I don't mean to be defeatist, but FERC is clearly going to grant this. FERC seems unconcerned with any of the potential problems.

Federal agency scrutinizing bid to build gas pipeline says environmental damages can be reduced

Wednesday, September 14, 2011
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

The Spectra Energy gas pipeline proposed for parts of Bayonne, Jersey City and offshore Hoboken would result in some adverse environmental impacts that could be reduced to insignificant levels, according to a report by a federal agency.

A draft report issued Friday by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the panel that must approve the plan to build the controversial 19.8-mile pipeline, concludes that Spectra could mitigate any environmental impacts with 32 dozen proposed measures.

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy, who opposes the pipeline based on safety concerns, wasn?t pleased with the report, which was issued one year to the day of the deadly gas pipeline explosion in San Bruno, Calif. Healy and other city officials have said they believe Hudson County is too densely populated for a gas pipeline.

The report summary ?does not address our primary concerns, which are the safety and security of our residents and the impact on the future development of our city,? Healy said in a statement.

The report, which runs for several hundred pages, suggests Spectra could minimize most environmental impacts by, among other measures, filing weekly status reports until all construction is finished, and developing a system for residents to lodge complaints about environmental problems.

Spectra spokeswoman Marylee Hanley noted that FERC?s report said there would be ?limited? adverse impacts to the environment resulting from the proposed pipeline.

?Spectra Energy will review the DEIS in detail and prepare comments to file with FERC during the 45-day comment period. We also encourage others to review and comment to FERC on the DEIS document,? she said.

FERC officials have said they don?t expect to make a final decision on the pipeline until next year.

Link to FERC Environmental Impact Statement

Jersey City City Council lukewarm on plan to let Spectra Energy inspect city

Tuesday, September 13, 2011
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Residents opposed to the proposed Spectra Energy at a February public meeting about the project.

Spectra Energy, the Houston energy giant hoping to build a gas pipeline through parts of Jersey City, wants permission to inspect areas where the pipeline may be constructed, but the City Council objects to the idea.

City Chief of Staff Rosemary McFadden at last night's council caucus said the outside attorney who is handling the city's opposition to the proposed pipeline recommends the city OK Spectra's request.

If Spectra wins federal approval to build the pipeline, the attorney said the city will have to give the company access to city streets anyway, McFadden said, adding that the city still objects to the pipeline for safety reasons.

But council members raised an objection, with Downtown Councilman Steve Fulop saying any access given to Spectra would be a "major move" from the city's opposition to the pipeline.

The action would "move the project along on their behalf," Fulop said.

Councilman-at-Large Ray Velazquez also objected, saying he'd rather let Spectra fight to gain access to city streets.

"If we have no legal obligation to do this, then we shouldn't," he said.

The city will obtain a memo from its outside attorney explaining why it believes the city should grant Spectra the access.

On Friday, the federal commission charged with approving the pipeline proposal issued a draft report saying any adverse environmental impacts resulting from the pipeline could be addressed by implementing about three dozen measures.

http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/11/0905/2028/

Big Business Bands Together to Boost Natural Gas
Newly formed coalition hopes to combat conservationists' strong opposition to fracking and fossil fuels

By Tom Johnson, September 6 in Energy & Environment |3 Comments

Worried that New Jersey's access to natural gas supplies could be jeopardized by lobbying from environmentalists opposed to increased use of fossil fuels, a band of big business groups have organized a coalition to promote the use of the fuel.

Called Natural Gas for New Jersey, the coalition already secured a win when Gov. Chris Christie conditionally vetoed a bill last month that would have imposed a ban on a controversial method of drilling for natural gas in New Jersey, a step they argued would allow the state to tap plentiful and relatively cheap supplies of the fuel in the region.

More importantly, the creation of the coalition gives the Christie administration powerful backing in its plans to rely more on natural gas to meet New Jersey's energy needs and to try and drive down steep electricity bills for both residents and businesses. The fuel is frequently mentioned in the draft Energy Master Plan (EMP) released by the administration in June, a blueprint for the future that has been heavily criticized by clean energy advocates and key Democratic lawmakers.
Neighboring Natural Gas

Among other things, the plan calls for an expansion of the state?s system of natural gas pipelines to more readily access supplies of the fuel being tapped by neighboring Pennsylvania and New York, where plentiful reservoirs of natural gas have been found in formations of the Marcellus Shale.

