About MDN

Thank you Marcellus Drilling News readers for making MDN your source for news and information about drilling in the Marcellus and Utica Shales in 2011. And welcome to 2012! Last year was quite a ride for MDN, going from occasional posts of new stories prior to January, to daily postings Monday through Friday starting in January. MDN’s audience grew from a few thousand people per month to nearly 30,000 unique people visiting and reading stories on the site each month by the end of the year.

A few statistics to share with you from the MDN website for 2011:

• 198,720 unique/individual people visited the site in 2011;
• Those 198,720 people visited the site 354,174 times during the year;
• When they visited, they viewed a cumulative 823,596 pages;
• And if you averaged the amount of time they stayed, it was 2 minutes 49 seconds each time they visited.
• In March, MDN created and offered (for free) a report on drilling permits by geography—it was downloaded 3,134 times.
• MDN links to source stories we cover (on other websites)—you collectively clicked to view those stories and visit those other websites 57,610 times.
• MDN’s daily email alert list started the year with a few hundred email addresses on it, and ended the year with 1,956 emails on it—you’re hardcore to read this stuff every day! (And I love you for it!!)

2011 In Review

Because it’s an interesting exercise—and because it’s about the easiest editorial “get” in the book—this week’s weekly update will showcase the top 10 most popular MDN stories from 2011, determined by the number of people who clicked to read the story. I’m also including the list of top 10 commented stories for 2011, determined by the number of comments—so you can see which stories generated the most discussion (and controversy).

There were a number of big stories this past year: New York State’s ongoing moratorium which has now dragged on for 3 1/2 years; Pennsylvania’s impending new drilling rules; West Virginia’s recently enacted new drilling rules; West Virginia’s all-out play for an ethane cracker plant; Morgantown’s fracking ban outside of its borders, which was struck down by a judge (and the subsequent safe fracking that took place). But perhaps the biggest story of 2011, in MDN’s humble opinion (and from analyzing the reading trends on the MDN site), was Chesapeake’s huge discovery of both oil and natural gas in eastern Ohio’s Utica Shale. The Utica Shale is quickly becoming as popular as the Marcellus, at least around the edges of the Marcellus play where the Utica is located and where it’s rich with “wet gas” and oil, in addition to methane. It seems MDN readers could not get enough stories about what’s happening in Ohio.

What’s Ahead for 2012

MDN is now accepting advertising, so you can expect to see more ads appearing on the site. Those ads will be relatively few in number, and all of them will be relevant for MDN readers. We strive to present you with not only the best in editorial, but also the best in advertising as well.

MDN editor Jim Willis will soon make announcements about exciting new developments for MDN—new features and new products coming in 2012.

In the year ahead, I hope to continue earning your trust and continue making MDN worthy of your most precious investment—your time. Your comments and suggestions for how to do that are always welcome. Just email me at: jim@marcellusdrilling.com.

The calendar of events for the next two weeks (sparse as it is) is also included below.

To Your Continued Success in 2012,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update: 2011 in Review, Looking Ahead to 2012”

Last week’s poll took the pulse of MDN readers to find out whether or not they think all high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing should be banned. It was our second-highest number of votes for any poll, showing a real interest in the topic. The results are in, and by an overwhelming majority, MDN readers to not think fracking should be banned. 

Should all high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing be banned?

No (70%, 295 Votes)
Yes (26%, 109 Votes)
Not sure (4%, 17 Votes)

Total Voters: 421

This Week’s Poll: What’s your interest in MDN?

MDN will soon make some changes as editor Jim Willis transitions to a new role with his day job. In preparation for those changes, it would be useful to know just who is visiting the MDN site—what your primary purpose is for visiting. Nearly 30,000 unique, different people visit MDN each month. Are you a landowner interested in news about drilling and how it will affect you? Do you work for a drilling or a drilling-related company? Work for government? Etc. Please take a moment to anonymously tell us who you are/what your primary motivator is in visiting the site by voting in the poll on the right side of any page in the site. Thanks!

