[Update: 9/4/11 – Jeff Tittel of NJ Sierra Club doubles down and digs deeper in this Op-Ed:
Remarkably, Tittel manages to ignore the sole threat to NJ drinking water (i.e. Delaware River from NY and PA fracking) and the major policy decision facing Governor Christie (i.e. whether to support flawed DRBC regulations and lift the current DRBC moratorium, or to oppose them and retain the moratorium.)
Tittel well knows that Christie supports DRBC regs, but he inexplicably ignores this issue entirely. So why won’t Tittel criticize Christie for his most egregiously bad act in support of fracking? It seems that the only reason for not doing so is that it would reveal the sham arguments he offers up.
Lets get real. DRBC regulates fracking. Christie represents NJ on DRBC. Yet Tittel ignores DRBC but finds time to criticize Christie for Energy Master Plan rhetoric in support of gas pipelines? Pipeline routes are federally regulated and preempted by FERC. Those decisions were made long ago. So Christie has little if any influence on or responsibility for them.)
While ignoring all these huge threats and policy decisions in the here and now, Tittel now rests his entire case on a grossly exaggerated long run future theoretical threat from tiny Utica shale deposits in northwest NJ. But that argument is bunk.
First of all, Utica shale natural gas reserves are largely unknown, and the technical and economic feasibility of fracking to extract gas is not remotely known. Utica shale is far deeper, far more costly to drill, and far riskier. In contrast, there is a surplus of known, cheaper, more abundant Marcellus gas, making Utica shale a remote and very long term future possibility
But, even if or when Utica fracking does occur, because the Utica formation lies under the Marcellus, it will happen where Marcellus fracking infrastructure is already in place. Therefore, Utica shale NJ fracking is extraordinarily unlikely to occur in NJ, ever. Here’s a geological assessment:
Future Development of the Utica Shale
Two important challenges for developing the Utica Shale are its significant depth and a lack of information. In areas where the Marcellus Shale is present the Utica Shale is probably going to be a resource of the distant future. The Marcellus Shale is less expensive to develop and companies will focus on it before setting their sights on a deeper target with an uncertain payoff.
However, in areas where the Marcellus Shale has been developed the Utica will have an infrastructure advantage. Drilling pads, roadways, pipelines, gathering systems, surveying work, permit preparation data and landowner relationships might still be useful for developing the Utica Shale.
In areas beyond the Marcellus Shale the Utica has already become a primary target. Leasing and drilling are already occurring in eastern Ohio and Ontario, Canada with some wells capable of yielding commercial quantities of gas.
Look, the NJ ENGO community doesn’t have a lot of bullets. So it is worse than a farce to waste them shooting down straw men. – end update].
Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has drawn strong criticism in media circles for her remarks in support of drilling for oil in the Florida Everglades.
Here’s a sample of the coverage:
Bachmann sparks furor by calling for oil drilling in the Everglades
WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has reignited an intense debate over energy exploration by calling for oil drilling off the shores of Florida and in the Everglades.
The Republican tea-party favorite, who blames “radical environmentalists” for blocking access to energy supplies, said the nation needs to tap all of its resources when and wherever” it can be done responsibly.
“Whether that is in the Everglades or whether that is in the eastern Gulf region or whether that’s in North Dakota, we need to go where the energy is,” she told The Associated Press on Sunday while campaigning in Sarasota. “Of course, it needs to be done responsibly. If we can’t responsibly access energy in the Everglades, then we shouldn’t do it.”
But – oops! – It turns out that, according to a University of Florida professor, there are no oil or gas resources under the Everglades:
Compared to the millions of barrels of oil Americans consume daily, only a couple thousand barrels of oil are produced there a day, said Edward Glab a professor at Florida International University who has 25 years experience in the oil and gas industry.
And it’s relatively low quality stuff that’s hard to get out of the ground and difficult to clean-up, he added.
“The question in my own mind is whether the juice is worth the squeeze,” he said. “[The Everglades] is an extraordinary important and fragile ecosystem… There are other places we could go that would be far less risky with greater quantities of oil.”
So, Bachmann is calling for oil and gas drilling that will never occur.
So, with that absurdity in mind, let’s do a little thought experiment.
Suppose a bunch of Florida environmental groups convinced Florida’s legislature to pass a bill banning oil and gas drilling in the Everglades (but ignored far more real and more pressing issues in the process).
Would that be a credible environmental campaign? Would it be a smart priority to move on? Would it be an appropriate allocation of their scarce political resources?
Would it be a counter-productive target and needlessly play right into the hands of those Tea Party and Republican wingnuts who blame “radical environmentalists” for blocking access to energy supplies (and high gas prices)?
Now, I have no truck with defending Governor Christie, but Bachmann-like foolishness is effectively what happened here in NJ.
Environmental groups and Legislators fought for a ban of fracking in NJ.
Just like the Everglades are not a target of the oil and gas industry, neither is NJ a target of gas frackers.
Now who would have thought that Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann and NJ ENGO’s share something in common?
[Update – meanwhile, people are being arrested at the White House.]