Monday, March 19, 2012

API: EPA Rules May Reduce Fracking By 52% | Sweetness & Light

API: EPA Rules May Reduce Fracking By 52% | Sweetness & Light


API: EPA Rules May Reduce Fracking By 52%

From the oil industry outlet, RIGZONE:

API: Proposed EPA Emission Rules Will Reduce Shale Gas Drilling

3/15/2012
Proposed regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce air emissions from hydraulic fracturing operations would drastically reduce shale gas drilling by 31 percent to 52 percent, or 12,700 to 21,400 wells, over the 2012 to 2015 time period, according to a study by the American Petroleum Institute (API).
Sure, the API might be biased in this. But let’s see someone refute their numbers.
The API study also found that:
* 5.8 to 7.0 quadrillion Btu (Quads) of otherwise economic unconventional natural gas would not be developed and produced by 2015, a 9 percent to 11 percent reduction
* 1.8 billion barrels of otherwise economic unconventional liquids would not be developed and produced by 2015, a 21 percent to 37 percent reduction
* federal royalties of $7 billion to $8.5 billion that would otherwise be collected would not be paid in the first four years after the requirements go into effect
* state revenues from severance taxes amounting to $1.9 billion to $2.3 billion would be delayed beyond the first four years after the requirements go into effect
The study, conducted for API by Advanced Resources International, examined the potential impact of the requirements for use of reduced emissions completions (REC) equipment on hydraulically fractured wells, including potential revenue from methane, cost impact and delays in unconventional resource development
The analysis did not estimate lost jobs associated with reduced drilling, oil and gas supply services and indirect employment.
EPA in July 2011 proposed a number of regulatory requirements to reduce air emission from the oil and gas industry. These proposals include reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through the use of RECs, which simultaneously reduce VOC and methane emissions
EPA’s proposed rule, expected to take effect sometime next month, would impose REC requirements on most unconventional gas wells
According to the ARI report, the cost assumptions used by the EPA are unrealistically low, and the impacts also are underestimated. API on Nov. 30 commented on the proposed rule, saying that equipment required to conduct REC would not be available in time to comply with the current final rule schedule.
"We believe it will take years to manufacture sufficient specialized equipment and adequately train operators how to safely conduct these operations." API also noted that the equipment is fairly specialized, the number of shops licensed to make the equipment is limited, and some components have long lead time…
EPA’s current methodology for estimating gas field methane emissions is not based on methane emitted during well completions, but instead on a data sample of methane capture during well completions, according to a 2011 IHS CERA report.
The assumptions underlying EPA’s methodology do not reflect current industry practices
Nitpickers. They don’t understand how important it is for the Obama administration to destroy all of our domestic sources of energy. Fracking, drilling, coal, nuclear power.
That is Obama’s real ‘all of the above’ approach.

1 comment:

  1. I'm with you bud... The sooner we can get cheap energy to burn the quicker we can kill the planet. Let's pump them there toxic chemicals into the ground water, let natural gas break free and bubble up into the atmosphere, birth defects, who cares. 6 fingered kids working in USA manufacturing may give us and edge. A few earthquakes to shake up the Earth could drive earth worms to the surface so I can go fishing in the contaminated lakes while burning gas in my 4x4. If I am lucky enough to live in a fracking location, I can even sue the pants off the energy company and EPA for letting my water and air be contaminated. Let's do it! What say? Might even start a business to accelerate the process - Get paid for dumping hazaardous chemicals into the earth, phuck up water supplies release nat gas of which I collect a mere fraction and the rest goes GHG planet red zone, another 50% lost in delivery... OMG! Pay myself a big fat check such that if the company get sued, it goes BK while I go offshore. Friggen' right! Everyone should be so happy as to sell their air and water purity so John the CEO with a 7/8 figure salary puts a few Americans to work while the rest of America pays more to clean up the mess left behind.

    You know what... Coal is good to... Guess who suffers the 500 billion in ancilliary costs of burning coal? Who pays for the mercury and arsenic poisoning. Health care costs, athsma, lost work, rising health care costs, lawsuits resulting in raised rates to customers, deaths, coal ash dumped into the Great Lakes, subsidies of which 10% are given back to Red Reps on the take. YOU DO! YOU are the idiot wanting to trade - no expand carbon energy in your blog.

    But Hey, I can catch two headed Siamese fish with worms eh?

    Go read up on Pavillion Wyoming and their phucked up water supply. Read up on how the EPA granted 1 month to the Fruckers so they could prepare to refute and plaster pro fruck advertising. You and the rest of America are pretty gullable. Bet you all watch the Fruck ads paid for by the Frucking industry and accept them as fact. Read the frucking fine print and know who paid for it and wants to RAPE the environment at your loss.

    ReplyDelete