"New or expanded pipelines will confer energy price benefits by increasing the supply of lower-cost gas from the Marcellus Shale, thus reducing the wholesale cost of gas and power" for electric power suppliers and electric utilities, the plan said. In addition, the administration has approved funding to build three new natural gas-fired power plants with ratepayer subsidies, a step it argues will lower wholesale electricity prices.

In setting up the natural gas coalition, its organizers argued they sought to create a vehicle to get its message out to a broader audience.

"We need cheaper electricity," said Hal Bozarth, executive director of the Chemistry Industry Council of New Jersey, one of the members of the coalition. "Gas, hopefully, will be abundant and a significantly cheaper source of producing power for some time to come. Once people understand it is close by and it will significantly lower electric bills, we think people will like that message, especially with the other side saying no to everything except solar and wind," Bozarth said.

According to the coalition, more than 25,000 jobs and $4.4 billion in the state economy stemmed from the natural gas industry in 2008 alone. On a national level, those benefits total $385 billion and 2.8 million jobs annually. Besides the chemistry council, other members of the coalition include some of the biggest business-lobbying groups in Trenton, including the New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce, the New Jersey Petroleum Council and the New Jersey Society for Environmental, Economic Development.
Global Climate Change

Those benefits, critics say, fail to account for the drawbacks to increase use of fossil fuels and their contribution to global climate change.

"It?s unfortunate; it?s a very narrow view," said Matt Elliott, clean energy advocate for Environment New Jersey, which has criticized the emphasis on natural gas in the revised energy plan. "It means more fossil fuels for New Jersey and it means we are almost endorsing the practice of fracking. What are the impacts on the environment and human health?" he asked.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the process by which developers extract natural gas from wells deep in the Marcellus Shale. It is a technology that involves injection of massive amounts of water, sand and toxic chemicals to recover natural gas from deep rock formations. Critics say the practice could pose a health risk to the drinking water supplies of 5 million New Jerseyans.

Beyond the threat to drinking water supplies, some environmental groups oppose the expansion of natural gas pipelines in the state, primarily because several proposed projects cross the New Jersey Highlands, where protections have been put in place to protect other water supplies.

Still, natural gas proponents, such as Bozarth, argue the enormous economic benefits of lowering energy bills in a depressed economy far outweigh any disadvantages. "Even Democrats in the legislature, who passed the fracking ban, understand the benefits of cheap natural gas," he said.

Spectra Energy to sell natural gas to Bayonne companies to prove pipeline is not just about New York

Published: Wednesday, September 07, 2011, 3:00 AM
By Charles Hack/The Jersey Journal

To counteract claims the natural gas pipeline it wants to snake through Bayonne and Jersey City will only serve New York customers, Houston-based Spectra Energy Corp. announced yesterday it has struck a deal to supply natural gas to two Bayonne companies.

Spectra officials announced plans to provide natural gas to International-Matex Tank Terminals (IMTT), a petrochemical storage company, and Bayonne Plant Holding, a power company, by 2013.

The natural gas to be supplied to IMTT would fire the boilers at IMTT?s 540-acre facility as well as furnaces at BPH?s 170-megawatt cogeneration plant in Constable Hook, according to a press release.

Spectra?s New Jersey-New York Expansion Project involves building a 20-mile underground natural gas pipeline through Bayonne and Jersey City in New Jersey to connect Spectra Energy?s existing pipeline facilities in northern New Jersey to Manhattan.

The proposal awaits approval by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Spectra officials said the arrangements with the Bayonne companies show that the company?s expansion project will not only serve customers in New York, but will also help meet ?New Jersey?s growing energy demand.?

?This interconnection will allow IMTT and BPH to realize lower energy costs and make their operations more cost-effective factors that are critically important to business development,? said Bill Yardley, group vice president of Spectra Energy Transmission, Northeast, in a statement.

Memorandums of understanding exist between Spectra and the Bayonne companies, but the deals won?t be finalized until the expanded pipeline is constructed, the release stated.

Just how ?independent? is advisory panel on natural gas?
The Boston Globe
August 30, 2011

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edi ... ory_panel_on_natural_gas/

JULIETTE KAYYEM?S Aug. 22 op-ed ?Re-thinking the fracking debate?? misses a crucial point. The Energy Department?s advisory panel on natural gas that recently released recommendations about how to improve the safety of hydraulic fracturing is not truly ?independent,?? as Kayyem contends. Six of its seven members, including chairman John Deutch, have current financial ties to the oil and natural gas industry.