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks. The calendar is pretty thin! Things are now winding down for the end of year holiday season. Look for this weekly update next Saturday instead of Christmas day (Sunday).

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Dec 18, 2011: Who are you?”

MDN wanted to see what your attitudes are about government’s role in promoting (or not) renewable energy sources. A even split between those who think government should have no role, and those who believe the government should promote, but not require, use of renewable sources. This poll was one of the least voted on in recent months, meaning either the issue just doesn’t stir up much interest among MDN readers, or (more likely) the poll question could have been written better! Let’s see if we might improve this week’s poll question. 

What should government’s role be with regard to renewable energy sources?

No role in promoting/requiring renewables (41%, 67 Votes)
Promote (not require) renewables (40%, 66 Votes)
Require use of renewables (19%, 30 Votes)

Total Voters: 163

This Week’s Poll: Ban Fracking?

The latest public relations attempt to turn the word “fracking” into a pejorative—firmly implanting a negative concept in people’s minds—is the release of draft findings from the Environmental Protection Agency from a study they have done in Pavillion, Wyoming that supposedly ties hydraulic fracturing to chemical contamination of local water supplies. That is what the headlines are trumpeting, and that is the impression that will be left with the vast majority of people who don’t read much beyond the headlines. And that’s unfortunate, because, as Paul Harvey used to say, there’s “the rest of the story” in Pavillion (see this MDN story for our initial analysis).

MDN will not repeat what we’ve already said on the topic, but rather for this week’s poll, take the pulse of MDN’s readers on their views as to whether or not high-volume (uses lots of water) horizontal hydraulic fracturing should be banned. Let’s just get it out there on the table. Ban it? Or not? That’s certainly where anti-drillers are headed—they want a complete and total ban. They are not interested in safeguards, and frankly they aren’t interested in allowing any more exploration for fossil fuels on U.S. soil (or offshore). That was abundantly clear at recent New York DEC hearings on proposed new drilling regulations.

What say you? Ban fracking? Or allow it? Please vote now on the right side of any page in the site.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Dec 11, 2011: Ban Fracking?”

MDN decided to “take the current pulse” of our readers to see what you think, at this point in time, about the relative safety of hydraulic fracturing. The poll, after only seven days, resulted in the third highest ever number of voters for any MDN poll. A clear majority of MDN readers believes that fracking does not endanger public health.

Does hydraulic fracturing as it is practiced today endanger public health?

No (58%, 231 Votes)
Yes (35%, 141 Votes)
Not sure (7%, 29 Votes)

Total Voters: 401

What about renewable energy?

MDN editor Jim Willis attended one of the final New York DEC hearings in New York City this past week (see this story for the “raw” coverage, and this story for my final thoughts). One the sentiments echoed again and again was that now is the time for renewable energy. Actor Mark Rufalo said at the hearing that, “We want renewable energy now and we will fight for it,” with thunderous applause from the almost-all anti-drilling audience. MDN has made this point again and again: An ideology that fossil fuels are evil and that only renewable energy sources should be used going forward is the at the very core of opposition to natural gas drilling. That ideology was on full display this past Wednesday at the hearing.

I believe it’s a dangerously naive ideology. Our world is no where near the point where wind and solar can take over from natural gas and oil. Not even close. Such a thing will not be possible for at least the next several generations. Someday? Maybe! And hooray if it happens. But arbitrarily declaring “now is the time” and forcing our country to use renewables will have the effect of forcing us back to the stone ages—something those who advocate for it somehow ignore.

If renewables can compete, economically, in the free marketplace and win—I think that’s great. Problem is, right now they can’t. Not without heavy subsidies and frankly not without the heavy hand of government forcing people to use renewable sources. I would call forcing people to use renewable sources a form of fascism (look it up Occupy people, before you bellow about my use of terminology).

But perhaps you think I’m wrong. I’d like to know what you think. Should the government require at least some use of renewable energy sources in an attempt to “push it along” and encourage adoption? Or should the government leave well enough alone? Vote on the right side of any page in the site.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Dec 4, 2011: Should Renewable Energy be Required?”

