City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Clark Whelton
Shale Game « Back to Story

View Comments (32)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 32 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS

Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.

(1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.

(2) The "rate of cooling" is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.

(3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.

(4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn't work that way.

(5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.

(6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.

(7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.

(8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.

(9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.

(10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.

If I haven't convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics

Doug Cotton
I was happy to read until the "Occupy Wall Street’s intimidation tactics" line. Now I have little to no interest and am actually more prone to buy the other side now. Thanks!
[url=]penis advantage[/url]
fracking in Pennsylvania has forced hundreds of residents to truck or carry in their water because of all the lethal chemicals that are pumped by the 1000's of gallons into the water table. Numerous households can light their water on fire at the kitchen sink. These residents have lived there for generations and only after the fracking began did the problems begin. The gas companies have paid homeowners huge settlement amounts to prohibit them from talking publicly about this debacle. No amount of money will fix this problem as once the chemicals are in the groundwater there is no process to remove it.
CTL says:

"The amount of the actually extractable natural gas and other liquids and the commercially viable life expectancies of newly drilled fracking wells are grossly exaggerated as a matter of show for Wall Street investment purposes. The all-in costs are three to four times higher than the companies are publicly willing to admit..."

That statement is false, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of economics can see. The cost of natural gas has been steadily declining for ONE reason: the supply is rapidly expanding. The cost of natural gas today is about one-tenth the price of twenty years ago.

The devious enviro-tyrants pushed natural gas — until fracking produced a huge surplus. Now they're against it, for entirely specious, fabricated reasons.

The average person should keep in mind that it is due entirely to the enviro lobby that the cost of your utilities is skyrocketing. When you look at your ever rising utility bills, remember that you're paying more only because of destructive, anti-free market enviro-politics.
Methane's chemical formula is CH4. When it burns it produces one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of H2O. Hence it produces only one molecule of CO2 out of a total of three molecules (1xCO2 and 2 x H2O) this is what gives CH4 its carbon footprint reduction. Burning coal is twice as much contributing CO2 than methane for the same thermal energy produced.
OR: Methane has half the carbon footprint of coal, and much less than oil and LPG(Propne and buthane).
Hence, if we were to chane over coal fired plants to methane CO2 emissions would be halved and we can throw away all wind turbines installed
The amount of the actually extractable natural gas and other liquids and the commercially viable life expectancies of newly drilled fracking wells are grossly exaggerated as a matter of show for Wall Street investment purposes. The all-in costs are three to four times higher than the companies are publicly willing to admit. Pugh Clause leasing expirations are causing more drilling than would otherwise be necessary. The effect of the current frenzy is analogous to that of raiding one's pantry, eating to gluttonous excess for the moment and then starving in the long run. What we have is another ponzi scheme capitalizing on the appearance of an abundant resource. It's really only a diversion from the more pressing need to find more long term sustainable resources. But, it will nonetheless have severe consequences that the DEC SGEIS fails to address: the future, out-of-business energy companies will not be around to clean up the mess they will have made. The State will bear the costs. So much for any tax boon. The average individual's opposition, incidentally, has nothing to do with survival of environmental cadres.
The odds are that New York will continue to lose population relative to other states, thereby losing representation in Congress. Two seats lost in 2010, more in 2020, and soon New York won't be much of a player at all in making national policy.

In the meantime, those leaving are mostly Republicans, so as in California, Democrats will continue on to the Democratic vision of a perfect "Detroitified" society - lots of poor, dependent on government, no middle class, a well few wealthy bureaucracy, and a few favored rich.

Sounds alot like Roosevelt's 1930's America!
The "environmentalists" view mankind as a plague upon the Earth. They are one-issue groups which do not mind torturing the truth, and do not care what harm they do to others. You simply cannot believe anything they say. Do your own research, and you'll find that the only harm done by fracking is surface spills and other industrial sloppiness indicative of bad management. There is no reasoning with them, their beliefs are religious in nature.
"The green movement gave up on hydrocarbons years ago: it has already announced the arrival of “peak oil,” and the imminent demise of petroleum power—despite many recent discoveries of large oil and gas fields around the world—is a fundamental article of green faith."

