Three years ago tomorrow, on March 9, 2009, the Dow Jones Index hit bottom at a sickeningly low 6547 or 57% below its October 2007 high. From that high, as the recession began in the 4th quarter of 2007, stocks moved lower.
Then shear fear and panic ruled the markets after September 15, 2008, following the Lehmann Brothers bankruptcy. Read the CNN report after the market close on March 9, 2009.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/09/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm.
After March 9, 2009, stocks began their historic bull run, as the markets judged the federal government's actions had stopped another Great Depression.
I am harshly critical of what led to the Lehmann Brother's bankruptcy--allowing too-big-to-fail financial institutions to form, compounding that error by the failure to regulate debt leveraging and high risk practices at too-big-to-fail institutions so that Lehmann was leveraged more than 30 to 1 when it failed, the failure to regulate sub-prime lending, the failure to regulate the credit rating agencies, reckless deficits when the economy was growing from 2001 to 2007, and the list goes on.
But once Lehmann Brothers went bankrupt on September 15, 2008, and a financial meltdown began, as surely as an operating nuclear reactor melts without cooling water, both the out-going Bush Administration and the incoming-Obama Administration got more right than wrong. Mistakes were made after Lehmann, but more tough calls made at that time look good rather than bad with the passage of time.
And so yesterday the Dow closed at 12,837 or up about 96% since March 9, 2009, an historic bull run. Lest we forget.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Stunning Fact: Local Ordinances Ban Fracking In 27% of New York Marcellus Play
While the New York State government continues its process of promulgating rules to allow shale gas development, local ordinances in New York may have banned fracking in 27% of the New York area in the Marcellus. I heard that number today at an International Energy Agency conference that I am attending and will be looking to confirm it.
Feds MOVE To Accelerate CNG Vehicle Adoption
Last week the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) held a massive conference in Oxton Hill, Maryland to which President Clinton, Secretary Chu and even I spoke. More than 2500 people attended this premier event that marshals thought and action for energy technology breakthroughs.
My pick for the most important highlight of the conference was the new Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, a $30 million initiative, designed to hasten commercialization high energy density tanks for CNG and low-cost home refueling stations. http://www.ngvglobal.com/ and see the February 24th postings.
With gasoline at $3.74, while natural gas fueling is at $1.50, and war with Iran a real possibility, accelerating the move from oil to gas and other substitutes for transportation should be the nation's most important energy task. The MOVE initiative seeks to do exactly that by finding energy storgage and fueling technology breakthroughs that lower the cost of CNG vehicles.
As of 2010, the US had just 112,000 CNG vehicles on the road. Using federal research dollars to tackle two of the biggest technology weaknesses in the CNG market is a smart use of funds that can play a role in putting millions of natural gas powered vehicles on our roads. MOVE plus passing the Natural Gas Act that is dying a long, slow death in the United States House of Representatives would really make the US serious about gas transportation.
My pick for the most important highlight of the conference was the new Methane Opportunities for Vehicular Energy, a $30 million initiative, designed to hasten commercialization high energy density tanks for CNG and low-cost home refueling stations. http://www.ngvglobal.com/ and see the February 24th postings.
With gasoline at $3.74, while natural gas fueling is at $1.50, and war with Iran a real possibility, accelerating the move from oil to gas and other substitutes for transportation should be the nation's most important energy task. The MOVE initiative seeks to do exactly that by finding energy storgage and fueling technology breakthroughs that lower the cost of CNG vehicles.
As of 2010, the US had just 112,000 CNG vehicles on the road. Using federal research dollars to tackle two of the biggest technology weaknesses in the CNG market is a smart use of funds that can play a role in putting millions of natural gas powered vehicles on our roads. MOVE plus passing the Natural Gas Act that is dying a long, slow death in the United States House of Representatives would really make the US serious about gas transportation.
More PA Gas To Stay Local & Less For NY
Most PA gas leaves Pennsylvania and goes to New York City and other Northeast markets, meaning that the impact of gas drilling stays local, while the gas itself goes to the region. A new $1 billion pipeline, proposed by UGI and its partners, could keep more gas local, by delivering another approximately 300 billion cubic feet per year or 25% of Pennsylvania's 2011 gas production to Pennsylvania"s homes and businesses. http://articles.philly.com/2012-03-02/news/31117210_1_pipeline-route-natural-gas-ugi
New York has been doing two things: buy shale gas drilled in Pennsylvania to save money and to stay warm, while stopping shale gas drilling in New York.
