Texas town welcomed (NG) drilling, now fears pollution

[phantom power]

Dish residents started noticing problems in 2005, the same year the town changed its name from Clark in a publicity stunt, agreeing to be called Dish in exchange for free satellite TV for everybody in town.

That was also the year five gas companies opened an unmanned compressor complex, and it didn't take long for complaints to start rolling in. People were upset about noise, then the putrid and overpowering smells.

...

Health problems followed for some. McKamie recently underwent a blood test that found an unusual enzyme in her liver that could be an indicator of cancer. Her daughter, Julianne, has for three years seen doctors and specialists in an effort to diagnose crushing pain in her arms, sudden loss of circulation that makes her hands turn blue and randomly occurring loss of strength.

They can't conclusively link their problems to the compressor plant or drilling, but wonder if benzene contributed.

"I don't know if it's all related. We have a right to know if it is," said McKamie, a 25-year resident of the town whose farm is about a mile from the compressor plant. "We're breathing it, we're working it, we're feeding our animals it, and then we're eating the meat."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_re_us/us_gas_drilling_pollution

[xultar]

1. Drill baby drill. EXCEPT NEAR ME AND MINES!

[MidwestTransplant]

6. Yeah and I bet they are big Palin backers.

[GliderGuider]

2. Now let me see. Which would I rather have in my back yard?

A gas compressor complex or a nuclear power plant?

Choices, choices.

[phantom power]

3. There is no risk free energy.

Like you say, choices, choices...

:shrug:

[TxRider]

4. A wind turbine or solar panels.

[GliderGuider]

7. Tsk, tsk. That wasn't one of the forced choices.

Man up and play the cards you're dealt, young fella.

[TxRider]

14. Natural gas for 100 Alex...

I grew up with one down the road.

Ever wonder what a high pressure natural gas well sounds like when the sand finally erodes a hole in the elbow at the top of the well?

I don't, neither does anyone else within 10 miles of it.

I've pulled and shoved pipe thousands of feet into the ground, replaced oil jack pumps, and beat on a 4 foot wrench to tighten the huge bolts on compressors as large as a house with a sledge hammer. I ain't askeered of no gas compressor..

I'm ok with wells too, especially the shale deposit gas here, they were going to pay me $6k and 25% gross royalty just for a 3yr lease for the gas under my small suburban .25 acre lot. ;) Then gas prices fell and the drilling plan fell through. They will be back though, just a matter of time. Hopefully before I decide to move.

The only time I have seen oil/gas cause an issue for me was ruining my 30yr old well with a rusted out casing when they used the explosives for fracturing underground. Had to drill a new one.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Why many of us would choose the reactor -- without hesitating

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=marcellus-shale-natural-gas-drilling-radioactive-wastewater">It also produces CO2.

And this "prospecting" is happening, in fact, in MY backyard -- within a few miles, anyway. The Marcellus Shale formation covers more than half of NY and PA, plus at least 4 other states. The underlying geologic system of which Marcellus is a part extends across much of the Northeast USA, and extends into Canada.

--d!

[malakai2]

21. Nuke

Stock up my medicine chest with iodine tablets, I'll agree not to worry about ongoing release of Hg, Cd, H2S, PACs, BTEX, PM, and NORM in the effluent.

[Javaman]

8. Awww aren't they cute, they have buyers remorse.

and to think they trusted someone in the fossil fuel industry.

Who would have guess this would have happened?

[phantom power]

9. This particular fossil fuel is the one that's being chosen to enable our renewable energy future.

Yes?

[Javaman]

10. I don't choose it. Do you? nt

[phantom power]

11. I... don't think it is you or I doing the choosing.

In terms of compensating for wind intermittence, it appears that NG has all the momentum. To a first approximation, what's actually happening is continued coal and NG build-out. Which would be happening even faster if it weren't for the Global Recession. I've been expecting an acceleration in wind build-out, although local resistance to wind projects has been stronger than I expected. And again, the economic climate is hitting that just like very other energy source.

Although we all exert our own little bits of influence, I don't think it matters very much if I advocate against NG, in much the same way that it doesn't matter when I advocate for nukes.

[Javaman]

12. Right now I get all my power from wind...

and hopefully via the financial winds, I will be getting solar panels for my home.

I still will be tied to the grid, but I will be completely gas, coal, nuke and whatever free for my home.

next will be my vehicle. Right now I'm driving my car twice a week. (the weekends) and taking the bus during the week.

My dream is a diesel hybrid. I'm holding out for that.

[phantom power]

13. That's pretty cool. What do you use to cope with intermittency?

[Javaman]

15. Haven't had a drop in power yet. And I've been on wind power for over 2 years. nt

[phantom power]

16. Remarkable. The wind has been blowing for you for 760 days straight?

[Javaman]

17. I guess so. My wind power comes through Austin Energy. They intern

get it from a huge wind farm along the gulf.

[phantom power]

18. I see. They're a utility, so they'll burn whatever they have to when the wind isn't blowing.

That is why you always have electricity when you want it.

[kristopher]

19. And when the wind IS blowing that reduces the fossil consumption.

The more wind and solar we build, the less fossil we use.

Natural gas "has all the momentum" because it emits far fewer GHG emissions than coal. Unless you can figure out a way to totally replace ALL fossil fuels in one fell swoop, there is going to be a period of transition. Would you rather they use coal rather than natural gas?

[phantom power]

22. NG is the least-horrible fossil fuel.

[NNadir]

23. There has NEVER been a "renewables will save us" poseur who doesn't end up greenwashing

dangerous natural gas and other dangerous fossil fuels.

This is the chemical reaction for methane which anybody who knows any science - that leaves out the dangerous natural gas shill Amory Lovins, the dangerous natural gas executives Gerhard Schroeder and Joschka Fischer out of the equation - that composes dangerous natural gas:

CH₄ + 2O₂ <-> CO₂ + 2 H₂O.

Um, do any gas greenwashing "renewables will save us" advocates know what that first compound on the right side of the equation is?

No?

Why am I not surprised?

The number of "renewables will save us" scammers who know how to dispose of carbon dioxide, that would be CO₂ forever is, um, zero, which as the same number of "renewables will save us" gas greenwashers who understand the chemistry of say, the fission product rhodium.

Dangerous natural gas is not an acceptable fuel. It's filth, pure filth, and the drive to destroy every groundwater supply in North America so "renewables will save us" gas greenwashers can be smug and indifferent is disgusting and a terrible burden to place on future generations.

[kristopher]

24. If you attempt to use nuclear it will result in MORE GHG emissions.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[TxRider]

20. But they do sell more green energy than any other utility in the nation.

Utilizing solar, wind and biomass.

And connected to the worlds largest wind farms, where the wind seldom does not blow.