[Occupymendocino] Fw: [Globalfrackdown] Re: 1. Marcellus Shale: Study casts doubt on emission benefits of natural gas 2 . Oil’s methane emissions higher than f eared

[Ann Rennacker]

There is a petition you can sign in this message to stop fracking in Scotland.

________________________________
From: Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org <Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org> on behalf of (no username) <privateemail75073 at groups.fwwatch.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 8:21 AM
To: Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org; Andy G
Cc: Shale Gas List; Gas Strategy Europe; beyond-gas at googlegroups.com
Subject: [Globalfrackdown] Re: 1. Marcellus Shale: Study casts doubt on emission benefits of natural gas 2 . Oil’s methane emissions higher than f eared

For information/interest - our presser sent out today

LOVE SCOTLAND - BAN FRACKING
An urgent call from Frackwatch Glasgow for people to respond to the government's public consultation saying no to this dirty industry.

The Scottish government is consulting the public on whether unconventional gas extraction (fracking) should be allowed in some of Scotland's most densely populated areas, including round Glasgow at Bishopbriggs, Robroyston and Milton and nearby in East Dunbartonshire and Lanarkshire.
Frackwatch Glasgow launches its campaign today with the slogan "Love Scotland - Ban Fracking", urging every Glaswegian to tell the Scottish government that they don't want this dirty industry. The government's own impact studies highlight clear risks to health, to air quality, and to quality of life for people living near the drilling, with noise and heavy traffic.
The group has also called on politicians of all parties to be honest with people about the economic benefits of fracking.
There are growing worries the Scottish government may be trying to move the public towards acceptance, with Ministers claiming the process would "help Scotland's petro-chemical industry". That's a very grand statement; what it means is simply that INEOS, who own almost all current licences in Scotland, could frack close to people's homes and schools and businesses, to get cheap ethanol for its plastics production.
As far as the wider economy is concerned, there is no benefit worth speaking of. The Scottish government's own consultant, KPMG, stated in its report that:

"According to our estimates, the industry could represent an average of 0.1% of Scottish GDP (2015 figure) in our Central scenario and 0.3% in our High scenario which is not a large contribution to the Scottish economy."
Not only government ministers, but also Conservative MSPs need to meet high standards when discussing economic facts.
Glasgow's two Conservative MSPs (Ann Wells and Adam Tomkins) have been responding to constituents with claims that KPMG said up to "£4.6 billion in GVA (gross value added) could be generated by fracking in Scotland along with 3,100 jobs and £3.9 billion in tax receipts across the UK."
But the figure of £4.6 billion GVA is the highest possible figure in the KPMG report. The central estimate just £1.2bn.
The MSPs also failed to point out that these are totals over 42 years. So the annualised amount is £110m GVA per annum in the High Scenario and in the Central scenario, about £30m a year.
The jobs figure is also picking the highest estimate. The central estimate is 1,400 FTE (full-time equivalent) jobs, and that is at the peak of production and would last only a few years.
Compare these figures to the latest figures on the economic impact of low carbon industries in Scotland, which generated £10.7 billion in turnover in one year alone (2014, the most recent figure available) and supported 43,500 jobs.
More and more states and countries are banning fracking - from New York State to Victoria in Australia, from Germany to Maryland and even closer to home, Wales has a ban. Should Scotland not join this progressive alliance, rather than follow the Tories in England, forcing fracking on unwilling communities?
Nicola Sturgeon promised: "We will not allow fracking in Scotland because we will not take risks with our environment while there are still unanswered questions."
Those questions, those risks, are clearer than ever.
If you love Scotland, if you love our planet, tell the Scottish government to ban fracking.

What people can do:
For more information, and quick ways to respond, either as an individual or as a group, go here:
https://act.stopfracking.scot/take-action-ban-fracking-now
[https://act.stopfracking.scot/sites/foescot/files/BFN%20560x292.jpg]<https://act.stopfracking.scot/take-action-ban-fracking-now>

Take Action to Ban Fracking Now! | Take action to stop ...<https://act.stopfracking.scot/take-action-ban-fracking-now>
act.stopfracking.scot
Fracking is bad for the climate, bad for public health and threatens communities across Scotland. People power has already won a temporary halt on fracking.

 Complete the consultation here:
https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/energy-and-climate-change-directorate/fracking-unconventional-oil-and-gas/consultation/subpage.2016-07-07.1474135251/
Community Considerations - Scottish Government - Citizen Space <https://consult.scotland.gov.uk/energy-and-climate-change-directorate/fracking-unconventional-oil-and-gas/consultation/subpage.2016-07-07.1474135251/>
consult.scotland.gov.uk
Find and participate in consultations run by The Scottish Government



 For more information email frackwatchglasgow at btconnect.com<mailto:frackwatchglasgow at btconnect.com> or call Penny Cole on 07951 350 835
On 14 Feb 2017, at 11:10, Andy G <andy.gheorghiu_mail.de at groups.fwwatch.org<mailto:andy.gheorghiu_mail.de at groups.fwwatch.org>> wrote:


Dear all,

fyi 2 new studies on hydrocarbons production and methane emissions:

1. Marcellus Shale: Study casts doubt on emission benefits of natural gas<http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/02/10/stories/1060049893>

Study/Research Article: Analysis of local-scale background concentrations of methane and other gas-phase species in the Marcellus Shale<http://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/02/10/document_gw_03.pdf>

