More

U.S. Shale Oil Boom Fought By Green Groups

First Posted: 12/27/11 01:35 PM ET Updated: 12/28/11 12:17 PM ET


* Green groups seen slowing development


* Success in fighting pipeline energizes efforts


* Shale oil and gas industry on defensive


By Ayesha Rascoe


WASHINGTON, Dec 27 (Reuters) - A resurgent green
movement is launching a multi-pronged counter-attack against the
shale oil and gas boom in the United States that could slow,
though ultimately not stop, development.


Building upon their unexpected success in the battle against
the Keystone XL pipeline, a renewed onslaught from
environmentalists is putting the shale industry on the defensive
while adding to costs, limiting expansion and potentially
scuttling major projects.
"I think it's the totality of what's going on all
at once, that's the biggest concern," said Barclay Nicholson, a
lawyer for the Washington-based Fulbright & Jaworski law firm,
which has represented companies involved in shale development.


With new oversight pending from federal and state authorities
and lawsuits, Nicholson said critics of shale development have a
plethora of avenues to fight back.


Environmentalists, alarmed at what they see as unchecked
industrialization of rural areas, say they are working to secure
more regulation of the rapidly growing shale industry to protect
fragile areas from damaging practices.



PIECE MEAL APPROACH


After legislation aimed at addressing climate change failed
to make it into law last year, green groups have been forced to
take a more piece meal approach to energy policy.


That strategy worked well against TransCanada's proposed
Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline, which environmentalists
successfully turned into a potent symbol of the threat of
carbon-intensive oil sands crude.


In November the Obama administration delayed the project,
once described as a "no brainer" by Canada's Prime Minister
Stephen Harper, after a wave of protests erupted in Washington
and on the campaign trail.


The decision was like a shot of adrenalin for the green
movement and groups are planning more creative and high profile
efforts to fight a range of energy projects.


Republicans in Congress maneuvered to keep
Keystone alive by including a provision in tax legislation that
would force the White House to make decision on the project
within 60 days.


But green groups have vowed to fight on and the
administration has already said it cannot approve the project
because of the time needed to study new routes.
"For the moment we're stuck fighting one pipeline,
one gas well at a time," said Bill McKibben, who rose to
prominence with his staging of huge protests against Keystone
and is now using his influence to attack the fracking bonanza.



FRACKING IN THE SPOTLIGHT


Oil and gas companies are using advanced drilling techniques
to unlock vast stores of shale fuel across the country, which is
bringing legions of rigs, trucks and workers to areas unused to
such activity.


The companies employ the controversial "fracking" drilling
process, that involves fracturing rock formations by shooting
vast and often secret cocktails of water and chemicals deep
underground to free a trove of hydrocarbons.


The oil and gas industry argues that the fracking technique
has been used safely for years and advances in the practice have
set off a revolution that is creating jobs and boosting U.S.
energy security.


But, environmentalists warn against downplaying their
concerns about fracking.


"I'm not sure that they really want a Keystone XL fight on
their hands, because the public is strong and they're not going
to back down on this issue," said Deb Nardone, director of the
Sierra Club's natural gas reform campaign, which formally
launched this year.


Worries about shale output have already prompted the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department to
begin crafting new regulations that address issues such as
wastewater disposal and disclosure of chemicals.


Green Groups have made headway with their appeals in New
York, where authorities have imposed a temporary moratorium on
shale drilling. Environmentalists also cheered a decision by
regulators to delay a vote on lifting a ban on shale drilling in
the Delaware River basin that affects the states of New York,
Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey.


John Sachs, a director at energy investment bank
Taylor-DeJongh, said the economic and domestic energy benefits
of access to cleaner burning natural gas will ultimately win
out, but green groups may be able to make inroads in some areas.


"It may slow down some of the development in some states,"
Sachs said. He said such delays would not necessarily be
negative for development, because it would allow industry and
regulators to address some of the public concerns.



CHANGING THE MAP


American Gas Association president Dave McCurdy recently
told reporters that while there were some legitimate concerns
about development, the problems were manageable.


"None of those are going to halt the production of shale gas
in this country," McCurdy told reporters earlier this month. "It
is changing the political and economic map."


