<p>[Fuel</a> Fix API blasts EPA report on hydraulic fracturing](<a href=“http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/12/13/api-blasts-epa-report-on-hydraulic-fracturing/]Fuel”>http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/12/13/api-blasts-epa-report-on-hydraulic-fracturing/)</p>
<p>I read somewhere recently that Peron had a lobotomy. Has anyone heard that before?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>the EPA report is a specialised case, and as I am doing my paper I’m not really interested in it.</p>
<p>I am however interested in things like energy return on investment (EROI), abusive use of modelling (for example, using hyperbolic modeling to suggest productive well lifetime of 50+ years when it’s more like 12 – this came from petroleum conference, not environmental literature), and questionable use of hedges and complex financial derivatives to hide financial losses on current drilling in a manner that reminds one of Enron.</p>
<p>the best part is that petroleum journals are closed and are generally not accessible to most academic institutions, thus avoiding public scrutiny of much of their discussions, but I’ve found a few technical workarounds for that problem.</p>
<p>[The</a> Oil Drum | U.S. Shale Gas: Less Abundance, Higher Cost](<a href=“The Oil Drum | Not found”>The Oil Drum | U.S. Shale Gas: Less Abundance, Higher Cost)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>aka not the stereotypical tree hugging environmentalist</p>
<p>yet he has a few things to say about shale gas</p>
<p>The analogy with the tobacco companies is apt, it is an example of where takling corporate executives at their word or believing the ‘facts’ they came out with is fraught. I am old enough to remember the arguments the tobacco industry used for years, casting doubt on studies showing more and more the effects of cigarettes, and yes, denying not only that cigarettes were addictive, but also doing exactly what they were accused of, actually putting more nicotine in tobacco to make it more addictive. And there were the same group of people calling those publicizing the dangers of tobacco, the tobacco state senators and congressmen (including Al Gore) claiming it was all hysteria, yada yada…</p>
<p>And all I have to do is cite the long list of corporations who claimed that what they were doing was safe, hooker chemical claimed that their handling of toxic wastes was ‘perfectly safe’ and look what happened at love canal, the nuclear industry claimed that their power plants were so redundant as to be ‘perfectly safe’, including claiming they were safer then conventional plants, and look what happened at three mile island which highlighted serious problems with the industry; GE for years pooh poohed reports that their dumping of PCB’s in the Hudson River was contaminating the river, including I might add places that used it for drinking water, they had their ‘environmental experts’ assure everyone that PCB contamination was within safe levels, until sharp lawyer for the DEP forced him to admit he was ‘mistaken’, that the levels were 10 times what they were (he ‘mistakenly’ used the wrong sample size in calculating the density of PCB’s, by a factor of 10…some mistake…) and so forth. </p>
<p>Fracking is a typical example of hype and greed and people grasping at straws, and the PR industry is in full swing with this. Towns that have been hit hard by tough economic times grasp at a potential shot in the arm (that as towns who have allowed fracking have found out, doesn’t seem to produce many new long term jobs, despite what they are promised), hucksters of all kind sell these mythical reserves of natural gas ‘accessible’ by fracking, that seem to me to be more hucksterism then ‘real fact’ (keep in mind that the ‘estimated reserves’ of any hydrocarbon based resource is basically a guess, and since there is no accurate way to know the true levels, it is easy to exaggerate since who is going to check it?). The other problem with ‘gold rushes’ like these is even assuming that the technology is safe, who is watching the companies? The government, with all the power lobbyists and money from the industry throws around, plus with the inducement of showing they are actually doing something in terms fo ‘energy policy’, often acts, as with the NRC, as a marketing arm of the industry, not a regulator, and what you end up with is companies cutting corners and doing things to expedite making money, and if it causes pollution, well, who is going to clean it up? The government more then likely. </p>
<p>Does that mean fracking should be banned? No, that is as bad as the gung ho type, but if we are going to be relying on this to do large scale taking of natural gas, then we should do it in a way that makes sure the consequences aren’t worse then what we think. It is great to talk, as some do, about ‘we need the gas, and if you don’t like fracking, well,then shut your furnace down’, that was like all those people in ‘chemical alleys’ all over the country, desperate for jobs, who found out the price of letting companies do what they want, towns destroyed, people sickened and dying from pollution, you name it. People in those towns said the same thing, you don’t want that plant here, move out, cause we need the jobs, and some of those people paid with their lives and then some,and some saw their towns destroyed. Painting fracking as a panacea is like those who paint nuclear energy as a panacea or how ‘modern plants’ are perfectly safe, while we still haven’t figured out what to do with spent fuel and as Japan showed, supposedly ‘modern’ plants have big problems when unexpected issues happen.</p>
<p>It is healthy to be skeptical when people sell you things as ‘cure for all ills’ as fracking has been. I have heard all the propoganda about natural gas ‘saving the day’ and such, and it is in many cases hype, and fracking is just another part of that hype machine.</p>
