke of Edinburgh, who turned 90 this year and is Britain's longest-serving consort, has often landed himself in trouble with his forthright remarks.

"You managed not to get eaten, then?" he told a British student who had trekked in Papua New Guinea in 1998.

A spokesman for the prince told the paper that Buckingham Palace would not comment on a private conversation.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Caesar Rodney Institute - Delaware Should Approve Natural Gas Fracking Rules

Plentiful natural gas coming from new wells in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are key to lower manufacturing cost, lower electricity prices, lower heating costs, and may possibly replace expensive foreign oil in our vehicle fleet. The Delaware River Basin Commission has been working on rules that will allow drilling in parts of Pennsylvania and New York that drain into the Delaware River. As a partner in the Commission, Delaware gets a vote on rule adoption even though there is no drilling potential here. Delaware should approve these rules:

* There has been ample time for review and public comment. Requests for more hearings is merely a delaying tactic by groups who want to stop drilling completely
*The proposed rules adequately protect the basin with well pad setbacks and well siting requirements, and requirements for waste water re-use or treatment
*The rules are consistent with other jurisdictions, some in operation for over sixty years, and with experience learned from over one million "fracked" wells drilled in the U. S. so far

A primary concern has been control of wastewater from "fracking" operations when water with additives is forced into horizontally drilled wells to form micro-cracks to allow gas to flow. The water can be effectively recycled or treated in approved waste water treatment plants eliminating this concern. A second issue is gas leakage into drinking wells. Most reports of well contamination have been shown to be caused by local near surface methane sources not related to drilled wells. Where the wells have caused contamination it is from problems with improperly built or managed near surface well casings. Technical solutions for these problems exist and are being addressed by individual state permitting authorities and are not part of the DRBC rule proposal.
David T. Stevenson
Director, Center for Energy Competitiveness

Click here to read this and more interesting articles at Caesar Rodney Institute

Fresh Water Killing Off Oysters In Upper Chesapeake Bay

Fresh Water Killing Off Oysters In Upper Chesapeake Bay

BALTIMORE (WJZ)—Way too much of a good thing is officially the cause for a die-off of oysters in the upper Chesapeake.

Alex DeMetrick reports too much rain washed away the salty water oysters need to survive.

Department of Natural Resources scientists are in the upper Chesapeake looking for oysters, after reports from watermen that this part of the bay has experienced a significant die-off.

And in at least isolated pockets, there are no live oysters.

“All the oysters are dead. This is a dead oyster. Fairly recently dead. It probably died after the tropical storms when the salinity dropped,” said Mitch Tarnowski, DNR senior biologist.

Tropical Storm Lee alone pumped 29 trillion gallons of fresh water into the bay, pushing out saltier water oysters need.

“When the salinity gets too low they are not able to maintain the normal processes that occur within tissue to keep them alive,” said Mike Naylor, DNR Shellfish program.

Oyster die-offs like this have happened five times before in the past century. They are not quick to recover.

“It may take another 10 years before we get more baby oysters up here,” Tarnowski said.

But south of the Bay Bridge in saltier water, the news is better. Oyster stocks are doing well and are being harvested. That’s not much help for watermen who work the upper bay.

“The crew found every oyster dead, and right then I knew we were in trouble,” said Barry Sweitzer, waterman.

And it’s not heartening for those trying to restore oysters, when all that comes up are empty shells called boxes.

“It’s pretty depressing when you hear the death rattle as the boxes hit the table,” Tarnowski said.

The state will look into restocking affected areas with baby oysters raised in the lab–a process that will take years to produce enough oysters to harvest.

Click Here to View Article

A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy Search

COMMENT: It's amazing how good building solar power is for investors when you and I (taxpayers) guarantee them a profit. Another example of crony capitalism in action while the average taxpayer sees economic decline.

WASHINGTON — Halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, on a former cattle ranch and gypsum mine, NRG Energy is building an engineering marvel: a compound of nearly a million solar panels that will produce enough electricity to power about 100,000 homes.

The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.

The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.