Of course, Pennsylvania has had the lease income, the royalty checks that have changed lives, the direct jobs, the indirect jobs, the much lower gas and electricity bills--lots of benefits from drilling that plenty of New Yorkers want as well. But dealing with the impacts caused by industrial gas drilling and then sending the gas to NY has left a bad taste in the mouths of more than a few Pennsylvanians.
Gas drilled in Pennsylvania should stay in Pennsylvania if possible.
New York has been doing two things: buy shale gas drilled in Pennsylvania to save money and to stay warm, while stopping shale gas drilling in New York.
Of course, Pennsylvania has had the lease income, the royalty checks that have changed lives, the direct jobs, the indirect jobs, the much lower gas and electricity bills--lots of benefits from drilling that plenty of New Yorkers want as well. But dealing with the impacts caused by industrial gas drilling and then sending the gas to NY has left a bad taste in the mouths of more than a few Pennsylvanians.
Gas drilled in Pennsylvania should stay in Pennsylvania if possible.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Cornell Profs Smackdown Howarth For Second Time
The Cornell research team led by Professor Cathles just took Professor Howarth to the academic woodshed for a second time. The most recent debunking of Howarth is full of data, and reading it is mandatory.
For me the single most important point in Cathles piece is the new data about leakage rates and specifically venting at 1578 unconventional gas wells. Contrary to Howarth's assumption that venting during well completion takes place at 100% of uncoventional wells, the 1578 well data set showed 3% of wells were vented.
Cathles' latest paper further isolates Howarth who stands alone in the science literature. Beyond the leakage rates that Howarth manufactures with wild assumptions and extrapolations, Howarth alone believes using a 20-year global warming potential factor when performing a coal and gas life cycle analysis is appropriate.
Howarth alone believes it is appropriate to end the life cycle analysis before coal and gas is combusted at an electricity plant. Virtually all coal is used to make electricity. It is impossible to calculate fairly the "life cycle" emissions of coal without including the emissions of when coal is actually burnt and that takes place nearly always at a power plant.
But Howarth alone stops his analysis before coal is burnt. This point alone is enough to discredit entirely Howarth's analysis.
The deception in the Howarth analysis is not restricted to its failure to include emissions after coal and gas are used to make power. Take a look at Cathles ending segment entitled, "Setting The Record Straight."
Strong language will be found there like: "Their distortion of this statement is, once again, simply misleading and disingenuous." That sentence is a good summary of Howarth's study.
President Obama Passes Political Beer Drinking Test
Its Super Tuesday and time to ask, with whom would you want to have a beer? President Obama, Speaker Gingrich, Governor Romney, Senator Santorum, or Congressman Paul?
In the February 27th, 2012 Politico Battleground poll, President Obama's job approval stood at 53% and 74% of voters approved of the President personally. In other words 74% liked him, even though about a third of those who liked him did not approve of his job performance.
Personal popularity is everything when running for the president of a fraternity or a high school class, but it should not be discounted as a factor in Presidential politics.
At the Presidential level, the question becomes, with which candidate would you prefer to have a beer? That is a question that President Obama welcomes, whether the Republican nominee is Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul.
How important is the Presidential beer drinking contest to deciding the winner? While the economy and the question, "are you better off than 4 years ago?", remain the most important factor in deciding elections, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all won the beer drinking contest against George H. Bush, Dole, Kerry, Gore and the Presidency. One might have to go back to Richard Nixon to find a candidate who became President without winning being liked.
Being liked matters in contests for the Presidency, probably even more than specific policy positions. Personal popularity involves personality, appearance, voice, all ingredients of leadership, whether one likes it or not.
Obama's 74% personal favoribility rating is teflon that deflects political attacks, and, while it won't win the President a second term by itself, his re-election campaign stands on the strong foundation that large numbers of Americans like Barack Obama.
In the February 27th, 2012 Politico Battleground poll, President Obama's job approval stood at 53% and 74% of voters approved of the President personally. In other words 74% liked him, even though about a third of those who liked him did not approve of his job performance.