Mr Whelton is yet another fossil fuel advocate with no understanding of the term 'Peak Oil'. This does not mesn the end of oil but a peak in the production of oil. Yes there have been new discoveries of oil and new technologies aimed at extracting more oil from older fields but these things have not changed the fact that peak of production has been reached. These new finds and technologies are only replacing oil supplies not adding to the supply. In fact the only thing creating the illusion of more oil is the worlwide downturn in economic activity hence lower demand for oil. As the economic picture improves driving demand for oil up once again the price has climbed steadily and now stands above $100 a barrel. The world produces about 85 million barrels a day but with growing demand from China and India will have to double that figure in the near future. I challenge Mr. Whelton to find a single individual in the oil industry that will say the world will be producing 160 million barrels a day within ten years. If that figure can't be achieved then the oil supply picture will become grim over the next decade with the resulting economic consequences. Sustainable energy is our only future and our only hope to prevent economic chaos.
when is it to late January 09, 2012 at 10:17 PM
A few things I don't hear anything about is the outrageous amount of land lost to this industry with its wells, pipelines, compressor stations etc. We are losing valuable farm land not to mention drinkable water. Other industries and housing markets will "not" be able to build in area's where this is going on nor will banks give mortgages on land that is encumbered with a lease and/or drilling. For those with mortgages kindly look over your mortgage insurance contract,most will find a hazardous chemical clause attached. To people like Stan there are many of us that do not own the mineral rights under the surface we have purchased so its a lose-lose situation all the way around. Please don't come back with the lame response "well you should have known what you were buying". In the state I'm in the Marcellus wells were not being drilled when I bought my property so I had no expectations of this type of industrial nightmare because if I had I would not have bought in the state I did.
Stan in Sugar Land January 09, 2012 at 7:58 PM
As most of the shale zones are located under private property and the owner of those resources would realize the economice value from exploitation of the gas shales, does the State Government's refusal to permit development constitute a governmental taking of property without compensation?
Leon Wolf Fainstadt January 09, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Remember : Greed Kills. Stop destroying this country. The temple is this world and we need to wake up the the money lenders and earth destroyers. One world one people. You should be Ashalemed of yourselves. You know who you are.
Leon Wolf Fainstadt January 09, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is leading the fight against polluters. If only those who are doing fracting could see their great grandhildrens lives ruined by what they are doing now for Money they would cease, decist and grow some intelligence. This world needs more people like Robert Kennedy jr., Al Gore, and James Hansen to name a few.
Based on how hard it's been for my company (and other's) to construct new power facilities in New York, I'm not remotely surprised that there is a gas drilling moratorium.
I am glad to see that there is some sanity out there. Thank you for the lead on the MIT study. It sholud provide some insight.
And, when the rest of the world has wasted it's shale gas, we will still have ours here in NY AND our clean water. You can then pay us what they are both worth at that point.

There, I fixed the article for you.

You are welcome.
Kennedy was telling the truth when he wrote that industry's worst actors “have successfully battled reasonable regulation, stifled public disclosure while bending compliant government regulators to engineer exceptions to existing environmental rules. Captive agencies and political leaders have obligingly reduced already meager enforcement resources and helped propagate the industry’s deceptive economic projections.”

And whoever says "state inspectors were making sure that jobs were done right" is not telling the truth. The record shows that there aren't enough inspectors to deter the worst actors from disposing of some of the billions of gallons of contaminated water coming back from the frack wherever they can.