A great deal of attention has been focused on Solyndra, a start-up that received $528 million in federal loans to develop cutting-edge solar technology before it went bankrupt, but nearly 90 percent of the $16 billion in clean-energy loans guaranteed by the federal government since 2009 went to subsidize these lower-risk power plants, which in many cases were backed by big companies with vast resources.

When the Obama administration and Congress expanded the clean-energy incentives in 2009, a gold-rush mentality took over.

As NRG’s chief executive, David W. Crane, put it to Wall Street analysts early this year, the government’s largess was a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and “we intend to do as much of this business as we can get our hands on.” NRG, along with partners, ultimately secured $5.2 billion in federal loan guarantees plus hundreds of millions in other subsidies for four large solar projects.

“I have never seen anything that I have had to do in my 20 years in the power industry that involved less risk than these projects,” he said in a recent interview. “It is just filling the desert with panels.”

From 2007 to 2010, federal subsidies jumped to $14.7 billion from $5.1 billion, according to a recent study.

Most of the surge came from the economic stimulus bill, which was passed in 2009 and financed an Energy Department loan guarantee program and a separate Treasury Department grant program that were promoted as important in creating green jobs.

States like California sweetened the pot by offering their own tax breaks and by approving long-term power-purchase contracts that, while promoting clean energy, will also require ratepayers to pay billions of dollars more for electricity for as long as two decades. The federal loan guarantee program expired on Sept. 30. The Treasury grant program is scheduled to expire at the end of December, although the energy industry is lobbying Congress to extend it. But other subsidies will remain.

The windfall for the industry over the last three years raises questions of whether the Obama administration and state governments went too far in their support of solar and wind power projects, some of which would have been built anyway, according to the companies involved.

Obama administration officials argue that the incentives, which began on a large scale late in the Bush administration but were expanded by the stimulus legislation, make economic and environmental sense. Beyond the short-term increase in construction hiring, they say, the cleaner air and lower carbon emissions will benefit the country for decades.

“Subsidies and government support have been part of many key industries in U.S. history — railroads, oil, gas and coal, aviation,” said Damien LaVera, an Energy Department spokesman.

A Case Study

NRG’s California Valley Solar Ranch project is a case study in the banquet of government subsidies available to the owners of a renewable-energy plant.

The first subsidy is for construction. The plant is expected to cost $1.6 billion to build, with key components made by SunPower at factories in California and Asia. In late September, the Energy Department agreed to guarantee a $1.2 billion construction loan, with the Treasury Department lending the money at an exceptionally low interest rate of about 3.5 percent, compared with the 7 percent that executives said they would otherwise have had to pay.

That support alone is worth about $205 million to NRG over the life of the loan, according to an analysis performed for The New York Times by Booz & Company, a strategic consulting firm that regularly performs such studies for private investors.

When construction is complete, NRG is eligible to receive a $430 million check from the Treasury Department — part of a change made in 2009 that allows clean-energy projects to receive 30 percent of their cost as a cash grant upfront instead of taking other tax breaks gradually over several years.

Californians are also making a big contribution. Under a state law passed to encourage the construction of more solar projects, NRG will not have to pay property taxes to San Luis Obispo County on its solar panels, saving it an estimated $14 million a year.

Assisted by another state law, which mandates that California utilities buy 33 percent of their power from clean-energy sources by 2020, the project’s developers struck lucrative contracts with the local utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, to buy the plant’s power for 25 years.

P.G.& E., and ultimately its electric customers, will pay NRG $150 to $180 a megawatt-hour, according to a person familiar with the project, who asked not to be identified because the price information was confidential. At the time the contract was awarded, that was about 50 percent more than the expected market cost of electricity in California from a newly built gas-powered plant, state officials said.

While neither state regulators nor the companies will divulge all the details, the extra cost to ratepayers amounts to a $462 million subsidy, according to Booz, which calculated the present value of the higher rates over the life of the contracts.

Additional depreciation tax breaks for renewable energy plants could save the company an additional $110 million, according to Christopher Dann, the Booz analyst who examined the project.

The total value of all those subsidies in today’s dollars is about $1.4 billion, leading to an expected rate of return of 25 percent for the project’s equity investors, according to Booz.

