So we ask you: 'What is your death/benefit ratio in your fracking business model Ms. Klaber?'

Marcellus Shale Coalition

September 27, 2011

Pittsburgh, Pa. – At a public U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hearing today, Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) president and executive director Kathryn Klaber underscored the fact that “clean-burning natural gas has undeniable air quality benefits.” Klaber strongly recommended “a 60-day extension” for the rulemaking comment period, given the host of proposed air regulations related to domestic oil and natural gas development, and expressed hope that regulators will join industry “in recognizing the tremendous air quality benefits of natural gas.”
Klaber’s prepared remarks are as follows:

Good afternoon. I am Kathryn Klaber, President and Executive Director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a multi-state association formed in 2008 and currently comprised of nearly 250 exploration and production, midstream, and supply-chain member companies fully committed to developing clean-burning natural gas resources in the Marcellus geological formation. Last year, our Coalition adopted a set of Guiding Principles, which comprise our vision for operating in a responsible, transparent manner in order to maximize the environmental, economic, and energy security benefits of clean-burning, abundant natural gas. Among those Guiding Principles is our focus on implementing state-of-the-art environmental protection across our operations. These are words we live and operate by – our commitment to our neighbors in this region and to the state agencies responsible for tightly regulating this industry.

I join you this afternoon not only as President of this dynamic Coalition, but also as a member of Pennsylvania’s Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee. I serve on the Committee for the same reason I proudly represent Marcellus producers today and every day: the work we are doing is improving environmental quality. Clean-burning natural gas has undeniable air quality benefits, and increasing its use in heating and fueling, transportation, and electricity generation serves all of us well. Ours is an industry committed not only to producing more clean-burning American natural gas, but to promoting it as well in our daily operations – from the use of natural gas-powered vehicles to rigs fueled in part by natural gas.

It is with these benefits in mind that I would briefly like to share my thoughts on some of the proposals made by the EPA. The Coalition will go into greater detail concerning these issues in the written comments to be submitted at a later date.

1. EPA has Underestimated Cost of Compliance

There are several examples in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in which EPA bases cost per ton reduction on gas with an inflated volatile organic compound weight percentage. For example, the northern Marcellus play in Pennsylvania contains dry gas, which would dramatically increase the cost per ton reduction when evaluating the feasibility of reduced emissions completions, vapor recovery units, flares, optical imaging leak detection and repair programs, as well as others. EPA should reconsider and provide for exemptions or other reasonable provisions for activities associated with dry gas plays

Continue reading...

Is it just us, or does anyone else believe that when Volatile Organic Compounds are emitted into the air, the air quality is thus reduced? The statement that clean-burning natural gas has undeniable air quality benefits is out of this world and as unrealistic as being able to surf the rings of  Saturn! 

Dear Kathryn Klaber,

We have never read such moronic scripture of industrial junk in a very long time! Your assessment is far from reality and feels like a science fiction novel.  Your 'mis-use' of words (Clean-burning), shows that you are wearing the industry label well. You also appear to lack real, irrefutable scientific reasoning. We implore you to resign from public speaking and commentary until such time that you can have a basic grasp on the science that is at hand.  With all due respect: You're occupying the same quantum state as a moron.

Consider the amount of controlled or uncontrolled released natural gas from hydraulic fracturing.  Just recently, it was reported that North Dakota (HERE) is burning 30% of all produced natural gas into the air because of lack of storage, lack of monetary value and consider it waste and burn it. This is undeniably air quality degradation.

Now consider the amount (MCF) of natural gas that is both released as controlled and uncontrolled amounts in the processes of recovering natural gas from shale formations. Weld  County, Colorado releases or flares roughly 1,361,000 MCF over a six month period, enough to cause asthma in most people.

Cornell’s study, conducted by Howarth, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, civil and environmental engineering, and Renee Santoro, a research technician in ecology and evolutionary biology, has previously been used as a scientific reference for advocates against hydrofracking.

Their research determined that the shale gas released through hydrofracking generated life greenhouse gas emissions that were “at least 20 percent greater” than that of burning coal. This meant that using natural gas as a source of energy was “dirtier” than coal in respect to its environmental impact.

'Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2).' Howarth said.

So we ask you: 'What is your death/benefit ratio in your business model Ms. Klaber?

Some light reading for you Ms. Klaber HERE