MDN left the previous poll up for a two week period to elicit more votes on the topic of where wet gas (ethane) should get processed: locally in the Marcellus/Utica Shale region, or pipeline it out to other locations like the Gulf Coast or Canada. MDN made it plain that we are not in favor of arbitrary government action to force private enterprise to select any given option—let the capitalist free market determine the best solution. However, we wanted to know what your preference would be, and most of you thought that keeping the ethane local for processing is the preferred outcome, given the choice. 

Where should Marcellus & Utica ethane get processed?

In the Marcellus/Utica region (cracker plant) (61%, 149 Votes)
Either is fine, wherever it can be done the cheapest (37%, 91 Votes)
Outside the Marcellus/Utica region (pipeline it out) (2%, 6 Votes)

Total Voters: 246

Is hydraulic fracturing safe, in your opinion?

Time to take the pulse of MDN readers (again) on the subject of hydraulic fracturing. Increasing, those opposed to drilling have placed all of their bets on what to most people is a little-understood technology called hydraulic fracturing. Fear mongering is the standard tactic—transform a term people don’t understand into something to be feared so that it’s very utterance raises concern. Problem is, the tactic often works. What do you think? Do you think that the technology referred to as hydraulic fracturing, which is most often used to mean the entire horizontal natural gas drilling process, poses a significant health risk to the general population? Register your vote along the right side of any page on the website.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Nov 27, 2011: Is Fracking Safe?”

A very brief weekly update. MDN editor Jim Willis was traveling most of this past week (making a living with my day job), hence lack of daily updates from Wednesday to Friday. A lot can happen in just a few days! The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) held two of four public hearings supposedly on the newest revisions to the draft drilling regulations (Wednesday in Dansville, Thursday in Binghamton)—sessions which devolved into either “drill here drill now” or “ban drilling altogether” arguments as reported by the media. Sorry to miss those hearings!

And on Friday, the Delaware River Basin Commission decided to postpone a vote tomorrow (Monday, Nov. 21) on whether to finally release new drilling rules for land inside of the DRBC’s jurisdiction. Looks like the antis have scored at least a temporary victory.

I’ve posted stories on both of the above items today, plus another hot topic: An update on the situation in Pennsylvania on whether or not local municipalities will have an ongoing role to play in zoning and other laws to restrict gas drilling in their borders.

Continue to vote in the poll for another week, and refer to the rather light calendar of events below for the next two weeks. Seems meetings are light due to the Thanksgiving holiday here in the U.S. later this week.

Be sure to spend time with your family and friends on Thursday, and forget about the politics of drilling for a day!

Happy Thanksgiving,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Nov 20, 2011: Catching Up”

Not a lot of passion, it seems, on taxes or fees for drilling in PA as indicated by the low-ish number of people voting over the past seven days in the latest MDN poll. The clear majority (very large majority at 63%) believe that an impact fee similar to what Gov. Tom Corbett has proposed, where most of the revenue stays in the local community, is the preferred method of taxing drillers in the state.

A respectable 25% believe there should be no fees or taxes of any kind on drilling. And only 12% think a severance tax is a good idea.

What kind of fee/tax should PA assess on Marcellus wells?

Impact fee (most of the proceeds stay in the county) (63%, 110 Votes)
No fee or tax of any kind (25%, 43 Votes)
Severance tax (most proceeds used in state’s general budget) (12%, 22 Votes)

Total Voters: 175

Where should energy companies process their ethane?

A complicated topic for this week’s poll. If you’ve been reading MDN for any length of time, you will have come across the topic of ethane, sometimes referred to as “wet gas.” When drilling for natural gas, or methane, in some areas of the Marcellus and Utica Shales, drillers will also recover other chemical compounds, including ethane. It’s more likely to be found in the western portions of the Marcellus and Utica Shale areas, like western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and eastern Ohio. But ethane can also be found in other areas of the Marcellus and Utica as well.