Mr. Crane of NRG disputed the Booz estimate, saying that the company’s return on equity was “in the midteens.”

NRG, which initially is investing about $400 million of its own money in the project, expects to get all of its equity back in two to five years, according to a statement it made in August to Wall Street analysts.

By 2015, NRG expects earnings of at least $300 million a year before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization from all of its solar projects combined, making these investments some of the more lucrative pieces in its sprawling portfolio, which includes dozens of power plants fueled by coal, natural gas and oil.

NRG is not the only company gobbling up subsidies. At least 10 of the 16 solar or wind electricity generation projects that secured Energy Department loan guarantees intend to also take the Treasury Department grant, and all but two of the projects have long-term agreements to sell almost all of their power, according to a survey of the companies by The Times.

These projects, in almost all cases, benefit from legislation that has been passed in about 30 states that pushes local utility companies to buy a significant share of their power from renewable sources, like solar or wind power. These mandates often have resulted in contracts with above-market rates for the project developers, and a guarantee of a steady revenue stream.

“It is like building a hotel, where you know in advance you are going to have 100 percent room occupancy for 25 years,” said Kevin Smith, chief executive of SolarReserve. His Nevada solar project has secured a 25-year power-purchase agreement with the state’s largest utility and a $737 million Energy Department loan guarantee and is on track to receive a $200 million Treasury grant.

Because the purchase mandates can drive up electricity rates significantly, some states, including New Jersey and Colorado, are considering softening the requirements on utilities.

Brookfield Asset Management, a giant Canadian investment firm, will receive so many subsidies for a New Hampshire wind farm that they are worth 46 percent to 80 percent of the $229 million price of the project, when measured in today’s dollars, according to analyses for The Times performed by Booz and two other two industry financial experts. (The wide range reflects a disagreement between the experts on the future price of electricity in New Hampshire.)

Richard Legault, the chief executive of Brookfield Renewable Power, the division that oversees the Granite Reliable project in New Hampshire, declined to discuss his profit expectations in detail, but said the project might not have happened without government assistance.

“When everything has come together, it is a good investment for Brookfield, it is no doubt,” Mr. Legault said. “We are quite happy with it.” (Brookfield is also the owner of the small park in Manhattan that is home to the Occupy Wall Street protesters.)

Even companies whose business has little to do with energy or finance, like the Internet giant Google, benefit from the public subsidies. Google has invested in several renewable energy projects, including a giant solar plant in the California desert and a wind farm in Oregon, in part to get federal tax breaks that it can use to offset its profits from Web advertising.

Industry executives and other supporters of the subsidies say that the public money was vital to the projects, in part because financing for renewable energy projects dried up during the recession. They also note that more traditional energy sectors, like oil and natural gas, get heavy subsidies of their own. For example, in the 2010 fiscal year, the oil and gas producers got federal tax breaks of $2.7 billion, according to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration.

“These programs just level the playing field for what oil and gas and nuclear industries have enjoyed for the last 50 years,” said Rhone Resch, president of Solar Energy Industries Association. “Do you have to provide more policy support and funding initially? Absolutely. But the result is more energy security, clean energy and domestic jobs.”

Michael E. Webber, associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, Austin, said renewable energy subsidies were a worthy investment. “It is a form of corporate welfare that is consistent with other social goals like job creation, clean air and boosting a domestic source of energy,” he said.

Overflowing Breaks

Obama administration officials said the subsidies were intended to help renewable-energy plants that were jumbo-sized or used innovative technology, both potential obstacles to getting private financing. But even proponents of the subsidies say the administration may have gone overboard.

Concerns that the government was being too generous reached all the way to President Obama. In an October 2010 memo prepared for the president, Lawrence H. Summers, then his top economic adviser; Carol M. Browner, then his adviser on energy matters; and Ronald A. Klain, then the vice president’s chief of staff, expressed discomfort with the “double dipping” that was starting to take place. They said investors had little “skin in the game.”

Officials involved in reviewing the loan applications said that Treasury Department officials pressed the Energy Department to respond to these concerns.