<p>I will add that while I am not involved in the production end of things,my work has made me familiar with the realities of that industry, with how they deliver the gas, how it is paid for and so forth, and I also have people working around me who are engineers and such who have worked on production, and they will tell you what I do, that the reality and what the home office claims are often two different things. Someone got their head handed to them suggesting that fracking may not be as lucrative as thought and that the ‘profits’ they show very well could be the result of hedging financial instruments tied to natural gas products; I don’t have specific numbers on that, but I can tell you as someone knowledgeable of the futures and derivatives business around energy, energy producers have large trading desks and they are some of the heaviest traders in derivatives, and it isn’t just to hedge risk on futures activity, they make a lot of money on financial transactions that are pure financial trading…so the poster isn’t stupid when they bring up an Enron, what they are talking about goes on, and it is likely the parent companies of the ones doing the fracking are doing the same thing and they very well could be using financial hedges to cover the fact that fracking may not be financially as doable as they claim. It could be another ethanol, that from an economic and energy standpoint is nothing more then the government making agri businesses rich at taxpayers expense.</p>
<p>Baloney! Nobody is taking the gas industry execs at their word. I can’t even follow all of the studies that are occuring, all the research, water studies, air studies, noise polution studies, public health, property values, etc. If you have questions about the industry then ask. To throw in comparisons to the tobacco industry is just bogus.</p>
<p>Fracking is a typical example of hype and greed and people grasping at straws??? Really? It doesn’t matter if you believe the low estimates or the high - they are all hugh! Come to Marcellus country and see our “potential” shot in the arm. The “hucksters”, in addition to drilling, are building office buildings, buying equipment, and hiring locals. Our unemployment is low and property values are increasing as these “hucksters” are buying homes. Our local newspaper provides coverage of the many local businesses that are booming with the arrival of this industry.</p>
<p>Yes, the poster was stupid to make the Enron comparison. Locally, we have about 50 drillers. Likely, they’ll all prosper if the price of gas increases. When it drops, fees added, lawsuits occur, etc they are hurt to varying degrees. Due to a recent NYT article, their finances are as studied as their environmental practices.</p>
<p>Be skeptical but be fair, comparisons to tobacco and Enron are just to scare.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm…try Journal of Petroleum Technology? Energy? Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering? Journal of Petroleum Geology? etc etc.</p>
<p>SPE papers essentially form a closed-community “scholarly” journal, among other proprietary forms.</p>
<p>please, collegemomkids, what are you talking about? I’m beginning to doubt your commitment to science, or your knowledge of the field, when you doubt the existence of petroleum journals, when you’re eager to cite statements by lobbyist groups as “evidence” supporting fracking, but pooh-pooh statements from actual scientists and engineers who actually work in the shale gas industry and its allies. </p>
<p>it seems you’re one of those people who would, if appointed PR head of a company, would be especially nasty to blast any whistleblowers in the public, no matter the potential truth value of the whistleblower’s statements – because all that matters is advancing your own interests. (I take it you’re a landowner with mineral rights, because you don’t appear to be speaking from the perspective of a scientist, because real scientists I know speak differently, and they certainly don’t speak with the perspective of dogma.) </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>because any comparison to familiar historical patterns is just sheer scaremongering right?</p>
<p>I’m not a treehugger. I support the expansion of safe nuclear power (generation IV reactors) – in fact my editorial about it after the ***ushima meltdown was published in UVA’s Cavalier Daily; I’m a generally progressive person when it comes to technology. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>have you actually read any of the links? I read yours. I must question if you actually understand finance? The financial derivatives, hedges and accounting techniques that some fracking companies are doing are quite eerily similar to what Enron did in the 1990s.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?pagewanted=all[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?pagewanted=all</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do I make comparisons with the tobacco industry? Because an ethical company would be concerned to discover associated problems, and the correlations and rather than being all out 100% denial, they would be cooperative with the public. </p>
<p>They wouldn’t issue statements depending on the lack of evidence – which is what problematic companies in the past have done. That is why we make the comparison. No, ethical companies proactively conduct their own studies after disturbing reports and make statements like, “we’ve done our own studies, and we’ve found that the chance of a leak is exceedingly small, but when they do occur, we will do our utmost to remedy them”.</p>