Therefore a moratorium until that nasty little detail waste disposal problem is attended to is rational. Just because "everyone is doing it," which is part of the argument being made above, doesn't mean that it's the smart, optimal, or right thing to do.
Very good article Mr. Whelton,I would like to suggest you write about a subject being ignored by the media that is at the very heart of the matter.Most of the public's fear of drilling revolves around the use and contamination of water during hydro-fracturing.A new technology using LPG for hydraulic fracturing is growing rapidly in Western Canada and now in Texas and Colorado. This method is waterless and recovers all the gelled LPG used for fracturing as a gas on well completion.It uses no toxic chemicals and there is nothing to dispose of at well completion.Gasfrac Energy Services Inc. developed this method because it produces more productive wells. It is NOT SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT N.Y.S. MORATORIUM ON HYDRO-FRACTURING.The company is expanding as quickly as possible but would need to license its technology to a large oil company in order to make a rapid impact on the industry. This method is tailor-made for New York
State.Please research this yourself and I think you will see this is the environmental solution we need in N.Y.S..
The author of this article is a fossil fool. Extolling the exaggerated virtues of natural gas and trivializing the damage to the environment is right out of the natural gas extraction industry playbook.
Maybe the author of this article should live in Broome County the epi-center of future INDUSTRIAL DRILLING for the next 30 or 50 years!! "why does a clean and useful commodity like natural gas make greens see red?" Because the Extraction process which the author seems to have left out is FILTHY! 1 well pad up to 8 wells per pad roughly 80 thousand pounds of chemicals per frac/well Wells can be fracked multiple times!!! This is just a Small part of the extraction pollution associated with NG extraction $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Arguing about whether fracking can be done without harming water supplies and other natural resources misses the point. The environmental movement is no longer about the environment. The transformation occured back in the 1970s when groups like the Sierra Club were taken over by political radicals who hijacked the environmental issues for their own ends, whether anti-Vietnam war or, now, economic nihlism, anti-American self-defeatism or urban elitism (especially prevalent in NYS, where Gothamites prefer Upstate NY as a giant park for their summer relaxation).
this article is total propaganda.
The truth referred to in Kennedy's speech is just a generalized description of corruption & lies that have been common practice in that industry . Lies that they need to use to cover up the heinous crimes of extreme pollution & disease that are proving to be the inevitable result of these dangerous techniques. New York is not the only place that has restrictions or bans on fracking.
Very good article. We literally have 2 Trillion Barrels of oil equivalent of natural gas per T. Boone Pickens work -- which would be 10 Million BOE of natural gas for 566 years. We currently produce about 8.7 Million BOE equivalent -- so we have enough for 600 years. Remember how we were running out? Well, we have enough fossil fuels to produce 100% of our needs for hundreds of years. People have to understand that the peak oil, peak gas and peak coal are just plain silly when one understands just how much energy we have. I am convinced we have the largest reserves in the world. We are #1 in coal, #1 in oil shale (1.5 to 2 Trillion barrels) and are probably #1 in natural gas and uranium (no new USGS evaluation work since 1982). We literally should be the world's largest exporter of energy not the largest importer. And just which groups and people put in this position of vulnerability and threat to our national security? You know the answer; we all know the answer. Lets stop listening to those who want to move us back into the stone age.
Propaganda - "Any attempt to persuade people to a belief OR course of action".
That is you don't have to believe fracking is dangerous just act as though you did if it serves your purpose to do so.
It is wise for NYS to be hesitant and to investigate further the virtues of HF vs harms. According to "Wikipedia"-it is possible that methane released from HF is more harmful over the long haul than the consequence of coal and oil.
The concern mostly has to do with waste water showing levels of radioactivity and carcinogens. If these flood, harmful chemicals can get into soil and drinking water.
"Careful oversight of the industry by honest and competent regulators is essential to the environmentally safe extraction of natural gas."

That is the key point, is it not? Absent that oversight, industry cannot be trusted. That is why environmentalists and Mr. Kennedy became alarmed about natural gas extraction.

If Bush and Cheney were still in charge, I would not favor natural gas extraction. For then we would have to rely on industry alone to do what is right. Good luck with that one.
" The author forgot to mention all the livestock that dropped dead in a fracking fluid leak in Arkansas in 2009; and the 300+ toxic chemicals that are used to frack; and the illnesses reported all over Pennsylvania"...

Its a known fact generated from credible sources that these problems actually occured and wasn't due to other myriad possibilites that are around?
An extremely narrow view of fracking. The author forgot to mention all the livestock that dropped dead in a fracking fluid leak in Arkansas in 2009; and the 300+ toxic chemicals that are used to frack; and the illnesses reported all over Pennsylvania. Dimock, PA is now without potable water due to Cabot Oil's fracking. The article is irresponsible journalism.
Gilbert W. Chapman January 08, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Correction to my below Comment ~ Just DON'T come to the other states looking for handouts.
Gilbert W. Chapman January 08, 2012 at 10:24 PM
As a Pennsylvania resident, I couldn't agree with Mr. O'Brian more. My gas supplier just sent me a letter saying my home rate was going down by 25%.

Let's face it, we have New York on the east coast and California on the West as the two future 'basket cases' of America. Just come to the other states looking for handouts.
Hang tough NY. you are keeping Pa. in the heart of the energy revolution. just raise your taxes to cover the loss to your state.
hug a tree