Officials at both agencies declined to discuss the anticipated financial returns of the clean-energy projects the federal government has agreed to guarantee, saying the information was confidential.

But Energy Department officials said they had carefully evaluated every project to try to calculate how much money the developers and investors stood to make. “They were rejected, if they looked too rich or too risky,” Mr. LaVera, the Energy Department spokesman said.

In at least one instance — NRG’s Agua Caliente solar project in Yuma County, Ariz. — the Energy Department demanded that the company agree not to apply for a Treasury grant it was legally entitled to receive. The government was concerned the extra subsidy would result in excessive profit, NRG executives confirmed.

In other cases, the agency required that companies use most of the Treasury grants that they would get when construction was complete to pay down part of the government-guaranteed construction loans instead of cashing out the equity investors.

“The private sector really has more skin in the game than the public realizes,” said Andy Katell, a spokesman for GE Energy Financial Services, which like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other financial firms has large investments in several of these projects.

But there is no doubt that the deals are lucrative for the companies involved.

G.E., for example, lobbied Congress in 2009 to help expand the subsidy programs, and it now profits from every aspect of the boom in renewable-power plant construction.

It is also an investor in one solar and one wind project that have secured about $2 billion in federal loan guarantees and expects to collect nearly $1 billion in Treasury grants. The company has also won hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts to sell its turbines to wind plants built with public subsidies.

Mr. Katell said G.E. and other companies were simply “playing ball” under the rules set by Congress and the Obama administration to promote the industry. “It is good for the country, and good for our company,” he said.

Satya Kumar, an analyst at Credit Suisse who specializes in renewable energy companies, said there was no question the country would see real benefits from the surge in renewable energy projects.

“But the industry could have done a lot more solar for a lot less price, in terms of subsidy,” he said.

Eric Lipton reported from Washington and Clifford Krauss from Houston.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 18, 2011

An article on Saturday about public subsidies for renewable energy projects described incorrectly the earnings that the utility company NRG projected by 2015 from its solar projects. The company told investors that it expected the projects to generate $354 million annually in Ebitda, or earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization; it did not project “more than $300 million a year in profits.” (While Ebitda is one common method of viewing profitability, “profits” is more typically used to describe pretax income, which the company said would be $49 million a year.)

Click Here To View Article

Some Watermen Quit After Massive Oyster Die-Off

BALTIMORE (WJZ) — A massive die-off of oysters in the Chesapeake is placing livelihoods on the brink.
Alex DeMetrick reports some watermen are already calling it quits.
Every oyster season will turn up empty shells and dead oysters, but this year was worse than normal.
“Some of the bars were 100 percent dead. We didn’t find a live oyster at all,” said waterman Barry Sweitzer.
Watermen say the Chesapeake north of the bay has become an oyster graveyard. They blame the massive runoff from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, which brought debris and a flood of fresh water, which kills oysters.
“We can’t oyster through this. This has really hit us hard,” said waterman Richard Manly.
“The hurricane’s gone from most people’s memories but if you work the bay, you’re dealing with it every day,” said waterman Greg Jetton.
Sweitzer is dealing with it by getting out. He’ll place one of Maryland’s last working skipjacks for sale, a boat that’s supported his family for 64 years.
“I don’t have any other choice. Logistically, I can’t work the lower bay; it’s just too far away,” he said.
Because oysters reproduce best in saltier water, the northern bay will take years to recover.
“If you get a good spawn once every five years in the upper bay, you’re doing pretty good,” said Erik Zlokovitz, DNR Fisheries.
“The worst part for me with this boat, it’s not the money you make off of it, it’s the opportunity to go out there and watch the sun come up and actually do the job and that’s what’s heartbreaking to me. That breaks my heart,” Sweitzer said.
Although watermen believe tropical weather triggered the oyster die-off, state scientists have yet to determine an exact cause.