<p>Currently fracking companies’ denials sound like sketchy companies advertising a miracle drug on late night paid-programming television, claiming zero side effects, as opposed to AstraZeneca ads which don’t hesitate to give you a long list of them for their product, and don’t claim to be miracle cures and rely on buzzwords like “patented” or “scientifically proven”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>boom and bust.</p>
<p>I mean come on – every sensible policy paper that I’ve read on the subject – including ones published by Ivies such as UPenn (as opposed to Penn State) and Cornell knows that the sheer bulk of jobs created by drilling are temporary. It takes a hundred people to drill a well, but less than one person (on average) to maintain them.</p>
<p>The results of models used by public policy students in the Ivies caution against boom and bust … but I suppose collegekidsmom, as a Penn State graduate, that you could care less, because all you seem to accept are the pro-fracking literature published by your venerable school, and any of its allies.</p>
<p>Evita, Your knowledge is truly trivial. Yes, you correctly state the difference between Penn and Penn State. Other than that, you are once again the equivalent of the hate blogs. The drillers have indeed done their own studies. You reject them because they are not independent yet you criticize since you didn’t know of their existence. Your assumptions, as a non scientist, are too numerous to counter and laughable. I’ve previously stated my motivations and sources but they don’t fit into your continually dishonest position. Sorry!</p>
<p>Please let me know what jobs are permanent. In my lifetime, most of the permanent jobs have packed up and left our country. The boom and bust is true but the boom is expected to be between 20 and 50 years depending on whose numbers you prefer. Other than health care, who else is expecting a 20 year boom?</p>
<p>CollegekidsMom, you’re tougher than I am. I appreciate your attempts at using rationale in this discussion as opposed to the fear that is being used by your detractors.</p>
<p>And FWIW, I don’t begrudge any reasonable person for questioning the motives and methods used by the companies that are trying to extract natural gas from places that aren’t familiar with the technology.</p>
<p>Most O&G companies are prudent and will do the right thing at the end of the day. Fracking is not the devil, nor are the people that are doing it.</p>
<p>I think fracking is probably a really good thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>what’s your experience in the natural sciences? pray tell. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>who said I rejected them? I’m currently using them as a source.</p>
<p>yet we can point out the fallacies of some of the petroleum industry’s models:</p>
<p><a href=“Cornell Cooperative Extension | Serving communities in New York state and NYC”>Cornell Cooperative Extension | Serving communities in New York state and NYC;
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> questionable economics of shale gas | SmartPlanet](<a href=“http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/the-questionable-economics-of-shale-gas/243]The”>The questionable economics of shale gas | ZDNET)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/r_0910stevens.pdf[/url]”>https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Energy,%20Environment%20and%20Development/r_0910stevens.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“MIT Energy Initiative”>MIT Energy Initiative;
<p>You have to forgive me if I am more likely to trust literature from MIT over industry-sponsored research at Penn State, where the recent spotlight over leadership decisions has thrown some doubt over Penn State’s academic ethics.</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/natural-gas-2011/NaturalGas_Report.pdf[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/natural-gas-2011/NaturalGas_Report.pdf</a></p>
<p>MIT agrees on the benefits of the gas industry. YOU are questioning the ethics of Penn State? You’re a hoot!!!</p>
<p>You’re one to talk about ethics, when you think your landowner interests are equivalent to being informed about science, and you selectively cite sources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>agrees with whom?</p>
<p>I never said the gas industry was bad; I simply argue that regulation should be invoked to curb its arrogance.</p>
<p>this is the same with the finance industry and finance students. finance is necessary, even though their conduct is less than exemplary.</p>
<p>My landowner interests? I’ve never claimed to be an industry expert but I do claim to be more informed than you. Seriously, you pulled MIT into the discussion. Interesting that your issue boils down to arrogance!</p>
<p>I study biochemistry, physics and materials science and I have done research for the Department of Energy…what’s your field?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>because Penn State’s quality/brilliance of research is obviously so much higher-ranked and better amirite</p>
<p>You have interesting standards of quality – you discount NPR and NYT as sources but are willing to cite lobbyist blogs with clear conflicts of interest as gospel truth. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Arrogance and complacence is what characterised Enron, Union Carbide, the tobacco industry’s role in lung cancer of millions of Americans…</p>
<p>And rainbow water is pretty concerning, don’t you think?</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/natural-gas-2011/NaturalGas_Report.pdf[/url]”>http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/natural-gas-2011/NaturalGas_Report.pdf</a></p>
<p>MODERATOR’S NOTE:</p>
<p>I don’t even know how to clean up this thread, it’s deteriorated into bickering so far.</p>
<p>If I see ANY more bickering or ad hominem attacks, I will close the thread.</p>