Why is ethane important? Ethane can be “cracked” or processed to produce ethylene, which is the main raw material used to make plastics—plastics of all kinds. It is a huge industry, and wherever you process the ethylene into plastics, associated industries pop up to turn the plastics into useful products. What it all means is when you build a “cracker plant” to process the ethylene, it involves billions of dollars in investment and thousands of jobs. And when associated plastics industries sprout up, it creates billions more in economic impact and thousands more jobs. A huge impact which cannot be overstated.

Shell has said they are looking to build a cracker plant in the Marcellus and will make an announcement by the end of 2011 on where they plan to build it. There have been at least one, perhaps two other unnamed companies also investigating a plan to build a cracker plant in the Marcellus region.

But what if you simply build a pipeline to another location where there is already a cracker plant to process the ethane? That’s an opportunity that at least two, possibly up to four pipelines are pursuing right now. Range Resources and Chesapeake Energy have already signed on with two of those pipelines, one to Canada the other to the Gulf Coast. The energy companies say there’s more than enough Marcellus and Utica Shale gas coming online to support not only pipelines but building at least one cracker plant in the region. But state officials, like those in West Virginia, are peeved about Chesapeake and others committing to sending the ethane out of the region for processing, believing that might jeopardize building a local cracker plant.

Those who support free enterprise and capitalism (a concept increasingly under attack due to the woeful lack of education in this country) will say, as does MDN, both should have a right to do what they want. If pipelines can get the permits, lease the land and build the pipelines, get customers to use it and turn a profit—go for it. It’s (still, for now) a free country. Likewise with a cracker plant (or two or three). MDN does not question whether or not pipelines should be “legal” or “allowed” to take place. They should.

But MDN does want to know what readers would prefer to have happen. Would you prefer Chesapeake and Range and others to process their ethane locally, in the Marcellus region? Does it matter? Head on over to the right side of any page and cast your vote.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Nov 13, 2011: Where Should Ethane be Processed?”

After an initial rush of voting where it seemed MDN readers would not support the concept that it’s time to litigate for landowners’ rights in New York, the tide turned later in the week and a clear majority of NY landowners (and those who support them) have said it’s now time to sue the DEC to stop the delay tactics. It seems most people think three and a half years is enough time. The DEC’s draft rules are “good enough” and it’s now time to adopt them and move forward with drilling, according to MDN readers and last week’s poll.

Is it time for NY landowners to sue the DEC to allow fracking?

Yes (57%, 182 Votes)
No (43%, 136 Votes)

Total Voters: 318

What kind of fee/tax should PA assess on Marcellus wells, if any?

Pennsylvania lawmakers are close to completing new legislation that will strengthen rules for drilling in the Marcellus and Utica Shales, and assess a new “impact fee” on drilling. Gov. Tom Corbett, in just his first year in office, has remained steadfast against a severance tax on drilling because, as everyone knows, the money will disappear into the state’s budget hole to be used however politicians want to use it—mostly rewarding political friends with largesse and buying votes. Instead, Gov. Corbett’s advisory commission has recommended the state adopt an “impact fee,” which is a polite way of saying a tax. But most of this fee/tax will stay local, in the community where the well is drilled, to help with things like roads and first responders and police—things that start costing more when drillers show up. Seems a good solution to MDN.

The proposed plan that most likely will get adopted is that drillers will pay $40,000 the first year a well is drilled, $30,000 the second year, $20,000 the third year and then $10,000 per year in years 4-10, for a total fee of $160,000 per well drilled.

But many people who support a severance tax in PA point to other states like Texas and Wyoming and Alaska and say if oil and gas drilling is booming there and they can have a severance tax (that contributes a lot of money to the state budget), why shouldn’t PA? It’s a fair question. Those who support drilling in PA will say that Marcellus drilling is doing so well in the state precisely because there isn’t a tax on drilling—that drilling in PA is pulling drilling away from those other states because doing business in PA is more economically advantageous.

MDN wants to know what you think. Should PA adopt an impact fee? Or a severance tax? Or perhaps stick with no fees or taxes on drilling at all? Head on over to the right side of any page and cast your vote.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Nov 6, 2011: Should PA Tax Gas Drilling?”