Click Here To View Article

Most solar manufacturers may vanish by 2015, Trina CEO says

Most of the biggest solar-equipment makers may disappear in the next few years as plunging prices erode margins and drive the weakest out of business, according to Trina Solar Ltd., the fifth-largest supplier of solar panels."This is the decade of mergers and acquisitions," Jifan Gao, chief executive officer of Changzhou, China-based Trina, said in an interview. "From now until 2015 is the first phase, when about two-thirds of the players will be shaken out."Three U.S. solar companies including Solyndra LLC have gone bankrupt this year and more, led by First Solar Inc. and Yingli Green Energy Holding Co., slashed sales and margin forecasts, reflecting slower growth in demand and stiffer competition. SunPower Corp. and Roth & Rau AG of Germany agreed to takeovers.Gao, who founded Trina in 1997, predicted that only about five companies may survive through 2020 in each of the three major manufacturing segments. He defined those as photovoltaic panels, ingots and wafers, and the raw material polysilicon."Globally, that would be stable and sustainable," Gao said last week at a conference in Singapore, without naming survivors or giving expectations for his own company.SunPower and First Solar, the largest U.S. solar-gear manufacturers, this month said they will reorganize after cutting their forecasts.Meyer Burger Technology Ltd., Europe’s biggest manufacturer of the factory equipment for making solar gear, today said it would delay the full takeover of Roth & Rau.The decision was made after the German competitor issued a profit warning yesterday that may cause Baar, Switzerland-based Meyer Burger to take impairments of as much as 60 million euros ($83 million), compared with its $376 million takeover price. Roth & Rau plunged 27 percent, the biggest decline since it began trading in 2006.Mergers have picked up this year as share prices have tumbled for producers of solar components and finished panels. Germany’s SolarWorld AG, the biggest maker of traditional photovoltaic panels based outside of China, fell 66 percent last quarter, the most since it began trading in 1999.Deals for solar companies worldwide total more than $3.3 billion this year, up from $2.5 billion last year and more than half the record $6.1 billion set in 2009, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.Trina ranks fifth by factory capacity among the world’s biggest makers of traditional panels from crystalline silicon. The leaders are China’s Suntech Power Holdings Co. and LDK Solar Co., followed by Ontario-based Canadian Solar Inc. and SolarWorld, according to Bloomberg industry data that lists Trina with a 1.2-gigawatt capacity at Dec. 31. Gao said Trina has since increased that to 1.9 gigawatts.Hemlock Semiconductor Corp., owned by Dow Corning Corp., is the top maker of polysilicon, followed by Wacker Chemie AG of Germany, OCI Co. Ltd. of South Korea and GCL Poly Energy Holdings Ltd. of China, according to Bloomberg industry data.Investors and project developers are increasingly looking at cash and survivability of manufacturers, executives said."Customers are flying to quality," seeking suppliers who are considered reliable enough for banks to lend on projects, Suntech CEO Zhengrong Shi said last week. The top six manufacturers took 55 percent of the panel market in the second quarter, up from 26 percent last year, he said.The Bloomberg Industry Global Leaders Large Solar Energy index has lost 59 percent this year, more than 10 times the 5.7 percent decline in the MSCI World Index. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index has gained 0.3 percent in the period.German solar-panel maker Q-Cells SE, whose 2012 convertible bond trading at a discount to face value of about 58 percent, has said it’s open to takeover bids. Orkla ASA said on Sept. 14 it’s looking for ways to exit from its 39.7 percent stake in Norwegian panel and polysilicon maker Renewable Energy Corp ASA.Survivors will need strong technology, economies of scale and the ability to innovate quickly, "but also very strong financial performance, very healthy balance sheets," Gao said.A ranking of 35 companies in the Bloomberg Global Leaders Large Solar Index shows Conergy AG, which makes panels in Germany, has the weakest balance sheet with a total debt exceeding total equity by more than tenfold, data compiled by Bloomberg show. LDK Solar and Canadian Solar also rank among the five most leveraged companies with short and long-term borrowings more than double shareholder equity.The Chinese companies have a "huge" cost advantage over their European, American and Japanese competitors because of better operational management and an ability to react faster to market conditions, Gao said.The spot price of solar panels has fallen about 40 percent this year as manufacturers particularly in China ramped up their production capacity, according to New Energy Finance. The 10 largest silicon panel manufacturers doubled their manufacturing capacity last year, the data show.Many solar-equipment companies are losing money at the operating level, as the average operating margin fell to 0.1 percent in the third quarter compared with 13.7 percent a year earlier, Bloomberg industry data show.At Trina, second-quarter panel shipments jumped 78 percent from the year-earlier period, while its operating margin shrunk to 5.7 percent from 22.5 percent.Prices will fall further, which will spur the market to expand many-fold by 2020 because solar power will become more affordable across the world, Fang Peng, chief executive of JA Solar Holdings Co., told a conference in Singapore this week.
"The industry has a very bright future even if right now we’re in winter," Peng said.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Delaware could be deciding vote on natural gas drilling