Still, the expansion of shale production has spawned dozens
of local groups and activists focused on combating development.


Scott Ely, a resident of the small town of Dimock,
Pennsylvania, very much at the epicenter of the fight over shale
production, said he is trying to spread his story.


Green groups have rallied in support of Ely and 10 other
families in Dimock that say their water was contaminated after
Cabot Oil and Gas began drilling in their area. Cabot has denied
responsibility.


"As far as the oil industry goes, this is a machine you're
probably not going to be able to stop because the world needs
its gas," Ely said in Dimock in December where supporters in a
publicity event delivered fresh water to the families. "But
because of what we did three years ago, when we started coming
out, they've already started making changes in the way they
operate."

(Reporting By Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Bob Burgdorfer)

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

* Green groups seen slowing development * Success in fighting pipeline energizes efforts * Shale oil and gas industry on defensive By Ayesha Rascoe ...
* Green groups seen slowing development * Success in fighting pipeline energizes efforts * Shale oil and gas industry on defensive By Ayesha Rascoe ...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 174
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
10:03 PM on 12/29/2011
And they said flying was impossible but millions do every year. Oil and gas were originally found on the Surface of the earth. They are natural to it. The big money that plans on making bigger money from so-called green energy has spent their money well convincing people the opposite is true. If you ask an environmentalist to cite a specific example all they can come up with is the MOVIE gasland-that's like citing a fact from George Orwell's 84. Drill here and keep it here.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:24 PM on 01/12/2012
Human fossil burning emits 200 times all the volcanoes in the world combined.

Ya really think that won
t change the climate?

Not to mention the mercury, uranium, the methane and pollution of the water table... etc..

Wind efficiency and waste are all cheaper anyway, and forever.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/price-of-wind-lower-than-gas-hydro-in-brazil-auction
photo
Moose Luck 99
Rand Paul is a LIAR!
09:58 AM on 12/29/2011
Biofuels: Thinking Outside the Barrel
Why a positive energy future could be closer than you think
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/biofuels-thinking-outside-the-barrel.html
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
11:24 PM on 01/12/2012
Sorry, only waste should be converter to energy and fuel.
08:22 PM on 12/28/2011
I generally am a fan of the Huffington Post but this article is terrible. Where did you do your research, on google for ten minutes? While there's some bleed-over between people working on the fracking issue and those working on the Keystone XL issue, you've completely overlooked the extremely strong grassroots movement in New York State against fracking, that has been steadily growing for the last three years, long before the Keystone XL entered our consciousness. You can't throw a dart at a map of NY without hitting a local group of well-informed citizens from many walks of life - many of them would take serious offense to being called "green" - that have sprung up all over the place. Few are associated with the big national "green" groups. All are concerned about their communities, their way of life, and the local economy. They are working together in an unprecedented fashion to bring political pressure to bear. The bigger green groups take the credit for this sometimes, but if you look at the long list of groups that co-sponsor major events in Albany, you get a better picture of the movement.