A shock result from this past week’s poll, which had the second highest number of voters ever, and the most voters in a single seven day period. It appears a majority who read MDN don’t agree with MDN editor Jim Willis that the EPA should not be in the business of regulating that which the states currently have the right, under the U.S. Constitution, to regulate themselves. A disappointment to see so many people willing to throw away their hard-earned rights.

Should fracking wastewater be regulated by the federal EPA?

Yes (62%, 230 Votes)
No (35%, 129 Votes)
Not sure (3%, 13 Votes)

Total Voters: 372

Is it time for NY landowners to sue the DEC to allow fracking?

This past week brought distressing news for landowners (and energy companies) in New York who have already waited nearly four years for drilling to begin in the state. The state’s Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Joe Martens, sent a loud and clear signal that the DEC will not issue permits for shale gas drilling in 2012 (see this MDN story). He blames the advisory panel he appointed who in turn blame various state agencies, other than the DEC, whom they say need to provide detailed analyses of how much a commencement in drilling will affect their budgets and manpower. This is the first time MDN has heard of such a demand.

It’s clear to MDN that Joe Martens is not interested in seeing drilling happen in the state any time soon. MDN believes the longer it takes to commence drilling, the more likely it won’t happen at all, and people like Joe Martens (and the mostly anti-drilling members of his advisory commission) are just fine with that. The issue has been studied to death and it’s now time to begin—yet we have more delays.

So MDN wants to know if New York landowners, and those who support them, are ready to litigate to move the ball down the field. We ask the question, Is it now time to sue the DEC to force them to either issue permits or start paying landowners for loss of their property rights and the revenue they would gain from drilling? It is a big step to be sure, and not lightly taken. But waiting yet another year, or longer, is ludicrous. MDN believes it’s now time for action. What do MDN readers think?

Register your vote on the right side of any page on the website, and leave a comment on this post telling us why you do or do not support litigation in NY.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Oct 30, 2011: Should NY Landowners Sue the DEC?”

MDN is somewhat surprised at the poll results from the most recent poll which asked if PA should redefine natural gas as a “mineral right” for purposes of deeds and real estate transactions. Since 1882 it has not been considered a mineral right. If the courts in PA change it now, it is akin to changing the rules in a baseball game at the bottom of the 9th inning with 2 outs. It threatens to throw the drilling industry in PA into chaos as multiple lawsuits will surely be filed and take years to resolve. Still, MDN readers by a convincing majority say such a change should be made.

Should PA courts redefine natural gas as a mineral right?

Yes (46%, 111 Votes)
No (40%, 97 Votes)
Not sure (14%, 33 Votes)

Total Voters: 241

Should fracking wastewater be regulated by the federal EPA?

MDN reported on the EPA’s very loud and clear message this past week that they intend to start regulating where and how fracking wastewater can be disposed (see this MDN story). For years now, the EPA has attempted to control oil and gas drilling by whatever means they can. Traditionally, and by law, oil and gas drilling is left to the states to regulate, not the federal government. But of course that hasn’t stopped the federal government over the years in encroaching on states’ rights. MDN has gone on record numerous times saying the EPA should butt out of what belongs to the states—that the states know best how to regulate their own industry, which is heavily dependent on unique geography—rather than receive a one-size-fits-all mandate from the federal government.

The EPA is currently conducting a multi-year study on hydraulic fracturing, attempting to determine whether or not it’s really a safe technology. That study will not be completed until 2014. In the meantime, they still want to pull the strings and control what happens. This time they are using wastewater disposal from fracking as the method to do it.

The strongest argument for federal control is that water flows across borders—what’s done in one state can and will affect other states. And who better to ensure one state’s “lax” rules don’t injure the environment of another state than the EPA? That’s the argument. The counter-argument is, we already have oversight of waterways that are truly interconnected: It’s called the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) and the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). Both organizations are made up of the states where those mighty rivers flow—including all of the watershed areas and tributaries around those rivers. The commissions are quasi-federal organizations with state representation, and they’re doing a fine job of regulating wastewater disposal, and water usage, in their particular jurisdictions.