Our comment: It appears Delaware Governor Jack Markell may cast the deciding vote on whether more natural gas will become available to Delaware citizens. Over time, this increased supply would naturally result in lower prices. Environmentalists are alarmed because their carefully laid plans are being destroyed. They are driving energy prices higher to force the rest of us to change our habits against our will. This strategy is being disrupted by new, safe technologies that are bringing massive new quantities of natural gas and oil to Americans from our own country, rather than foreign lands.It will be an interesting test for Governor Markell. Will he stand with the economically stressed citizens of Delaware, or will a handful of elite environmentalists, mostly from out of state, get their way? So far, to the best of our knowledge, he has stood 100% on the side of higher cost energy.Will he reach a hand out to the four young men I saw walking down Rt. 113 last week with no destination in sight? One of them wore only a worn dress shirt against a biting wind and cold temperatures. How about the underweight young man I recently observed trying to buy lunch for $1.69 who had his credit card declined?With real unemployment standing near 20% for several years, many of our citizens are in desperate financial condition. They can't afford an extra dime for energy but over and over their need has been ignored by Delaware's government.As the saying goes, however, every day can be a new beginning. There can always be positive change and if Governor Markel decides in favor of the people this time, we'll praise him to the rafters for it.



Delaware has landed at the center of a political and environmental battle over natural gas locked deep underground far north of the state's border, with Gov. Jack Markell's administration seen as a potential swing vote on well-drilling regulations set to go before a regional commission next Monday.
A coalition of environmental groups emphasized the state's role in the natural gas "fracking" dispute late Monday, calling on Markell to oppose new rules during a news conference and presentation at the University of Delaware's Trabant Center.
"I really don't know where Delaware stands," said Maya van Rossum, who directs the regional Delaware Riverkeeper Network. "I think that they're a big question mark, and they could be the deciding vote."
Markell holds one of five seats on the Delaware River Basin Commission, a group considering new rules to protect surface and groundwater during extraction of natural gas trapped in shale deposits below northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York. The commission's proposals would also regulate the amount of water used for wells and the injection of water and other chemicals into the ground to break up stone and release gas.
Supporters argue that drilling methods are safe and the region and nation need the energy and economic boost new wellfields will bring. Opponents say the rock fracturing, or fracking, process will damage aquifers, pollute groundwater and eventually taint the Delaware River.
They also claim that the public has been shut out of the latest rulemaking effort.
"The administration has heard from a number of people on this issue and is still reviewing the proposals before next week's vote," Brian Selander, Markell's spokesman, said Monday afternoon. "The significant majority of contacts made with our office have been from out of state, and the majority of those have been from those opposed."
