Everything You’ve Heard About Fossil Fuels May Be Wrong…

Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.

What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?

As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or "fracking," long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago. Natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide than coal, can be used in both electricity generation and as a fuel for automobiles.

The implications for energy security are startling. Natural gas may be only the beginning. Fracking also permits the extraction of previously-unrecoverable “tight oil,” thereby postponing the day when the world runs out of petroleum. There is enough coal to produce energy for centuries. And governments, universities and corporations in the U.S., Canada, Japan and other countries are studying ways to obtain energy from gas hydrates, which mix methane with ice in high-density formations under the seafloor. The potential energy in gas hydrates may equal that of all other fossils, including other forms of natural gas, combined. If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come. So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?

The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken "play" along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India. Because shale gas reserves are so widespread, the potential for blackmail by Middle Eastern producers and Russia will diminish over time. Unless opponents of fracking shut down gas production in Europe, a European Union with its own natural gas reserves will be far less subject to blackmail by Russia (whose state monopoly Gazprom has opportunistically echoed western Greens in warning of the dangers of fracking).

The U.S. may become a major exporter of natural gas to China -- at least until China borrows the technology to extract its own vast gas reserves.

Two arguments for switching to renewable energy -- the depletion of fossil fuels and national security -- are no longer plausible. What about the claim that a rapid transition to wind and solar energy is necessary, to avert catastrophic global warming?

The scenarios with the most catastrophic outcomes of global warming are low probability outcomes -- a fact that explains why the world’s governments in practice treat reducing CO2 emissions as a low priority, despite paying lip service to it. But even if the worst outcomes were likely, the rational response would not be a conversion to wind and solar power but a massive build-out of nuclear power. Nuclear energy already provides around 13-14 percent of the world’s electricity and nearly 3 percent of global final energy consumption, while wind, solar and geothermal power combined account for less than one percent of global final energy consumption.

(The majority of renewable energy consists of CO2-emitting biomass -- wood and dung used for fires by the world’s poor, plus crops used to make fuel; most of the remainder comes from hydropower dams denounced by Greens.)

The disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima have dramatized the real but limited and localized dangers of nuclear energy. While their initial costs are high, nuclear power plants generate vast amounts of cheap electricity -- and no greenhouse gases. If runaway global warming were a clear and present danger rather than a low probability, then the problems of nuclear waste disposal and occasional local disasters would be minor compared to the benefits to the climate of switching from coal to nuclear power.

The arguments for converting the U.S. economy to wind, solar and biomass energy have collapsed. The date of depletion of fossil fuels has been pushed back into the future by centuries -- or millennia. The abundance and geographic diversity of fossil fuels made possible by technology in time will reduce the dependence of the U.S. on particular foreign energy exporters, eliminating the national security argument for renewable energy. And if the worst-case scenarios for climate change were plausible, then the most effective way to avert catastrophic global warming would be the rapid expansion of nuclear power, not over-complicated schemes worthy of Rube Goldberg or Wile E. Coyote to carpet the world’s deserts and prairies with solar panels and wind farms that would provide only intermittent energy from weak and diffuse sources.

The mainstream environmental lobby has yet to acknowledge the challenge that the new energy realities pose to their assumptions about the future. Some environmentalists have welcomed natural gas because it is cleaner than coal and can supplement intermittent solar power and wind power, at times when the sun isn’t shining or the wind isn’t blowing. But if natural gas is permanently cheaper than solar and wind, then there is no reason, other than ideology, to combine it with renewables, instead of simply using natural gas to replace coal in electricity generation.

Without massive, permanent government subsidies or equally massive penalty taxes imposed on inexpensive fossil fuels like shale gas, wind power and solar power may never be able to compete. For that reason, some Greens hope to shut down shale gas and gas hydrate production in advance. In their haste, however, many Greens have hyped studies that turned out to be erroneous.

