Energy-In-Depth (EID), an Independent Petroleum Association of America’s public relations campaign, tweeted this morning about abandoned wind turbines, and whined about natural gas getting the “rap”.
The link EID/IPAA provided is to a blog owned by “TONY AARDVARK”. The name Tony Aardvark is obviously a pseudonym or pen name. That in itself is suspicious regarding the credibility of the “post”.
Mr. Aardvark’s post header is : 14000 Abandoned Wind Turbines In The USA
Mr. Aardvark posted an update to his article citing his source.
A google search for the words “over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned” and “abandoned wind turbines” came up with several other climate-change deniers blogs/websites reposting Mr. Aardvark’s original post or similar hysteria from questionable sources.
EID/IPPA credibility scores a ZERO regarding wind turbines
Now for the second part of EID/IPAA’s tweet: Why is natural gas getting the rap?
Gee, I don’t know. Could it be the number of properties which are now worthless due to water contamination? Or perhaps it’s the reports emerging about the hazards and risks of natural gas drilling?
Could it be that even Natural Gas Drillers admit to hazards and risks in their own annual reports? Such as found in Chesapeake Energy filing: 424B5 | Prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(5) | Filed on 02/13/2012
Excerpt: (Emphasis added):Natural gas and oil drilling and producing operations can be hazardous and may expose us to liabilities, including environmental liabilities.
Natural gas and oil operations are subject to many risks, including well blowouts, cratering and explosions, pipe failures, fires, formations with abnormal pressures, uncontrollable flows of natural gas, oil, brine or well fluids and other environmental hazards and risks. Our drilling operations involve risks from high pressures and from mechanical difficulties such as stuck pipes, collapsed casings and separated cables. Some of these risks or hazards could materially and adversely affect our revenues and expenses by reducing or shutting in production from wells or otherwise negatively impacting the projected economic performance of our prospects. If any of these risks occurs, we could sustain substantial losses as a result of:
—injury or loss of life;
—severe damage to or destruction of property, natural resources or equipment;
—pollution or other environmental damage;
—regulatory investigations and administrative, civil and criminal penalties; and
—injunctions resulting in limitation or suspension of operations.
There is inherent risk of incurring significant environmental costs and liabilities in our operations due to our use, generation, handling and disposal of materials, including wastes, petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemicals. We may incur joint and several, strict liability under applicable U.S. federal and state environmental laws in connection with releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and other hazardous substances at, on, under or from our leased or owned properties resulting from current or historical operations. In some cases our properties have been used for natural gas and oil exploration and production activities for a number of years, often by third parties not under our control. We also could incur material fines, penalties and government or third-party claims as a result of violations of, or liabilities under, applicable environmental laws and regulations. For our non-operated properties, we are dependent on the operator for operational and regulatory compliance. While we maintain insurance against some, but not all, of the risks described above, our insurance may not be adequate to cover casualty losses or liabilities, and our insurance does not cover penalties or fines that may be assessed by a governmental . Also, in the future we may not be able to obtain insurance at premium levels that justify its purchase.
See similar risk statements from:
Or could it be the one-excuse-fits-all “methane was present before we drilled” that is frequently dragged out by EID/IPAA and their Gas Industry sponsors?
Report finds methane remains issue in Pa. township | Wall Street Journal | September 7, 2012
Excerpt (Emphasis added): Pennsylvania’s environmental chief asserted two months ago that a faulty gas well that spiked nearby drinking-water wells with high levels of methane had been patched, and “the situation is for the most part over.”
But a report commissioned by an anti-drilling group concludes that methane migration continues to be a problem in Leroy Township, Bradford County — with no end in sight.
Gas Safety Inc., a Southborough, Mass., company that provides gas leak detection to homeowners and industry, said in a report released to The Associated Press that it found pockets of nearly pure methane a few inches below the soil surface, and detected a large plume of gas in the air.
The report concludes that “fugitive methane” from one or more Marcellus Shale gas wells may be entering faults and fractures deep underground, migrating to the surface, and contaminating residential drinking-water wells.
An official with Chesapeake Energy Corp, the driller at the center of the Leroy Township case, said baseline testing conducted before the gas wells were drilled revealed methane already was in the water.
Funny how EID/IPAA, et al, never seems to mention what the levels of methane or other contaminants were BEFORE drilling occurred. It’s odd the EIA/IPPA also ignore the private water wells turning into geysers.
After the water stopped spurting, Mrs. Manning stood by a barrier assembled from a wooden pallet, orange cones and a reflector to keep people away from the well. Tacked to the pallet are “No Smoking” and “No Parking” signs.
“Nobody in the neighborhood has seen anything like this before,” she said.
“All of a sudden a geyser erupts and it’s all natural to Northeastern Pennsylvania?”