Personal popularity is everything when running for the president of a fraternity or a high school class, but it should not be discounted as a factor in Presidential politics.
At the Presidential level, the question becomes, with which candidate would you prefer to have a beer? That is a question that President Obama welcomes, whether the Republican nominee is Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul.
How important is the Presidential beer drinking contest to deciding the winner? While the economy and the question, "are you better off than 4 years ago?", remain the most important factor in deciding elections, Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all won the beer drinking contest against George H. Bush, Dole, Kerry, Gore and the Presidency. One might have to go back to Richard Nixon to find a candidate who became President without winning being liked.
Being liked matters in contests for the Presidency, probably even more than specific policy positions. Personal popularity involves personality, appearance, voice, all ingredients of leadership, whether one likes it or not.
Obama's 74% personal favoribility rating is teflon that deflects political attacks, and, while it won't win the President a second term by itself, his re-election campaign stands on the strong foundation that large numbers of Americans like Barack Obama.
Monday, March 5, 2012
McKibben Gets Fracking Facts Wrong In New York Review Of Books
It is not just Rolling Stones Magazine currently providing a buffet of misinformation about "fracking."
For the New York Review of Books, Bill McKibben writes about "fracking," while reviewing the excellent End of Country by Seamus McGraw (buy it and read it), another book, and Gasland. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/why-not-frack/. Since McKibben substantially takes his facts from Gasland and the NYT Drilling Down Series that the NYT Public Editor twice rebuked as misleading and inaccurate, he makes big mistakes that inevitably distort his understanding of "fracking" and our energy choices.
For example, McKibben repeats the NYT claim that Pennsylvania's waters were contaminated with radionuclides. Possibly because he is unaware of it, McKibben does not discuss the massive testing for radionuclides, done by both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and 15 drinking water suppliers, that have all proven that Pennsylvania's streams and drinking water have no radionuclide contamination. None. Zero.
If those test results are news to McKibben, he can thank the NYT that has avoided any significant reporting on the radiation test results that inconveniently refute its sensational original February 27th, 2011 story. If he wants a taste of real information, McKibben should go to www.pgh20.com, where he will see the monthly results of radionuclide testing done by the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority since March 2011. Again the PWSA testing is only a small part of the total testing done and all have the same results: no radionuclide contamination of in-stream or tap water. None. Zero.
McKibben also mistakenly asserts that the terrible Dunkard Creek fish kill in 2009 was the result of gas drilling discharges. That after all was what Gasland told McKibben and other viewers. Yet, the EPA, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection all concluded that a coal mining discharge created the water conditions that allowed an algae to bloom that devastated fish populations. Indeed, following the fish kill, the EPA entered into a consent agreement with a coal mining company to build a $70 million plant to treat a mining discharge a few miles upstream from the fish kill so that it would not be repeated.
Similarly distorted is McKibben's discussion of "lax Pennsylvania regulation" that he agains takes almost verbatim from the NYT Drilling Down Series.
Given his reliance on the NYT for facts, McKibben almost certainly is unaware that Pennsylvania issued the most violations--by a lot--to the gas industry (a total of 1200 in 2010 and 1100 in 2011) of any state in the country, as documented by the February 2012 University of Texas study that reviewed enforcement in 15 states.
He may be unaware that Pennsylvania more than doubled its oil and gas staff, hiring in 2009 and twice in 2010, boosting employee totals from 88 to 202, and opening new regulatory offices in Williamsport and Scranton in 2010. No other state comes close to the hiring by Pennsylvania to oversee shale gas production, though still more is needed to keep pace with the industry expansion and record keeping needs.
McKibben may also be unaware that Pennsylvania passed 5 regulatory packages from 2008 to 2011 that modernized and strengthened regulations governing gas drilling. Those packages are:
1. A water plan requirement governing water withdrawals enacted in 2008 to insure that water withdrawals do not damage streams;
2. A drilling wastewater disposal requirement enacted in August 2010 insuring that TDS levels in watersheds do not exceed 75% of the Safe Drinking Water Act TDS level and that required full TDS treatment at the pipe of any new or expanded drilling wastewater discharges. At this point nearly all shale drilling wastewater is recycled or deep well injected, and none of it is being discharged to rivers.