Our organization is among 100 environmental, faith-based, and community groups from across the country that have called for adding local citizens and independent experts to the panel. Twenty-eight scientists and nearly 60 elected officials from New York, where the state is debating whether to allow high-volume fracking, have also written Energy Secretary Steven Chu to protest the panel?s lack of balance.

While the report included some positive recommendations, it is not surprising given the panel?s membership that the report failed to mention the legal exemptions the industry has carved from seven key federal health and environmental protection laws including the Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Superfund. Closing these exemptions would be an important step forward to ensure that natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing are conducted safely.

Dusty Horwitt
Senior counsel
Environmental Working Group
Washington

PG&E Exploited Lax Pipeline Oversight Before Blast, NTSB Finds 2011-08-30 16:57:39.992 GMT


By Katarzyna Klimasinska
Aug. 30 (Bloomberg) -- PG&E Corp. exploited lax regulatory oversight and used flawed materials in a natural-gas pipeline, leading to a 2010 California blast that killed eight people and destroyed 38 homes, according to a U.S. safety board.
Inadequate recordkeeping and poor emergency response by California?s largest utility, coupled with ineffective state and federal regulation, contributed to the Sept. 9 explosion in San Bruno, Deborah Hersman, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said today at meeting in Washington. The panel, which analyzes accidents in pipelines carrying hazardous materials, is discussing its final report.
?Today, you will hear troubling revelations, about a company that exploited weaknesses in a lax system of oversight,? Hersman said as the meeting began. ?We know that this tragedy began years ago with PG&E?s 1956 installation of a woefully inadequate pipe.?
PG&E, which on Aug. 15 said a defective weld probably caused the pipeline rupture, is planning to spend $2.2 billion to replace 186 miles (299 kilometers) of pipeline and conduct strength tests on 783 miles of pipe. The company will inspect
234 miles and retrofit 199 miles of pipe to accommodate inspections, according to an Aug. 26 regulatory filing.
The company didn?t have a response coordination center to gather, assess and act on information about the accident, NTSB investigators told the board today. PG&E also lacked equipment to isolate a short section of line and quickly stop the flow of natural gas, Bob Trainor, a member of the investigative team, told the board. Gas that escaped from the pipe was sufficient to heat 1,200 houses for a year, Hersman said.

Future Steps

The board?s investigation ?is critical in helping PG&E and the industry understand what steps need to be taken to avoid a future accident like the one in San Bruno,? the San Francisco- based company said today in a statement.
The 30-inch diameter pipeline, installed in 1956, was made of substandard materials, and lacked some inside welding, Hersman told reporters yesterday.
PG&E failed to supply the board with information about the origin of parts used in the pipe and didn?t inform investigators about a leak two decades earlier on the same pipeline until 10 months into the probe, Hersman said today.
?You cannot expect an operator that doesn?t know? its own pipeline to accurately assess it, Hersman told reporters today.
?You?ve got to make sure that they?re doing it the right way, and when they violate that trust, the penalty has to be high.?
NTSB investigators said on Jan. 21 that PG&E?s pipe had faulty welds. Federal investigators also found that the company had misidentified the construction design of a segment of pipe that exploded, the NTSB said on Dec. 14. Erroneous paperwork on pipelines might create conditions in which a line is operated at a higher pressure than it was built to withstand, the safety board said on Jan. 3.
The board recommended on June 8 that pipeline companies share information about the pipelines, after it discovered early in the investigation that the San Bruno fire department wasn?t aware of the transmission line that ruptured.

--Editors: Steve Geimann, Larry Liebert

To contact the reporter on this story:
Katarzyna Klimasinska in Washington at +1-202-654-7313 or kklimasinska@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Larry Liebert at +1-202-624-1936 or
lliebert@bloomberg.net