Also, while there is still wastewater being produced from fracking, many drillers now recycle 100 percent of the wastewater and reuse it in their fracking operations. So the volume of wastewater that needs disposal is decreasing over time.

What do you think? Are the SRBC and DRBC sufficient to the task of protecting water that flows across borders? Should the federal EPA be involved? Register your vote on the right side of any page on the website.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Oct 23, 2011: Should the EPA Regulate Fracking Wastewater?”

According to last week’s poll, more MDN readers do not believe in the theory that man causes global warming than do. Looks like MDN editor Jim Willis is not so out-of-the-mainstream as some would charge. A conclusion I draw from this: the so-called science of global warming is far from settled. Those who believe in it want to call those of us who do not “flat earthers,” ignorant, and in denial. We’re the ones you want to keep in the back of the room at the cocktail party for fear we might embarrass the intelligencia with our crackpot notions. Seems there are a few more of us around than you might have thought!

Do you believe in man-caused global warming?

No (53%, 136 Votes)
Yes (41%, 107 Votes)
Not sure (6%, 16 Votes)

Total Voters: 259

Should shale gas be considered a mineral in Pennsylvania?

A few weeks ago MDN reported on a very important case working it’s way through the court system in Pennsylvania (see this MDN story). The Marcellus Shale is a rock layer in the ground—by all accounts and by anyone’s definition, it’s a mineral. But what about the gas, or oil, it contains? Is that gas and/or oil a mineral too? For legal purposes in PA, the answer would be “no”. That is, unless the Pennsylvania courts change it, which is what the current case is about.

Since 1882 a ruling called the “Dunham rule” in Pennsylvania law has maintained that natural gas is not considered a mineral (for the purposes of real estate) and gas in the ground is not conveyed with “mineral rights” unless specifically stated. If all rights to a piece of land are being conveyed to a buyer, no problem. All is all and includes oil and gas as well as anything else. But if mineral rights were at some point separated from the deed, and if someone else owns those rights, oil and gas is NOT assumed to be part of those mineral rights unless there is language specifically making them a part.

That’s the way it has been until a recent court case. A lower court in Susquehanna County ruled in a case that the Dunham rule applies (see the original story for details). But on appeal, the PA Superior Court sent the case back to the lower court asking them to hear expert testimony. The loud and clear message is, maybe it’s time to change the Dunham rule and make natural gas and oil a part of mineral rights by definition. This action by the higher court is causing a great deal of angst for landowners and drillers. To overturn a 129 year-old precedent would throw the drilling industry in PA into turmoil with lawsuits popping up like spring dandelions.

Almost all other states presume that natural gas and oil are part of “mineral rights” for the purposes of real estate contracts. Pennsylvania is unusual in that it does not. However, it’s been that way in PA for a long, long time.

MDN wants to know what you think. Should PA courts redefine natural gas as a mineral right? Or would such an action constitute changing the rules of the game long after the game has been played? Register your opinion in this week’s poll on the right side of any page.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Oct 9, 2011: Is Gas a Mineral?”

Below are the results of last week’s poll on whether or not so-called “vandalism” against drilling sites should be considered an act of domestic terrorism. Seems the MDN audience is split almost evenly on this one. 

Should vandalism at drilling sites be considered an act of terrorism?

Yes (51%, 129 Votes)
No (46%, 116 Votes)
Not sure (3%, 9 Votes)

Total Voters: 254

Do you believe in man-caused global warming?

A theme MDN returns to from time to time, because it is so obvious, is that those who oppose natural gas drilling often do so because they have an ideological view that all fossil fuels, including natural gas, are “evil.” The thinking goes that fossil fuels create carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned, and that CO2 levels are increasing to dangerous levels in the earth’s atmosphere. The argument is: more humans on the planet using more energy = more burning of fossil fuels = more CO2 in the atmosphere AND more CO2 in the atmosphere causes a rise in the earth’s temperature. Conclusion: man causes global warming. Solution? Don’t burn fossil fuels but instead use renewable energy sources like wind and solar. A simplistic description of the argument, but, I believe, an accurate one.