3. A 150 feet buffer rule enacted in November 2010 that protects Pennsylvania's high quality streams that total 22,000 stream miles from all development.
4. A complete rewrite and strengthening of all gas well drilling rules, including design of the gas wells, materials used, and mandatory disclosure of chemicals.
5. Raising the fee as of 2009 charged drillers to apply for a permit from a ridiculous $100 to as much as $10,000 per application. The fee raised more than $10 million per year and all funds were used to more than double the gas drilling staff at the Department of Environmental Protection.
Despite key errors, McKibben is not wrong about everything. McKibben is right that the regulatory model of the regulator as a "partner" with industry is inconsistent with oversight. Instead regulators must be professional and independent. They must be neither friend nor foe to those that they regulate.
McKibben is also right that the gas industry must reduce methane leakage to limit greenhouse gas pollution, even though the science literature overwhelming concludes that coal emits twice the heat trapping pollution as gas does when used to make electricity, and nearly all coal is used to make electricity. Though McKibben does not mention them, the EPA's July 2011 proposed regulations of gas drilling air emissions are crucial bit of 2012 regulatory business.
But gas drilling causes much less impact on water resources than coal mining, oil production, run-off from agriculture, sewage discharges, hydro dams, corn ethanol, antibiotic pollution, and many other things that damage water resources. The most significant impact on water from shale drilling has been cases of gas migrating to private water wells, as a result of poor drilling (gas migration is not a result of hydraulic fracturing). The Duke study that McKibben mentions found gas in water at high rates, but also found that frack fluids were not contaminating the same water wells, something that McKibben does not know or did not state in his piece.
The gas migration problem is real, and it is true that too many companies in the gas industry lawyer-up, when confronted with these cases, instead of fixing the problem, and focusing on reducing the risk. The McKibben piece is another example to the industry of the damage being done by the current handling of this important issue.
McKibben is right that the federal government and states must strongly regulate gas drilling and reasonably tax it. But McKibben must get the full facts about fracking, and he won't find them in the NYT, Gasland, or Rolling Stones Magazine.
Important to McKibben's mission of stabilizing concentrations of heat trapping pollution, the full facts include the role of low-priced gas, made possible by the shale gas boom, in preventing another wave of 150 new US coal plants that had been proposed as of 2005, and in the announcement of the retirment of 331 coal units since January 2010. Moreover, so far, the boom in shale gas coincides with a boom in wind and solar in the USA, showing that gas and renewables need not be mutually exclusive.
McKibben's review proves that he needs to get beyond Gasland and the NYT Drilling Down Series. I would be glad to discuss this vital issue with him if he would like.
For the New York Review of Books, Bill McKibben writes about "fracking," while reviewing the excellent End of Country by Seamus McGraw (buy it and read it), another book, and Gasland. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/why-not-frack/. Since McKibben substantially takes his facts from Gasland and the NYT Drilling Down Series that the NYT Public Editor twice rebuked as misleading and inaccurate, he makes big mistakes that inevitably distort his understanding of "fracking" and our energy choices.
For example, McKibben repeats the NYT claim that Pennsylvania's waters were contaminated with radionuclides. Possibly because he is unaware of it, McKibben does not discuss the massive testing for radionuclides, done by both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and 15 drinking water suppliers, that have all proven that Pennsylvania's streams and drinking water have no radionuclide contamination. None. Zero.
If those test results are news to McKibben, he can thank the NYT that has avoided any significant reporting on the radiation test results that inconveniently refute its sensational original February 27th, 2011 story. If he wants a taste of real information, McKibben should go to www.pgh20.com, where he will see the monthly results of radionuclide testing done by the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority since March 2011. Again the PWSA testing is only a small part of the total testing done and all have the same results: no radionuclide contamination of in-stream or tap water. None. Zero.
McKibben also mistakenly asserts that the terrible Dunkard Creek fish kill in 2009 was the result of gas drilling discharges. That after all was what Gasland told McKibben and other viewers. Yet, the EPA, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection all concluded that a coal mining discharge created the water conditions that allowed an algae to bloom that devastated fish populations. Indeed, following the fish kill, the EPA entered into a consent agreement with a coal mining company to build a $70 million plant to treat a mining discharge a few miles upstream from the fish kill so that it would not be repeated.