Further, this article barely begins to dig into the real issues of concern over fracking. Compulsory integration, and eminent domain takings for pipelines have incensed rural landowners. Deceptive and fraudulent leasing practices have many landowners complaining to the Attorney Generals. The list of environmental concerns is long and specific.
This article reads like industry propaganda. Do your homework.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:32 PM on 12/29/2011
Hopefully Huffington Post will take your advice and make more of an effort to produce a better article as it IS lacking. Good journalism takes time and research. I find your comment to the writer, Ayesha Rascoe to be a polite criticism and I also expect better.
07:03 PM on 12/28/2011
high volume fracking has the potential to pollute every drop of drinking water in the united states with toxic chemicals and carcinogens....and again most of this gas will be exported out of the country....pure insanity.....
fallenawayrepublican
George Bush cured me, praise the lord.
08:12 PM on 12/28/2011
When you make those kinds of hysterical claims you cheapen your message and become just as big a liar and fool as the O&G industry.
08:39 PM on 12/28/2011
try to educate yourself on pollution.....there is not a fish in the world that isn't contaminated with mercury from fossil fuel combusiton....and fracking will do the same thing....only worse...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:34 PM on 12/29/2011
Playing both sides against the middle are we? Really?
10:32 PM on 12/29/2011
Fracking has been used for years safely. The water table for most areas is 200ft or above-the fracking takes place 7000ft or below. Modern techniques cement the rock layers below the water table. Companies draw the fraking water back up, reuse what they can and the rest is treated. Most of what comes out of the well is salt brine which for years has been the treatment of choice for most states roadway ice control. Many areas still use used oil for dust control on rural roads. Sensationalism by the money behind 'green' energy has done an excellent job of terrifying those who are not willing to read both sides of the issue.
04:12 PM on 12/28/2011
Why must we keep fighting like mad for the right to have a safe and healthy life??? Those imbeciles...don't they realize that in the end, their lives will be affected too? At the rate that our planet is being raped, we'll end up HOMO EXTINCTUS - pure and simple. And then what good are all the profits going to do?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:39 PM on 12/29/2011
I don't want us to "end up HOMO EXTINCTUS" either, which is WHY I keep writing these comments. I'm wanting to create a change in the way people view the environment and cause people to respect the planet NOT violate it.

F&F, Vera, I'm your 25th fan.
04:21 AM on 12/30/2011
I am not computer savvy, so enlighten me please...what does 'F&F' stand for?
It is the 'greed' factor that needs urgent removal - in the end, more and more will lead to less and less.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
centercentric
Writer, reflective Easterner.
12:19 PM on 12/28/2011
It's the scope of fracking that hasn't dawned on people, because it's almost incomprehensible: 350 MILLION truck trips a year on New York roads, according to the state's Dept. of Environmental Conservation. More than 42,000 wells at the peak rate of 1,650 new wells a year, for 20 straight years, 30 in total. Try to imagine living through that in rural New York. Big Gas wants to turn southern New York State into a west Texas wasteland. The landscape will be so crisscrossed by surface pipelines it will look like a sweater.

The thing is, this is a new process. Fracking on this scale has not been done before. There is little or no history to tell us whether a fracked horizontal bore will eventually leak nasty stuff into overhead aquifers and watersheds. We are rushing ahead just on the say-so of Big Gas, which is adamant the whole complex, gigantic process is as safe as breast feeding (except for the occasional, ah, mishap).

A poisoned stream in west Texas may not matter to many people, but this is rural Eastern Seaboard -- rich agricultural land, ecologically fecund rivers and streams, historic towns and villages, generations upon generations of families working the land and raising livestock, hunting and fishing, camping and birding, walking the Appalachian Trail. All this is simply not worth the risk, especially since the benefits will go almost entirely to Big Gas executives and shareholders.
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
05:14 PM on 12/28/2011
I agree with a lot of what you say, though from a different viewpoint. Coming from an oil and gas producing state, I would much rather increase exploration and production here than develop those resources in other states. You may not believe it, but we have been hydraulically fracturing wells for decades here, with no problems (and believe me, state DEQ and universities have looked. Hard.). I must say though that the decisions by a few should not impact the many. For example, my state sends the bulk of its gas to Illinois and California, since neither place wants to produce their own. That is fine, but it effects the residents here, because rates are higher. I propose that the residents of states with energy reserves they are not willing to exploit absolutely have that right, but should pay a hefty premium for having to import it from other states. I feel that is quite fair, since prices would drop in my state if you were to develop your resources.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:05 PM on 12/28/2011
Right on.
10:08 PM on 12/29/2011
fanned and faved for a very sensible post.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Imago
I thought so.
09:42 AM on 12/28/2011
Of course the industry is saying we can't stop them.
fallenawayrepublican
George Bush cured me, praise the lord.
07:50 PM on 12/28/2011
lets hope you cant stop them... i would hate to see your children freeze to death in the dark...i don't care about you , but your children are innocent of your misguided stupidity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
12:29 AM on 12/28/2011
Sorry about the double post of links in my last post a few minutes ago, I'm in a hurry.

