As conversations of weather occurrences and suggested anomalies become
more frequent and mainstream in the scientific community, as well as at
the grass-roots-level, the need to embrace and index substantive
information into an authoritative conduit to encourage more research and
development~~~IS IMPERATIVE.
Pertinent themes as Global Warming, Climate Change, and Melting Ice Caps
has stimulated discussions, seeded forums, and spawned additional
research, all to foster consensus, and recommend courses-of-action.
The intent of CLIMATE; THE CONVERSATION, is to be The Bulletin Board,
The Platform, The Podium, and The Credible Source & Bibliography
for such astute, sincere, and scholarly considerations.
Sincerely;
Administrators:
Andrew M. Marconi
Lou Marconi
DEBATE: Are Restrictions on Fracking and Oil Exports Stifling American Prosperity?
Lifting Bans on Fracking, Exports Will Add Many Jobs, Save Consumers BillionsBy Kyle Isakower
THE """YES"""" PERSPECTIVE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If Texas were a nation, it would be the No. 3 dry natural gas producer in the world — ahead of Iran, China and Saudi Arabia.
Eight individual states now each
produce over 3 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day, which would
rank them among the world’s top 30 producing countries.
In oil production, two U.S. states — Texas and
North Dakota — would rank among the top 20 nations in the world. Four
additional states — Alaska, California, New Mexico and Oklahoma — make
the top 35.
In other words, the United States is now a global
energy superpower, and even individual states are now global leaders in
their own right.
This growth is paying off for American families
and businesses. The abundance of affordable energy has lowered costs for
many businesses, sparking a manufacturing renaissance and attracting
companies back to our shores. Shale energy will support nearly 400,000
manufacturing jobs this year.
Memorial Day gasoline prices were at their lowest
levels in five years, spurring the highest holiday weekend road travel
volumes in 10 years.
Last year, U.S. Energy Information chief Adam
Sieminski estimated that global supply outages could push prices to
about $150 per barrel. But stable and growing U.S. production acted as a
buffer against turmoil in the Middle East and elsewhere, and now
Americans are saving an average of $108 per month at the pump.
That’s pretty much the definition of energy
security, and it’s almost entirely due to hydraulic fracturing and
horizontal drilling.
If production levels on federally controlled land
matched those on state and private lands, the United States could reap
even greater economic rewards.
But that’s not what’s happening. While production
on non-government land jumped 89 percent for oil and 43 percent for
natural gas between 2009 and 2014, gas production on public lands
slumped 34 percent and remained flat for oil.
The culprit is all too predictable: bureaucratic
red tape. New hydraulic-fracturing regulations announced by the Obama
Administration would make the disparity even worse by delaying
operations and driving up costs.
Hydraulic-fracturing operations are already
subject to a wide range of federal regulations under the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act and other laws — in
addition to strong state rules tailored to each area’s unique geology,
hydrology and other physical characteristics.
According to the Ground Water Protection Council,
“state agencies are on the forefront of oil and gas regulation” and
continually update regulations to “address the safety and environmental
issues surrounding modern energy development.”
As President Obama’s former Secretary of the
Interior Ken Salazar put it, “We know that, from everything we’ve seen,
there’s not a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an
environmental problem for anyone.”
Meanwhile, regulatory delays for key
infrastructure and federal restrictions on crude-oil exports continue to
hold back production, preventing U.S. consumers and workers from
realizing the full economic benefits of America’s energy revolution.
Lifting the obsolete, ’70s-era ban on crude
exports could generate up to 300,000 additional U.S. jobs, cut our trade
deficit by $22 billion, and save American consumers billions per year
on gasoline, heating oil and diesel fuel.
Free trade for crude oil also makes geopolitical sense.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, the chairwoman of
the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and sponsor of
legislation to end the export ban, notes:
“If we lift the current sanctions on Iran while
keeping in place our own domestic sanctions on crude-oil exports,
America’s ability to increase its domestic energy security and that of
our allies will suffer.”
America’s production resurgence has been a game-changer geopolitically, economically and from a national-security perspective.
Forward-thinking policies that encourage, not
undermine, responsible energy production can cement our position as a
global energy leader.
– – –
Kyle Isakower is vice president for regulatory and economic policy at the American Petroleum Institute.