Monday evening, fracking opponents directed more comments Markell's way, after calling on him throughout the day to attend the UD program. Administration officials said Markell's schedule Monday night did not include activities at Trabant Center, however. Similar rallies were held in Harrisburg, Trenton, N.J., Philadelphia and New York. The governors of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York also direct the commission, along with a representative of the Army Corps of Engineers' Philadelphia district office. Any three could approve the new regulations. Markell was expected to designate Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Secretary Collin O'Mara to represent him on Nov. 21, Selander said. Tom Shepstone, a northeastern Pennsylvania landowner and representative of Energy In Depth, a gas and oil industry coalition, said Monday that approval is long overdue. The Susquehanna River Basin Commission approved rules targeting shale gas wells in late 2008, and has continued to update the program. Pennsylvania has issued thousands of well-drilling permits this year for land outside the Delaware River watershed, and officials in that state have reported that shale gas wells now produce more natural gas than the state needs. "Why we were treated differently than the SRBC obviously was a political thing. It shouldn't have taken anywhere near this long," said Shepstone, who described the gas industry as an economic lifeline. "We desperately need something in our area of Pennsylvania to revive things. We're going nowhere. This is extremely important." Bentek Energy, a Colorado-based industry analysis company, reported recently that shale gas discoveries will likely lead to a doubling of pipeline capacity by 2013, with major expansions in the Northeast. The Energy Department has separately predicted that shale gas production -- a tiny fraction of national output just 10 years ago, could grow to 46 percent of the nation's natural gas output in 25 years, with proven reserves doubling in just one year. The Marcellus shale in the Northeast is the largest continuous formation of its type in the world, Bentek pointed out last year, and because of its location under and near major metropolitan areas, is a potential boon to suppliers and users. The New Jersey Sierra Club club countered Monday that the environmental price for extracting the gas is too high, while delivering more than 71,000 letters from citizens and lawmakers opposing the DRBC's draft rules to Gov. Chris Christie. "The rules were weak and now they have made them worse without public scrutiny," Jeff Tittel, the New Jersey Sierra Club's director said. Fracking opponents have argued that drilling produces huge amounts of water laced with chemicals difficult to treat or remove before discharge to public rivers and streams. The Environmental Protection Agency has largely left the job of regulating those discharges to the states and programs unprepared to deal with the challenge, according to critics. Claims have surfaced that well-drilling operations have altered groundwater quality, spilled toxic wastewater into soils, caused erosion and air pollution and fouled wells, in some cases sending methane gas into home wells. One company, Cabot Oil & Gas, was required to provide replacement water supplies to several households northwest of Scranton, Pa., after tests found methane and other chemicals in wells after drilling began nearby. Company officials denied that their operation tainted the wells. The EPA recently announced plans to study the effects of fracking on drinking water, and said it would develop national wastewater management standards for the industry. Shepstone said the opposition has focused on "hysteria" surrounding unproven incidents of groundwater and well contamination.Kathryn Klaber, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said her group was encouraged by the move toward regulations allowing well development, but added that industry has questions of its own. "We ... have concerns given what we don't know about these proposed regulations, particularly regarding what exactly the Natural Gas Development Plans may, or may not, require," Klaber said. The Delaware Riverkeeper's van Rossum dismissed the DRBC's proposals as inadequate and not sufficiently protective. "We are at one of the defining moments of our time and for our region," van Rossum said. "Will we trade the water, air, food and health of thousands of communities and millions of people to smash gas from the ancient rocks for a false promise of cheap energy?"