It taking HP's mods practically forever to cut parts 1 & 2 loose and I posted them over TWO hours ago! I don't understand it as the stuff I posted was within this sites guidelines. Hp users have the right to read it.

http://www.chemtrails911.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0p_HpbMepc&feature=fvwrel
photo
LeFlaneur
does nuance.
12:15 AM on 12/28/2011
All this noise is no different than a bunch of 19th century whalers complaining about the Drake oil well. We're finding ways of harnessing energy that are better suited to the times we're living in. Have no fear. Greenies don't want to destroy the US power grid. Solar Power won't make you a commie. But time marches on and things change.
10:34 PM on 12/31/2011
An incredible breakthrough development in clean, free energy is the Johnson motor/generator. It uses permanent magnets to generate more energy than it uses. It has been patented and many people are now using it to save 75% on home electrical costs. Think of how one magnet can push another magnet. Now put these magnets in a circle with a rotor in the center. Clean, cheap, simple. It is now in development stages for use in cars. The plans for this motor are available on line. This is not some sort of sales pitch.
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Howard_Johnson_Motor/
photo
LeFlaneur
does nuance.
08:33 PM on 01/01/2012
sure sounds like a sales pitch.
IndependentRule
Re-Elect NO ONE
11:57 PM on 12/27/2011
For people who are so concerned with the loss of natural resources of the earth they sure hate oil! LOL
IndependentRule
Re-Elect NO ONE
11:46 PM on 12/27/2011
Keystone is a temporary "setback" for political reasons.. IF we left our future to the Greenies we would all be living like Kenyans. Perhaps they should try that? But no Al Gore LOVES his Gulfdtream IV as does Kerry and Pelosi loved her big Speaker jet...... Hypocritical anyone?
01:37 AM on 12/28/2011
If we left our future to the "greenies" I'm sure we'd be living exactly as we are now, but with electricity powered by renewable technologies, a electric car economy, bio-diesel jets, cleaner air, etc. I am an environmentalist and I have no aspirations in living like those in third world developing countries.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:20 AM on 12/28/2011
I for one, wouldn't mind simplifying and living sustainably off of the land in 300 sq ft home. But hey, thats just me.
IndependentRule
Re-Elect NO ONE
01:05 PM on 12/28/2011
No I wouldn't/ I would have three barrels for trash outside my house. Energy police monitoring my use and taxing me for over use. I am not an environmentalist and I believe the earth cleans up all messes naturally because it's a perfect biological funtion created by an intelligent being whose work cannot be destroyed by insignificant man. The BP spill was supposed to render the Gulf inhabitable for years and yet ....all is well. I don;t believe any environmentalist talk anymore. If it were up to them we would still be living with the Dinosaurs fearing their extinction.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard2
10:37 PM on 12/27/2011
Natural gas is the fuel that burns in many forced air units in houses and apartments. It is the fuel for gas water heaters. Anyone who has a gas water heater knows that CO2 isn't a pollutant. It is colorless, odorless and beneficial to all living plants. We are so fortunate to have large supplies of natural gas underground, and fortunate to live at a time when new technology has been developed to unlock the large supplies of natural gas in the ground beneath our feet.

Why are green groups opposed to the expansion in the use of relatively inexpensive natural gas?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark Glomski
12:08 AM on 12/28/2011
Something to do with polluting underground drinking water supplies I think.
12:21 AM on 12/28/2011
Reuters reported 12/23 that “Fracking fluids are believed to contain benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, methanol, naphthalene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, toluene, xylene, boric acid, hydrochloric acid, isopropanol, and diesel fuel. Drillers are usually not required to disclose the chemicals they use.