–––––––––
THE """""NO""""" PERSPECTIVE~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New Federal Rules Are Low-Cost and Promising, But May Not Be Tough Enough
By Michael E. Kraft
(Tribune News Service/TNS) – The Obama
administration recently announced the first major federal regulation of
hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, to take effect in June.
Fracking has been praised for contributing to a
massive increase in production of oil and natural gas, reducing the
nation’s reliance on imported oil and fostering increased use of cleaner
natural gas over other fossil fuels, particularly coal.
Critics, however, have long faulted fracking’s
impact on the environment and public health from contaminated wastewater
and release of toxic chemicals. In some states, the injection of
wastewater in deep underground wells also has led to an increase in
earthquakes.
The new rules proposed by the Interior
Department’s Bureau of Land Management apply only to oil and gas leases
on 750 million acres of public and Indian lands. They leave untouched
the vast majority of fracking operations that take place on private and
state lands.
These other drilling activities will continue to
be governed only by state regulation, which has been supportive of the
industry. However, many states have yet to develop regulations for
fracking, and the new federal plan could push them to adopt tough rules.
That’s one of the industry’s fears.
The Interior rules target three concerns about
fracking. One is the way that recovered wastewater is handled. Instead
of being stored in open pits, which is now common, covered tanks are to
be used to minimize groundwater pollution.
A second element addresses construction and
testing of well casements, which could help to control leakage of
drilling fluids as well as accidental release of methane, a powerful
greenhouse gas.
This summer, the administration will be proposing
separate rules to reduce methane emissions from new and modified oil and
gas production and transmission facilities, with voluntary guidelines
for existing installations.
A third component mandates disclosure of
information about chemicals used within 30 days of fracking operations.
The information is to be placed in an online database at the
industry-backed FracFocus website. However, companies will be allowed to
keep certain proprietary chemicals secret.
Interior estimates that the cost of compliance
with the new rules will be less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the
cost for drilling a well, seemingly a small amount. Yet the industry
argues that this cost and the associated red tape of regulation could
seriously disrupt oil and gas drilling. It is more likely that declining
oil prices would do that, as they have already.
Drilling companies also object to full and timely
disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking. They cite the burdens of
reporting such chemical use, even though tens of thousands of companies
routinely and efficiently disclose chemical releases through the federal
Toxics Release Inventory program.
Interior made many concessions to industry before
issuing the proposed rules, yet oil and gas companies filed lawsuits to
block their implementation. In addition, Republican leaders in Congress
promise legislation to keep control of fracking completely under state
authority, a move that is almost certain to weaken regulation of the
industry.
On the other side of the dispute, environmental
groups generally have praised the new rules, although many say they are
insufficient to protect public health.
For example, the rules do nothing about toxic air
emissions at fracking sites, and the limited disclosure of fracking
chemicals comes only after drilling begins.
President Obama is said to view his last two years
in office as an opportunity to leave an historic environmental legacy,
with actions on climate change topping that list.
The new fracking rules will help to reduce
greenhouse-gas emissions. Yet they may do less in that regard than many
other administration efforts, such as setting higher vehicle
fuel-efficiency standards, promoting renewable-energy technologies, and
finalizing EPA’s Clean Power Plan that will sharply limit carbon
emissions from power plants.
———
Michael Kraft is professor emeritus of
political science and public and environmental affairs at the University
of Wisconsin-Green Bay.
Being
at the TIPPING-POINT of the many many factors that are clearly
demonstrating to have an impact on this orb that we call Earth, it is
becoming increasingly apparent decisions and necessary actions must be
taken to reverse the detrimental trends that are increasingly
self-evident.
Once we have assessed their impacts, and once we have recognized the negative affects
on the environment, on the land that we are farming, on our commercial and industrial endeavors, on the atmosphere that
we are breathing, it is critical to recognize that WE MUST REVERSE THESE
TRENDS. Then, given the time
and place to implement actions and practices to have a cause-and-effect
impact in a positive
way, will influence implementation, and at least retard further
deterioration of our environment and our climate. On a larger scale,
reversing the trends of deterioration should always be----the ultimate
objective.
Its impact on the economy, pollution, and the focus on Climate; The Conversation---makes this worthy substance, for continued enthusiasm, and consideration
Its impact on the economy, pollution, and the focus on Climate; The Conversation---makes this worthy substance, for continued enthusiasm, and consideration
Lou Marconi (SuiteLou0819)
No comments:
Post a Comment