PG&E?s San Bruno Pipe Had Substandard Materials, NTSB Says (1) 2011-08-29 16:11:07.318 GMT (Updates with comments from Hersman on lack of records starting in fourth paragraph.) By Katarzyna Klimasinska Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- PG&E Corp.?s pipeline in California that exploded last year, killing eight people, had substandard materials and welds, according to Deborah Hersman, the National Transportation Safety Board?s chairman. ?The material specifications were not what we would expect to see, and what we saw in other pipes,? Hersman told reporters today at a facility in Ashburn, Virginia, a day before the board issues a final report on the blast. ?The quality of the welds was also not consistent with what we would expect today, or at the time.? PG&E said a defective weld probably caused the fatal pipeline rupture on Sept. 9 that destroyed 38 homes in San Bruno, according to the filing with the NTSB on Aug. 15. The safety board investigates accidents in pipelines transporting hazardous materials. PG&E failed to supply the board with information about the origin of parts used in the pipe, installed in 1956. The San Francisco-based company also didn?t inform investigators about an earlier leak on the same pipeline until 10 months into the inquiry, Hersman said. ?One of the biggest difficulties for our investigators is the lack of records that PG&E demonstrated really throughout the investigation,? she told reporters. The prior leak occurred more than 20 years before last year?s explosion, NTSB spokesman Peter Knudson said today in a telephone interview. Faulty Paperwork NTSB investigators said on Jan. 21 that PG&E?s pipe had faulty welds. Federal investigators also found that the company had misidentified the construction design of a segment of pipe that exploded, the NTSB said on Dec. 14. Erroneous paperwork on pipelines might create conditions in which a line is operated at a higher pressure than it was built to withstand, the safety board said on Jan. 3. PG&E said in May it won?t increase its 46-cent a share dividend this year because of rising costs associated with its pipelines. The utility, which distributes gas to 4.3 million customers, said on Aug. 4 it may spend as much as $550 million this year on gas-pipeline inspections, improvements and other safety work. PG&E spokesman David J. Eisenhauer didn?t respond today to an e-mailed request seeking comment. For Related News and Information: PG&E capital structure: PCG US CAST PG&E news: PCG US CN BN Top energy news: ETOP Pipeline news: NI PIP -- Editors: Steve Geimann, Larry Liebert To contact the reporters on this story: Katarzyna Klimasinska in Washington at +1-202-654-7313 or kklimasinska@bloomberg.net; To contact the editor responsible for this story: Larry Liebert at +1-202-624-1936 or lliebert@bloomberg.net

there currently is NO construction related to spectra and if residents have any say, there never will be

http://nogaspipeline.org/press

construction near lackawanna station & long slip is related to hoboken's new water to pump to help with flooding in the area

http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com ... bserver-highway-pump.html

They can't construct anything until they get approval from the federal agency that regulates pipelines (FERC). That won't happen until the end of the year, at the earliest - probably later. Spectra could be doing some surveying, site inspection or other information gathering - but definitely not in construction mode.

I was wondering if anyone know definitively what was going on with the Pipeline. I work in the Construction industry and an associate of mine was telling me that Spectra has begun work just south of the NJ Transit Rail Yard and Tracks along the Long Slip that runs between Hoboken and Jersey City. (He didn't go into details) Also, is the Metering Station underway as well - is that the construction that is going on across from the Lackawanna building? Anyone know?

Assata,

You say: "PSEG also recently decided to close its Unit 1 station, according to William Schulte, a member of the Jersey City Environmental Commission who has also done work for a local group that opposes the pipeline."

You know the group referred to above is NO Gas Pipeline. Mr. Schulte of Eastern Environmental LawCenter, is our lawyer representing us as intervenors before FERC . All your writing recently has refused to mention our name. I have not been called by you on several of your Spectra stories.Is this poor journalism or have you been requested not to post our name by your editor out of fear of threats by Spectra?

Dale Hardman
Founder
NO Gas Pipeline
347-789-7508
www.nogaspipeline.org
Stop Spectra! Sign Our Petition Please!

Twitter: http://nogaspipeline.org/twitter
Facebook: http://nogaspipeline.org/facebook

Quote:

Nice to see that at least one of our public safety departments puts both the PUBLIC and SAFETY ahead of their own interests. Way to go JCFD!

Jersey City fire officials come out against Spectra pipeline
Published: Wednesday, August 03, 2011, 3:24 PM Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

A union representing 141 superior officers in the Jersey City Fire Department has asked federal officials to deny Spectra Energy's request to build a gas pipeline through portions of Hudson County.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... y_fire_officials_com.html

Any update on the status of the pipeline? Where are we in the vetting process. I read that they are putting through new pipeline regulations in Congress although they don't seem to be as strict as some have wanted. Will this benefit Spectra's chances? Are things looking up that this pipeline won't get done?

Quote:

oconnoge@rcan.org

I have personally donated over $50k in my lifetime to Catholic charities. If "The Scholarship Fund for Inner-City Children" accept this from Spectra, Catholic charities will never get another cent from me.