The brine that returns to the surface has been found to contain these chemicals and others, including up to 16,000 picoCuries per liter of radium-226 (pdf). The discharge limit in effluent for Radium 226 is 60 pCi/L, and the EPA’s drinking water standard is 5 pCi/L.â€
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
Cut on the bias
10:10 PM on 12/27/2011
Bans on fracking can be avoided by sensible regulation of drilling practices. The materials used for injection can be adjusted to remove the most toxic chemicals from use. The disposal of fracking fluids needs to be controlled. The chemicals used for injection must be known to the regulatory bodies. It is the refusal to apply reasonable controls by the industry that makes bans the only way to protect public health. The drilling industry cannot expect to continue irresponsible practices that lead to pollution of water sources.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:08 PM on 12/27/2011
Part 3

I can sit here all day long and post many hundreds of links and write 1000's of words about the perils of our modern mining & oil industries. I know that there are people from these industries reading this and I wish to tell them that if they DON'T want opposition from environmentalists: they need to dispose of their toxic waste in a safe manner and leave an area the way they found it when they are done extracting resources from it. And QUIT having oil spills.
fallenawayrepublican
George Bush cured me, praise the lord.
07:47 PM on 12/28/2011
another post from the land of lala
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:42 PM on 12/28/2011
another cryptic reply ..............
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:53 PM on 12/28/2011
Well I am with mudshark12 on this,Not sure if your land of lala is clean,but ours is not
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:01 PM on 12/27/2011
Part 2

Extracting oil from the shale is no simple task. The earliest attempts to extract the oil utilized an environmentally unfriendly process known as “retorting.†Stated simply, retorting required mining the shale, hauling it to a processing facility that crushed the rock into small chunks, then extracted petroleum substance called kerogen, then upgraded kerogen through a process of hydrogenation (which requires lots of water) and refined it into gasoline or jet fuel.

“After you retort the rock to derive the kerogen (not oil), the heating process has desiccated the shale (OK, that means that it is dried out). Sad to say, the volume of desiccated shale that you have to dispose of is now greater than that of the hole from which you dug and mined it in the first place. Any takers for trainloads of dried, dusty, gunky shale residue, rife with low levels of heavy metal residue and other toxic, but now chemically-activated crap? (Well, it makes for enough crap that when it rains, the toxic stuff will leach out and contaminate all of the water supplies to which gravity can reach, which is essentially all of ‘em. Yeah, right. I sure want that stuff blowin’ in my wind.) Add up all of the capital investment to build the retorting mechanisms, cost of energy required, cost of water, costs of transport, costs of environmental compliance, costs of refining, and you have some relatively costly end-product.â€

http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/#ixzz1hnK1r3u0
D-Driller
my micro-bio is empty
04:46 PM on 12/28/2011
I can't find Part #1, so I'm sorry if you touched upon what I am going to say. I notice you are talking about oil shale production and the processes used to extract kerogen from the source. Your process statements seem accurate, but I am curious as to why you are talking about a potential resource that is still in the test phase, and, frankly, is unlikely to be large scale? In fact, I believe the permit for a small operation in Utah was just recently denied - other than a few small-scale tests in Colorado, there are no oil shale operations in North America that I know of that are commercial or near commercial. There are several oil sands (XL pipeline) but that is a different process than the one you are describing. Lastly, and to add to the confusion (as if the public needs that...) there are also shales that produce oil conventionally, through natural fracture systems much like those artificially imparted into rocks during fraccing or what laymen call "fracking". Those shales produce a true oil, and in fact are the source for conventional sandstone reservoirs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
10:48 PM on 12/28/2011
Part 1

We environmentalists have an uphill battle ahead of us and it's going to be tough to win as our opposition is entrenched within our very government. The stakes are very high as their intentions are very EVIL. I'm going to post various links below for people to study and see for themselves the dire nature of the fix we're in and the bleak outlook of our future.

I've decided to put in an excerpt from one of these articles, I want to make it clear that these oil and mining companies down play the effects of the POISONS they are unearthing and WILL be our undoing.

http://dailyreckoning.com/oil-shale-reserves/

http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201111/tar-sands/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_oil_shale_industry
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mudshark12
Now who are you jiving with that cosmik debris?
11:00 PM on 12/28/2011
Below is Part 1 (fortunately I had it saved on my computer as it appears HP sent it to alphabet heaven), I want to thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I am talking about this because if Keystone XL gets the green light then it's extremely likely this process will be used in a large scale. To the detriment of our environment as you will note if you read the daily reckoning article 2nd paragraph very closely where it talks about "trainloads of dried, dusty, gunky shale residue, rife with low levels of heavy metal residue and other toxic, but now chemically­-activated crap." We don't need this.