In 2010 a Cornell University ecology professor and anti-fracking activist named Robert Howarth published a paper making the sensational claim that natural gas is a greater threat to the climate than coal. Howarth admitted, "A lot of the data we use are really low quality..." Howarth’s error-ridden study was debunked by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations and criticized even by the Worldwatch Institute, a leading environmentalist organization, which wrote: "While we share Dr. Howarth’s urgency about the need to transition to a renewable-based economy, we believe based on our research that natural gas, not coal, affords the cleanest pathway to such a future."

A few years ago, many Green alarmists seized upon a theory that an ice age 600 million years ago came to an abrupt end because of massive global warming caused by methane bubbling up from the ocean floor. They warned that the melting of the ice caps or drilling for methane hydrates might suddenly release enough methane to cook the earth. But before it could be turned into a Hollywood blockbuster, the methane apocalypse theory was debunked recently by a team of Caltech scientists in a report for the science journal Nature.

All energy sources have potentially harmful side effects. The genuine problems caused by fracking and possible large-scale future drilling of methane hydrates should be carefully monitored and dealt with by government regulation. But the Green lobby’s alarm about the environmental side-effects of energy sources is highly selective. The environmental movement since the 1970s has been fixated religiously on a few "soft energy" panaceas -- wind, solar, and biofuels -- and can be counted on to exaggerate or invent problems caused by alternatives. Many of the same Greens who oppose fracking because it might contaminate some underground aquifers favor wind turbines and high-voltage power lines that slaughter eagles and other birds and support blanketing huge desert areas with solar panels, at the cost of exterminating much of the local wildlife and vegetation. Wilderness preservation, the original goal of environmentalism, has been sacrificed to the giant metallic idols of the sun and the wind. The renewable energy movement is not the only campaign that will be marginalized in the future by the global abundance of fossil fuels produced by advancing technology. Champions of small-scale organic farming can no longer claim that shortages of fossil fuel feedstocks will force a return to pre-industrial agriculture.

Another casualty of energy abundance is the new urbanism. Because cars and trucks and buses can run on natural gas as well as gasoline and diesel fuel, the proposition that peak oil will soon force people around the world to abandon automobile-centered suburbs and office parks for dense downtowns connected by light rail and inter-city trains can no longer be taken seriously. Deprived of the arguments from depletion, national security and global warming, the campaign to increase urban density and mass transit rests on nothing but a personal taste for expensive downtown living, a taste which the suburban working-class majorities in most developed nations manifestly do not share.

Eventually civilization may well run out of natural gas and other fossil fuels that are recoverable at a reasonable cost, and may be forced to switch permanently to other sources of energy. These are more likely to be nuclear fission or nuclear fusion than solar or wind power, which will be as weak, diffuse and intermittent a thousand years from now as they are today. But that is a problem for the inhabitants of the world of 2500 or 3000 A.D. In the meantime, it appears that the prophets of an age of renewable energy following Peak Oil got things backwards. We may be living in the era of Peak Renewables, which will be followed by a very long Age of Fossil Fuels that has only just begun.

New fracturing disclosure rules may take awhile…

Texas lawmakers have passed a bill requiring disclosure of most of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, a natural gas and oil production technique that has been a source of contention in some communities over the past year.

A final version of the bill sent to Gov. Rick Perry on Tuesday requires oil and gas well owners to file online forms detailing the chemicals that are mixed with sand and water and then pumped into wells at high pressure to break apart dense shale formations. Opponents say the materials, often called frac fluids, can contaminate ground water supplies — a worry the industry says is unfounded.

It may be up to two years before the law takes full effect, as the Texas Railroad Commission has to write the rules and submit them to public comment. Commission Chairman Elizabeth Ames Jones said Tuesday the agency will begin crafting the rules soon, but the law gives it until July 1, 2013, to approve them. The Railroad Commission is the state's chief oil and natural gas regulator.

"A commonsense frac fluid disclosure policy will balance the Railroad Commission's dual mission to prevent the waste of Texas' energy resources, and to protect the environment and the public's health and safety," Jones said.