Grovepath - do you have an email address for Gerry O'Connor so we can lobby him to reject this obvious bribe?

What the frack is going on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHQu3SeUwUI

Gasland Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

Spectra Energy to donate $50,000 to scholarship fund for inner-city students of Catholic schools

Published: Monday, July 25, 2011, 2:40 PM
By Terrence T. McDonald/The Jersey Journal

Spectra Energy, the Houston energy giant hoping to put a gas pipeline though parts of Hudson County has committed $50,000 to a scholarship fund that will benefit Jersey City, Bayonne, Hoboken and Linden students attending Catholic high schools.

The Scholarship Fund for Inner-City Children Executive Director Gerry O'Connor said today in a statement that the committal will allow students on the group's waiting list to receive funds for the upcoming school year.
?We are grateful to Spectra Energy for this very generous gift," O'Connor said.

The Spectra donation will fund $1,000 scholarships for 50 students, he added.

Spectra's proposal to extend a current pipeline by 15.5 miles through parts of Bayonne, Jersey City and offshore Hoboken has met with stiff resistance from large swaths of those communities. The existing pipeline ends in Linden.

In March, the Jersey City Board of Education spurned a $1,000 donation from Spectra because members said they didn't want to accept money from the energy giant, even if the district needed it.

Today, a Spectra official said the company feels it is important to support the communities where it lives and works.

"We firmly believe in this worthwhile investment, given all the students supported by SFIC scholarships graduate from high school and go on to attend college or serve in the military," said Bill Yardley, group vice president, Spectra Energy Transmission, Northeast.

Since 1983, the Scholarship Fund has provided over $30,000,000 to 40,000 students whose families desired an educational alternative to the local public schools. For the upcoming 2011-2012 school year, SFIC will provide more than 2,200 students with $2.6 million in tuition assistance.

Spectra will officially bestow the grant at a ceremony on Tuesday, Aug. 2 at Hudson Catholic Regional High School, 790 Bergen Ave. in Jersey City.

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... id=272398#forumpost272398


Injcsince81's 2006 quote is worth reposting:

Quote:

So without the Spectra pipeline we already have a serious and unmanaged local risk. Now Spectra wants to build a gas pipeline alongside the tracks that carry this unprotected cargo of deadly chemicals?

And FERC can make the final decision?

That is SOOOO #OOPS#ED UP.

One of the claims Spectra made when they presented at the Jersey City Council meeting was that a gas pipeline would be an unlikely target for sabotage / terrorism. Well a bomb just blew up a "major gas pipeline," from Egypt, cutting off gas supply to Israel and Jordan. This is very scary for Jersey City if the Spectra Pipeline is allowed to go through:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010 ... 2011-07/04/c_13963525.htm

This is very disturbing - a huge amount of water is used in fracking, mixed with chemicals, then needs to be disposed of. Here is a video from the BBC revealing radioactive wastewater being transported from PA and dumped into NY water systems, with no testing. This is happening with the moratorium in place, what will happen once it is lifted?

Fracturing is such a horrible idea with so many bad side effects that it really drives home just how little our political establishment cares about the well being of citizens. Anything for buck.

I love how the quote is "Hydrofracking has spurred intense protests from environmental activists, who say it threatens the cleanliness of ground water" Yes, that is what they "say". They say it because it has been 100% proven to be a fact that it has horrible impacts on ground water.

Cuomo Will Seek to Lift Ban on Hydraulic Fracturing

By DANNY HAKIM and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: June 30, 2011

The Cuomo administration is expected to lift what has been, in effect, a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, a controversial technology used to extract natural gas from shale, people briefed on the administration?s discussions said on Thursday.

A Times series examining the risks of natural gas drilling and efforts to regulate this rapidly growing industry.

Administration officials are discussing maintaining a ban on the process inside New York City?s sprawling upstate watershed, as well as a watershed used by the city of Syracuse, according to people briefed on the plan. But by allowing the process in other parts of the state, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo would open up New York to one of the fastest-growing ? critics would say reckless ? areas of the energy industry.

When the decision will be made public is less certain. On Friday, the State Department of Environmental Conservation is due to release a long-awaited study of the process, widely known as hydrofracking. But it was unclear if the Cuomo administration would use the occasion to announce its broader policy plans related to the issue as well. The report will likely include recommendations, and then there will be a period for public comments before a final determination can be made.