Similarly distorted is McKibben's discussion of "lax Pennsylvania regulation" that he agains takes almost verbatim from the NYT Drilling Down Series.
Given his reliance on the NYT for facts, McKibben almost certainly is unaware that Pennsylvania issued the most violations--by a lot--to the gas industry (a total of 1200 in 2010 and 1100 in 2011) of any state in the country, as documented by the February 2012 University of Texas study that reviewed enforcement in 15 states.
He may be unaware that Pennsylvania more than doubled its oil and gas staff, hiring in 2009 and twice in 2010, boosting employee totals from 88 to 202, and opening new regulatory offices in Williamsport and Scranton in 2010. No other state comes close to the hiring by Pennsylvania to oversee shale gas production, though still more is needed to keep pace with the industry expansion and record keeping needs.
McKibben may also be unaware that Pennsylvania passed 5 regulatory packages from 2008 to 2011 that modernized and strengthened regulations governing gas drilling. Those packages are:
1. A water plan requirement governing water withdrawals enacted in 2008 to insure that water withdrawals do not damage streams;
2. A drilling wastewater disposal requirement enacted in August 2010 insuring that TDS levels in watersheds do not exceed 75% of the Safe Drinking Water Act TDS level and that required full TDS treatment at the pipe of any new or expanded drilling wastewater discharges. At this point nearly all shale drilling wastewater is recycled or deep well injected, and none of it is being discharged to rivers.
3. A 150 feet buffer rule enacted in November 2010 that protects Pennsylvania's high quality streams that total 22,000 stream miles from all development.
4. A complete rewrite and strengthening of all gas well drilling rules, including design of the gas wells, materials used, and mandatory disclosure of chemicals.
5. Raising the fee as of 2009 charged drillers to apply for a permit from a ridiculous $100 to as much as $10,000 per application. The fee raised more than $10 million per year and all funds were used to more than double the gas drilling staff at the Department of Environmental Protection.
Despite key errors, McKibben is not wrong about everything. McKibben is right that the regulatory model of the regulator as a "partner" with industry is inconsistent with oversight. Instead regulators must be professional and independent. They must be neither friend nor foe to those that they regulate.
McKibben is also right that the gas industry must reduce methane leakage to limit greenhouse gas pollution, even though the science literature overwhelming concludes that coal emits twice the heat trapping pollution as gas does when used to make electricity, and nearly all coal is used to make electricity. Though McKibben does not mention them, the EPA's July 2011 proposed regulations of gas drilling air emissions are crucial bit of 2012 regulatory business.
But gas drilling causes much less impact on water resources than coal mining, oil production, run-off from agriculture, sewage discharges, hydro dams, corn ethanol, antibiotic pollution, and many other things that damage water resources. The most significant impact on water from shale drilling has been cases of gas migrating to private water wells, as a result of poor drilling (gas migration is not a result of hydraulic fracturing). The Duke study that McKibben mentions found gas in water at high rates, but also found that frack fluids were not contaminating the same water wells, something that McKibben does not know or did not state in his piece.
The gas migration problem is real, and it is true that too many companies in the gas industry lawyer-up, when confronted with these cases, instead of fixing the problem, and focusing on reducing the risk. The McKibben piece is another example to the industry of the damage being done by the current handling of this important issue.
McKibben is right that the federal government and states must strongly regulate gas drilling and reasonably tax it. But McKibben must get the full facts about fracking, and he won't find them in the NYT, Gasland, or Rolling Stones Magazine.
Important to McKibben's mission of stabilizing concentrations of heat trapping pollution, the full facts include the role of low-priced gas, made possible by the shale gas boom, in preventing another wave of 150 new US coal plants that had been proposed as of 2005, and in the announcement of the retirment of 331 coal units since January 2010. Moreover, so far, the boom in shale gas coincides with a boom in wind and solar in the USA, showing that gas and renewables need not be mutually exclusive.
McKibben's review proves that he needs to get beyond Gasland and the NYT Drilling Down Series. I would be glad to discuss this vital issue with him if he would like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)