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE

Susquehanna dam’s sediment has officials fearing for the Chesapeake Bay

At the Conowingo Hydroelectric Dam in northeast Maryland, the barbarians are at the sluice gates.
Sediment, millions of tons of it, has flowed down the 440-mile Susquehanna River for more than 80 years and massed at the dam. And now a reservoir built to hold it is filling up.
The threat to the Chesapeake Bay came into sharp focus when Tropical Storm Lee produced record flows in the river in September, forcing officials to open the gates. Four million tons of sediment rushed through in about four days, equal to what the bay normally gets in four years. Half the bay’s blue-green waters appear as beige as coffee with cream in recent satellite images.
Worried state and federal officials are confronted with an obvious question. Could the next monster storm force even greater amounts of sediment into the bay? That could turn dirtied waters into periodic oxygen-depleted killing fields for species of marine life they are fighting to save.
Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) and Col. David E. Anderson, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Baltimore District, recently launched a $1.4 million, three-year series of studies to examine how storms can undermine efforts to protect the bay from sediment and other pollution.
The District, Virginia, Maryland and four other states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are in the first stage of an ambitious federal bay-restoration program that will cost tens of billions of dollars before it is completed in 2025.
“Tropical Storm Lee provided a vivid demonstration of the need to take steps to head off what could be a catastrophic event causing . . . enormous damage to our restoration processes,” O’Malley said. “The time to address this threat is now.”
Sediment doesn’t threaten the walls of the dam. But when Lee’s relentless rain produced near-record river flows last month, the Conowingo couldn’t stand much more water pressure. Throwing open the gates resulted in a jailbreak for the sediment.
According to a U.S. Geological Survey estimate, more than 160 million tons of sediment floats behind the Conowingo, built near Darlington, Md., in 1928. About 3 million tons arrive there each year, and about a million tons of that sloshes over the gates, said Mike Langland, a USGS hydrologist.
Environmentalists say the sediment dump during the storm was so high that it could spawn another mammoth, oxygen-depleted “dead zone” like this past summer’s.
If the storage capacity is reached in about 20 years, as Langland predicted, at least 3 million tons of sediment would wash into the bay yearly, making matters far worse.
Mixed with the sediment are large amounts of phosphorus and nitrogen from farms and cities upstream. Those nutrients are enemies No. 1 and 2 of environmentalists hoping to reduce pollution in the Chesapeake, the nation’s largest estuary.
The Susquehanna starts at Cooperstown, N.Y., flowing at about 20 miles per day in summer through Pennsylvania until it reaches Havre de Grace, Md. There it pours 18 million gallons of water per minute into the Chesapeake. It’s the biggest freshwater flow into the bay by far, supplying as much as 60 percent of the Bay’s fresh water compared with the Potomac River’s 19 percent.
The flow of sediment into the bay from the Susquehanna would increase by at least 150 percent if the dam’s reservoir filled.
On top of that, phosphorus levels would increase by 40 percent and nitrogen by 2 percent.
Not all sediment is bad. Some is composed of gravelly material that helps support bay grasses that protect young fish from predators.
But a lot of it is granular stuff that blots out light and smothers grasses in the Chesapeake. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus feed algae blooms that suck out oxygen, suffocating endangered bay oysters and other slow-moving shellfish.
“Anything that moves upstream eventually finds its way to the Conowingo,” said Mark Bryer, director of the Chesapeake Bay program for the Nature Conservancy. “Since we’ve been building dams, sediment has been a problem.”
The study is tasked with finding a way around the problem, getting sediment downriver in the least harmful way. “You don’t want it coming down in one big punch,” Bryer said.
Having a filter like the Conowingo helps, said Bruce Michael, director of resource assessment for Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources. “There’s a benefit to that dam being there” corraling it, Michael said. “We’re all trying to see how we can extend that trapping capacity behind the dam.”
Serena McClain, a director of river restoration for the conservation group American Rivers, had a different view. “Rivers move sediment. That’s their job,” she said. “When you put a dam in the river, that’s going to trap sediment. It’s only going to trap so much sediment before it goes over and is released.”
American Rivers advocates removing some dams, McClain said. The sediment the dams collect is often grit that pours through the orange mesh fencing of home builders or comes from mud loosened by bathing cattle. The Susquehanna is fed by 49,000 miles of rivers, streams, creeks, brooks and runs.
“There’s no obstruction to stop” it from being injected into the Susquehanna’s veins, McClain said.
With the help of the Nature Conservancy and other partners, state and federal officials will try to determine whether conservation measures such as cover crops, stream buffers and other methods can become an obstruction, soaking up rain before it can push sediment into waters, Michael said.
Some of those same measures are similar to what the federal Environmental Protection Agency calls for in its controversial “pollution diet” to reduce harmful sediment, phosphorus and nutrients that pour into the bay from cities and farms.
Environmentalists support stronger conservation measures, but farm lobbies and housing developers have fiercely contested these efforts, saying they’re expensive and extreme.
An American Farmers Association lawsuit against the EPA is making its way through a federal court in Pennsylvania, with support from home builders.
The federal government is putting up more than $1 million for the sediment study, according to the announcement. The remainder is being split by the Maryland departments of the Environment and Natural Resources, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Nature Conservancy.
“We have to somehow defuse the impact of the time bomb that’s been waiting for the next big flow,” Bryer said.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW ARTICLE