Hydrofracking has spurred intense protests from environmental activists, who say it threatens the cleanliness of ground water. The process involves injecting large volumes of water, mixed with sand and chemicals, deep into the ground to break up rock formations and release natural gas. It is legal in a number of other states, including Pennsylvania.

A primary concern among environmental groups has been the leftover waste water that can be contaminated with toxins buried underground, including naturally occurring radioactive elements or carcinogens like benzene.

Drilling for natural gas has been promoted both because it burns more cleanly than coal and it can reduce dependence on imported energy.

Josh Vlasto, a spokesman for the governor, said it was ?baseless speculation and premature? to say the state?s current moratorium on hydrofracking would be lifted.

Quote:I was more interested in mentioning the company that people would be more familiar with.

Anyway:
Rupert Murdoch founded News Corp
Rupert Murdoch is the CEO and Chairman of News Corp
News Corp launched Fox News
News Corp bought the Wall Street Journal


So yes, technically Fox News does not own the Wall Street Journal, but you know what I was getting at, and you're just being a semantic dick. Let me rephrase it by adding just a couple words:

"the Wall Street Journal is owned by the same people as Fox News, so that doesn't surprise me much."

Good article in yesterday's NY Times. One quote in particular stood out:


?The word in the world of independents is that the shale plays are just giant Ponzi schemes and the economics just do not work,? an analyst from IHS Drilling Data, an energy research company, wrote in an e-mail on Aug. 28, 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html

Quote:

WSJ is published by the Dow Jones company. And DJ is a part of the "News Corporation". Which owns few other things, Fox News included. Fox owns nejther DJ nor WSJ.

But I am guessing you were interested more in the political ad hominem, rather than in the factual correctness.

In both cases.

the Wall Street Journal is owned by Fox News, so that doesn't surprise me much.

Wall Street Journal is pro-fracking:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001 ... 4.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The Facts About Fracking
The real risks of the shale gas revolution, and how to manage them.

Wall Street Journal
JUNE 25, 2011

The U.S. is in the midst of an energy revolution, and we don't mean solar panels or wind turbines. A new gusher of natural gas from shale has the potential to transform U.S. energy production?that is, unless politicians, greens and the industry mess it up.

Only a decade ago Texas oil engineers hit upon the idea of combining two established technologies to release natural gas trapped in shale formations. Horizontal drilling?in which wells turn sideways after a certain depth?opens up big new production areas. Producers then use a 60-year-old technique called hydraulic fracturing?in which water, sand and chemicals are injected into the well at high pressure?to loosen the shale and release gas (and increasingly, oil).
***

The resulting boom is transforming America's energy landscape. As recently as 2000, shale gas was 1% of America's gas supplies; today it is 25%. Prior to the shale breakthrough, U.S. natural gas reserves were in decline, prices exceeded $15 per million British thermal units, and investors were building ports to import liquid natural gas. Today, proven reserves are the highest since 1971, prices have fallen close to $4 and ports are being retrofitted for LNG exports.

The shale boom is also reviving economically suffering parts of the country, while offering a new incentive for manufacturers to stay in the U.S. Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry estimates fracking in the Marcellus shale formation, which stretches from upstate New York through West Virginia, has created 72,000 jobs in the Keystone State between the fourth quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2011.

The Bakken formation, along the Montana-North Dakota border, is thought to hold four billion barrels of oil (the biggest proven estimate outside Alaska), and the drilling boom helps explain North Dakota's unemployment rate of 3.2%, the nation's lowest.

All of this growth has inevitably attracted critics, notably environmentalists and their allies. They've launched a media and political assault on hydraulic fracturing, and their claims are raising public anxiety. So it's a useful moment to separate truth from fiction in the main allegations against the shale revolution.

? Fracking contaminates drinking water. One claim is that fracking creates cracks in rock formations that allow chemicals to leach into sources of fresh water. The problem with this argument is that the average shale formation is thousands of feet underground, while the average drinking well or aquifer is a few hundred feet deep. Separating the two is solid rock. This geological reality explains why EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, a determined enemy of fossil fuels, recently told Congress that there have been no "proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water."

A second charge, based on a Duke University study, claims that fracking has polluted drinking water with methane gas. Methane is naturally occurring and isn't by itself harmful in drinking water, though it can explode at high concentrations. Duke authors Rob Jackson and Avner Vengosh have written that their research shows "the average methane concentration to be 17 times higher in water wells located within a kilometer of active drilling sites."

