START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

Fracking for Foreigners? New Report From Feds Backs More Natural Gas Exports


Business  (tags: climate, climate-change, climatechange, CO2emissions, destruction, environment, french, globalwarming, globalwarming, habitatdestruction, healthconditions, humans, nature, politics, pollution, protection, science, research, water, wildlife, world, governm )

JL
- 622 days ago - prwatch.org
A long-anticipated federal study released Wednesday for public comment concluded that the economic benefits of natural gas exports outweighed the potential for higher energy prices for consumers.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

JL A. (275)
Thursday December 13, 2012, 7:41 pm

PR Watch
Published on PR Watch (http://www.prwatch.org)

Fracking for Foreigners? New Report from Feds Backs More Natural Gas Exports
by Mary Bottari [1] December 7, 2012 - 9:27am

Fracking rigFracking rigHow times have changed. Ten years ago the United States was looking at importing natural gas via massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals, yet to be built. Now the country appears to be getting ready to significantly increase exports of LNG.

A long-anticipated federal study [4] released Wednesday for public comment concluded that the economic benefits of natural gas exports outweighed the potential for higher energy prices for consumers. The Obama administration has repeatedly said the study would be central to its decision on whether or not to approve expanded exports.

Do U.S. consumers really want the United States to get into the business of fracking for foreigners?
Dow Chemical and Sierra Club Slam Flawed Report

The push back on the flawed report, produced for the Department of Energy (DOE) by a private global consulting firm that has worked for the deregulation of the energy market, was immediate and came from some unexpected quarters. The U.S. chemical company Dow said the report failed to take into account the increased reliance of American manufacturers on natural gas, and environmentalists also cried foul.

"It is baffling that this report omits the serious threats increased fracking and gas production pose to our water, our air, and the health of our families," Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Wall Street Journal. [5]

Apparently, the impact of increased fracking and exports on the warming planet was not factored into the study either. Climate change activists have concluded that in order to keep the planet from warming above the globally agreed upon redline of 2 degrees Celsius, energy companies will have to keep 80 percent of its already proven reserves underground.
Fracking for France?

GaslandsGaslandsDuring the process of fracking or hydraulic fracturing, large quantities of water, along with sand and chemicals, are pumped into shale to crack the rock and allow oil and gas in the seams between layers of the shale to be released. Recent technologies have made accessing these deposits cheaper, leading to a rapid-fire expansion of fracking across the country. A key part of the controversy with fracking is that the chemicals are not disclosed by all of the companies involved, making it harder for people to know what chemicals and carcinogens are in the fracking fluid and waste water that is left behind.

While fracking terminals are popping up all over the United States and creating a storm of controversy in many communities, Europe, with its strong environmental and zoning laws, has been more skeptical.

In 2011, France became the first country to ban fracking for environmental reasons. There is no doubt others will follow. Ironically, the United States is preparing to pollute even more precious water resources in order to save Europe's.

Moreover, once the spigot of gas exports to various countries is turned on, it is very hard to turn off. As the DOE explains, due to the terms of global trade agreements that the United States has entered into, (which become binding federal law when enacted), we are legally obliged to export to the nations covered by those agreements.

"Federal law generally requires approval of natural gas exports to countries that have a free trade agreement with the United States. For countries that do not have a free trade agreement with the U.S., the Department of Energy is required to grant applications for export authorizations unless the Department finds that the proposed exports 'will not be consistent with the public interest,'" says the DOE.

If the Obama administration moves forward with allowing the construction of giant LNG terminals on our nation's shores for the sole purpose of exporting to foreign markets, it will throw fuel on the fire of an already raging controversy.
Center for Media and Democracy 520 University Avenue, Suite 260 Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Phone: 608-260-9713 Fax: 608-260-9714
Source URL: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/12/11897/fracking-foreigners-new-report-feds-backs-natural-gas-exports

Links:
[1] http://www.prwatch.org/users/35270/mary-bottari
[2] http://www.prwatch.org/topics/environment/fracking
[3] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.prwatch.org%2Fnews%2F2012%2F12%2F11897%2Ffracking-foreigners-new-report-feds-backs-natural-gas-exports&linkname=Fracking%20for%20Foreigners%3F%20New%20Report%20from%20Feds%20Backs%20More%20Natural%20Gas%20Exports
[4] http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/gasregulation/LNGStudy.html
[5] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578161461770971222.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0
 

Micheael Kirkbym (85)
Saturday December 15, 2012, 4:33 pm
Yep and hundreds of millions of wasted water later they wonder why we have a water crisis on our hands.
 

JL A. (275)
Saturday December 15, 2012, 4:35 pm
Thanks for emphasizing the link to the water shortages issues articles of late have confirmed with the proliferation of fracking for export Michael. You cannot currently send a star to Michael because you have done so within the last week.
 

Dorothy N. (63)
Sunday December 16, 2012, 1:24 am
Thanks to Michael Kirkby and J.L. A. for making it unnecessary for me to comment, lol.

Although I would like to add that the fricken'-frackin' commission producing these findings seem to be regarding profits for industry worth all of the damage to human and animal health and survival chances that this will cause and one wonders why this might be...
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday December 16, 2012, 8:16 am
You cannot currently send a star to Dorothy because you have done so within the last week.
 

Darlene B. (290)
Sunday December 16, 2012, 3:54 pm
Agree with you Dorothy N.--on all counts. Our government--nothing but a bunch of 'frackers'--we need an OCCUPY USA!!! Bless all who love Mother Earth.
 

Lois Jordan (55)
Sunday December 16, 2012, 3:59 pm
Apparently the economic benefits outweigh the poisons emitted harming humans, animals and Mother Earth. Thanks for mentioning the water, Michael. Articles should be placed side-by-side with one explaining all the water poisoned and wasted in the fracking process, while the other explains how clean water is diminishing throughout America.
 

JL A. (275)
Sunday December 16, 2012, 6:09 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Lois because you have done so within the last week.
 

ewoud k. (73)
Monday December 17, 2012, 1:27 pm
No economic benefit can outweigh the pollution created by fracking, as no economic benefit can ever repair damage done to our environment.

Another question: weren't we (humanity) supposed to stop using fossil energy to keep climate (more or less) under control?

Isn't fracking just pushing the end of the oil-based economy into the future, thus causing (even) more (and more brutal) climate change?

Stop fracking before fracking stops us.
 

Kerrie G. (135)
Monday December 17, 2012, 7:03 pm
Noted, thanks.
 

JL A. (275)
Monday December 17, 2012, 7:13 pm
You are welcome Kerrie.
 

Sheila S. (62)
Sunday December 30, 2012, 7:49 pm
When Dow Chemical and Sierra Club are on the same side of an argument then you gotta believe they are trying to fight something really, really bad. Ewoud said it so clearly (above) "no economic benefit can outweigh the pollution...(and) damage to our environment. Something smells here about that study that the administrative is leaning on so heavily for its policies and decisions.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.