Under existing rules, companies must list just some of the chemicals used in fracturing on Material Safety Data Sheets, documents kept on worksites to help officials respond to emergencies such as spills or accidental exposures to hazardous chemicals. Some chemicals are exempt if the companies claim they are trade secrets, while others simply aren't covered by the requirements.

The industry voluntarily has begun sharing fracturing fluid information from the data sheets for specific wells through a website, FracFocus.org, in response to public concerns about hazardous chemicals.

The new Texas law makes that reporting mandatory for all wells drilled in Texas, and will require listing of chemicals not currently required on the data sheets. The new law still exempts chemicals deemed trade secrets, but the landowner where the well is drilled, an adjacent landowner or a state agency can appeal the exemption. The bill, introduced by Rep. Jim Keffer, R-Granbury, is the result of negotiations among industry, environmental groups and lawmakers.

A version of the bill discussed last week would have made it more difficult for the public to access some of the information by requiring reports be filed just with the Railroad Commission. But an amendment introduced by Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, required disclosure on public websites.

The Texas Oil and Gas Association praised the bills. "As a result of the state's leadership, Texas will become a game changer when it comes to debunking myths or misconceptions about hydraulic fracturing," said Debbie Hastings, vice president of environmental affairs for the group. "The transparency and accessibility achieved by this legislation will reinforce how and why hydraulic fracturing has been safely used for more than 60 years."

The Environmental Defense Fund gave the bill mixed reviews, saying it's a milestone in some ways but has shortcomings that should discourage other states or the federal government from adopting it without revision.

"It represents a major shift in the debate because for the first time industry and Republican lawmakers acknowledge that disclosure should be mandatory and that it should address all fracturing chemicals that may be harmful to public health and the environment," said Matt Watson, senior energy policy manager for EDF. "Texas and the nation will be better off for it." But it leaves the decision on disclosure exemptions with the Texas Railroad Commission, which Watson said tends to favor business interests.

The long timetable for new rules is also a concern, Watson said. Ramona Nye, a spokeswoman for the Railroad Commission, said the commission "has discretion regarding this process for any particular rule-making and may hold workshops, stakeholders meetings or other opportunities to gather information before drafting a rule proposal." Chairman Jones' chief of staff, Andrew Keefer, said discussions of the new rules may begin in late June.

"The intent is to get it done as quickly as possible," Keefer said, but public comments can drag the process out.





The Voss Law Firm, P.C.
The Voss Law Center
26619 Interstate 45 South
The Woodlands, TX 77380

Phone: 281-VICTORY
Toll free: 1-866-276-6179 
Fax: 713-861-0021


The Voss Law Firm, P.C. represents clients on a local, national and international basis. We proudly serve all Texas counties and cities including but not limited to the following: Harris County, Montgomery County, Jefferson County, Houston, The Woodlands, Beaumont, El Paso, San Antonio, Austin, Sugar Land, Dallas, Fort Worth, Orange, and Port Arthur, as well as companies and individuals along the Gulf Coast and around the globe.

 



Business Disputes - Critical Information for All Business Owners
Disputes with Your Insurance Company - What All Consumers Need to Know
Coin Fraud - Is Your Investment at Risk?
See All

Free Case Review

Fill out the form below to claim your FREE CONFIDENTIAL case review.

Name *

Phone *

Email *

Tell us more *



The Voss Law Center
26619 Interstate 45 South
The Woodlands, TX 77380
Phone: 281-VICTORY (842-8679)
Toll Free: 866-276-6179
Get Directions

Social Media

Legal News

Recognition








Videos

Oil and Gas Law:

Watch All

Testimonials

  • I got treated with respect and things went very well.
  • I look forward to a lasting relationship. I will refer you many clients as we move down the road.
  • Bill Voss was able to quickly grasp our market space, legal challenges and resource obstacles efficiently.
  • I will definitely recommend The Voss Law Firm to all my friends and associates.
  • Por medio de la presente les doy las gracias por su bien trabajo y aprecio los buenos resultados.
  • I want to thank you for all your help and I will recommend you guys to my friends and family. - J. Penaflor

View All

Web Resources

View All