They failed to note that researchers sampled a mere 68 wells across Pennsylvania and New York?where more than 20,000 water wells are drilled annually. They had no baseline data and thus no way of knowing if methane concentrations were high prior to drilling. They also acknowledged that methane was detected in 85% of the wells they tested, regardless of drilling operations, and that they'd found no trace of fracking fluids in any wells.

The Duke study did spotlight a long-known and more legitimate concern: the possibility of leaky well casings at the top of a drilling site, from which methane might migrate to water supplies. As the BP Gulf of Mexico spill attests, proper well construction and maintenance are major issues in any type of drilling, and they ought to be the focus of industry standards and attention. But the risks are not unique to fracking, which has provided no unusual evidence of contamination.

? Fracking releases toxic or radioactive chemicals. The reality is that 99.5% of the fluid injected into fracture rock is water and sand. The chemicals range from the benign, such as citric acid (found in soda pop), to benzene. States like Wyoming and Pennsylvania require companies to publicly disclose their chemicals, Texas recently passed a similar law, and other states will follow.

Drillers must dispose of fracking fluids, and environmentalists charge that disposal sites also endanger drinking water, or that drillers deliberately discharge radioactive wastewater into streams. The latter accusation inspired the EPA to require that Pennsylvania test for radioactivity. States already have strict rules designed to keep waste water from groundwater, including liners in waste pits, and drillers are subject to stiff penalties for violations. Pennsylvania's tests showed radioactivity at or below normal levels.

? Fracking causes cancer. In Dish, Texas, Mayor Calvin Tillman caused a furor this year by announcing that he was quitting to move his sons away from "toxic" gases?such as cancer-causing benzene?from the town's 60 gas wells. State health officials investigated and determined that toxin levels in the majority of Dish residents were "similar to those measured in the general U.S. population." Residents with higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. (Cigarette smoke contains benzene.)

? Fracking causes earthquakes. It is possible that the deep underground injection of fracking fluids might cause seismic activity. But the same can be said of geothermal energy exploration, or projects to sequester carbon dioxide underground. Given the ubiquity of fracking without seismic impact, the risks would seem to be remote.

? Pollution from trucks. Drillers use trucks to haul sand, cement and fluids, and those certainly increase traffic congestion and pollution. We think the trade-off between these effects and economic development are for states and localities to judge, keeping in mind that externalities decrease as drillers become more efficient.

? Shale exploration is unregulated. Environmentalists claim fracking was "exempted" in 2005 from the federal Safe Water Drinking Act, thanks to industry lobbying. In truth, all U.S. companies must abide by federal water laws, and what the greens are really saying is that fracking should be singled out for special and unprecedented EPA oversight.

Most drilling operations?including fracking?have long been regulated by the states. Operators need permits to drill and are subject to inspections and reporting requirements. Many resource-rich states like Texas have detailed fracking rules, while states newer to drilling are developing these regulations.

As a regulatory model, consider Pennsylvania. Recently departed Governor Ed Rendell is a Democrat, and as the shale boom progressed he worked with industry and regulators to develop a flexible regulatory environment that could keep pace with a rapidly growing industry. As questions arose about well casings, for instance, Pennsylvania imposed new casing and performance requirements. The state has also increased fees for processing shale permits, which has allowed it to hire more inspectors and permitting staff.

New York, by contrast, has missed the shale play by imposing a moratorium on fracking. The new state Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, recently sued the federal government to require an extensive environmental review of the entire Delaware River Basin. Meanwhile, the EPA is elbowing its way into the fracking debate, studying the impact on drinking water, animals and "environmental justice."
***

Amid this political scrutiny, the industry will have to take great drilling care while better making its public case. In this age of saturation media, a single serious example of water contamination could lead to a political panic that would jeopardize tens of billions of dollars of investment. The industry needs to establish best practices and blow the whistle on drillers that dodge the rules.

The question for the rest of us is whether we are serious about domestic energy production. All forms of energy have risks and environmental costs, not least wind (noise and dead birds and bats) and solar (vast expanses of land). Yet renewables are nowhere close to supplying enough energy, even with large subsidies, to maintain America's standard of living. The shale gas and oil boom is the result of U.S. business innovation and risk-taking. If we let the fear of undocumented pollution kill this boom, we will deserve our fate as a second-class industrial power.

Don't know why I didn't just search for it. I guess they did write it. I'm really surprised and disappointed with the Star Ledger Editorial Board.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2011/04/post_53.html