"New research on the Marcellus Shale region in Pennsylvania challenges the relative climate benefits of natural gas production.
A study<http://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/02/10/document_gw_03.pdf> by Drexel University released yesterday found that atmospheric levels of methane increased by 100 parts per billion between 2012 and 2015, despite a slowdown in the number of new natural gas wells. Authors noted that marks a substantial jump compared to a 6 parts per billion global increase in concentrations of the potent greenhouse gas.
Drexel's Peter DeCarlo, who led the study, said the rapid increase represents a "shifting of emissions from development to production stage."
During the three-year time period, the amount of natural gas produced nearly doubled. The study notes other major sources of methane, such as agricultural activity, have not likely changed in the region.
It points to persistent sources of emissions associated with production and distribution, such as pipelines, compressor stations or processing facilities. The finding, authors said, could suggest that measures taken by natural gas producers to decrease leakage are not sufficient to reduce methane leakage.
DeCarlo told E&E News that it looks like additional monitoring is necessary.
The Pennsylvania director of Energy In Depth, which is aligned with the oil and gas industry, said it is important to take the study's findings in proper context. Nicole Jacobs said in an email that the increase is a "minuscule amount and shows emissions essentially remained flat," aligning with other studies of the region.
Data<http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/Energy/OilandGasPrograms/OilandGasMgmt/Pages/Annual-Report.aspx> released in August from the state's Department of Environmental Protection showed methane emissions fell 12 percent between 2012 and 2014 while production increased 33 percent.
The study comes as Republicans on Capitol Hill move forward with efforts to repeal an Interior Department regulation that seeks to limit natural gas flaring, venting and leakage on public and tribal lands. Senators are preparing to take up a resolution passed last week by the House that targets the Obama-era Bureau of Land Management rule (Greenwire<http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060049534>, Feb. 3).
Environmentalists have cited methane as a major contributor to climate change in addition, pushing Congress to preserve the standard.
The League of Conservation Voters called the rule "an important step in reducing our contributions to a changing climate that threatens our health, communities, ecosystems, economy, security, and way of life" in a letter<https://www.lcv.org/article/re-oppose-drastic-repeal-blms-methane-waste-prevention-rule-2/> sent to senators yesterday that urged a "no" vote.
Oil and gas industry advocates, including the American Petroleum Institute, argue BLM lacks the authority to regulate air quality and that the rule could impede energy production. They note increased production of natural gas has helped the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and companies already have high financial incentives to try to capture methane emissions.
Twitter: @ha_nah_nah<https://twitter.com/ha_nah_nah> Email: hhess at eenews.net<mailto:hhess at eenews.net>

2. Oil's methane emissions higher than feared <http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/news/170201-oilgas.html>

Study/Research Letter: Bottom-up simulations of methane and ethane emissions from global oil and gas systems 1980 to 2012<http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa583e/meta;jsessionid=4D78E863DB2EA1B51BC882894DBC298F.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org> <http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa583e/meta;jsessionid=4D78E863DB2EA1B51BC882894DBC298F.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org>

"Global methane and ethane emissions from oil production from 1980 to 2012 were far higher than previous estimates show, according to a new study which for the first time takes into account different production management systems and geological conditions around the world.
...
In the new paper, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, Höglund-Isaksson estimated global methane emissions from oil and gas systems in over 100 countries over a 32-year period, using a variety of country-specific data ranging from reported volumes of associated gas to satellite imagery that can show flaring, as well as atmospheric measurements of ethane, a gas which is released along with methane and easier to link more directly to oil and gas activities.
...
She found that in particular in the 1980s, global methane emissions were as much as double previous estimates. The study also found that the Russian oil industry contributes a large amount to global methane emissions. A decline in the Russian oil industry in the 1990s contributed to a global decline in methane emissions which continued until the early 2000's. At the same time, Höglund-Isaksson found, methane recovery systems were becoming more common and helping to reduce emissions. Yet since 2005, emissions from oil and gas systems have remained fairly constant, which Höglund-Isaksson says is likely linked to increasing shale gas production which largely offsets emission reductions from increased gas recovery.
..."

my best regards
Andy

--
Andy Gheorghiu
- Policy Advisor -
Food & Water Europe
Stechbahn 9
34497 Korbach
Germany
Tel.:  +49 5631 50 69 507
Mobil: +49 160 20 30 974
Skype: andy.gheorghiu2
www.foodandwatereurope.org<http://www.foodandwatereurope.org/>









~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Manage your Group settings:

* To reply to sender ((no username)):
privateemail75073 at groups.fwwatch.org

* To view sender's profile, click this link:
(no username)<http://groups.fwwatch.org/profile.htm?mode=vp&pid=75073>

* To post to entire group, send email to:
Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org

* To email the group moderator(s) (dsanchez at fweurope.org, mschlosberg at fwwatch.org, docallaghan at fwwatch.org, ewurth at fwwatch.org):
Globalfrackdown-moderator at groups.fwwatch.org

* To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link:
edit delivery settings<http://groups.fwwatch.org/p.htm?m=qs&em=annxpress@live.com&sk=o1zXkP>

* To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to:
Globalfrackdown-unsubscribe at groups.fwwatch.org

* To remove yourself from this group, send email to:
Globalfrackdown-remove at groups.fwwatch.org

* To visit this group on the web, click this link:
view group<http://groups.fwwatch.org/group.htm?igid=4958>

Powered by GoLightly, http://www.golightly.com/
~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mcn.org/pipermail/occupymendocino/attachments/20170214/99f3bad8/attachment.html