There are many problems with the theory of man-made global warming, not least of them that there is no evidence that an increase in CO2 levels causes a greenhouse effect of temperatures rising significantly. And also no evidence that even if more CO2 is being released and trapped in the atmosphere, that ole Mother Earth can’t somehow cope with it. The planet is not as fragile as some would have us believe. Global warmists ignore the biggest influencer of weather and temperature on planet earth: the sun. The sun has decades-long cycles of radiation and sunspots which arguably do more to increase or decrease temperatures on earth than any other cause. But that’s conveniently left out of Al Gore’s and other warmists’ equations.

And don’t get me started on where, exactly, do we go to take the “temperature” of the earth? And how is that temperature measured? How is it averaged? What geographies are included and excluded? And how can the warmists claim we have rising temps compared with the temps from thousands of years ago when accurate and consistent methods of measuring temperature (with scientific instruments) have been around for maybe 150 years—a relative blink of an eye?

I have pointed out the connection between those who oppose drilling and their ideology of “we all must dump fossil fuels and convert to renewables now to save the planet before it’s too late.” And when I make my comments that I’m a skeptic of the underlying argument of man-made global warming—that the planet doesn’t need saving, that the threat is not actually there—I inevitably get called an ignorant git, a mass-polluter, an industry shill, someone only interested in the almighty buck.

So, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that I am dead wrong. Let’s assume that man is causing global warming because he’s burning fossil fuels and pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere. Would it not make sense to burn the fossil fuel that puts the least amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, at least for now? Of course it would. Burning a fossil fuel with the least amount of CO2 contribution would mean we could slow the process of global warming down, perhaps even stop it. In that case, global warmists should fully embrace the least-polluting kind of fossil fuel, right? Well, there you would be wrong.

Instead of embracing natural gas for what it is—the cleanest burning and least polluting fossil fuel—warmists have to concoct pretend reasons for why why we shouldn’t use it anyway. Their ideology of forcing everyone to convert to alternative non-fossil fuel forms of energy has so blinded them, they lie even to themselves and gin up faux scientific studies to show that natural gas is “just as bad—even worse!” than coal and oil. Sad that otherwise smart people are not so smart because of their own biases.

Honest folks will honestly disagree on the topic of man-caused global warming, I’m well aware. If my skeptical views make you think I’m a nut job, well, go read someone else’s blog. I’m not hiding who I am and what I think.

What I would like to know with this week’s poll is how many in the MDN audience believe (or not) that man causes a significant amount of global warming. How many of you are my fellow gits?

Be sure to register your view (anonymously of course) on the right side of any page on the site. And feel free to leave a comment on this post with your thoughts if you’re so inclined.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Oct 2, 2011: Global Warming Debate”

Below are the results of last week’s poll on whether or not local governments should be able to ban drilling.

Should local municipalities have the power to ban gas drilling?

No (70%, 190 Votes)
Yes (26%, 72 Votes)
Not sure (4%, 10 Votes)

Total Voters: 272

Should vandalism at drilling sites be considered an act of terrorism?

This past week MDN reported on a case of “vandalism” at a drilling site in Indiana County, PA (see MDN story here). There were some comments on that story taking MDN to task for not waiting to find out who the perpetrator is. MDN says it doesn’t take a genius to figure out it’s an anti-driller gone amok. Someone who’s finally gone over the edge. Could it be a simple case of vandalism? Perhaps. But not very likely in MDN’s opinion.

So MDN wades into controversial waters once again, this week by asking the question: If people who are opposed to drilling perpetrate crimes against drillers by damaging equipment, should that be considered an act of domestic terrorism? MDN thinks it’s a fair question and an issue we should address.

Agree? Disagree? Click on your answer along the right-hand side of any page, and feel free to leave a comment on this post with your opinion.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Sept 25, 2011: Vandalism at Drilling Sites”

Below are the results of last week’s poll on exporting shale gas to other countries. 

Should the U.S. allow shale gas to be exported?

Yes (54%, 119 Votes)
No (39%, 86 Votes)
Not sure (7%, 16 Votes)

Total Voters: 221

Should local municipalities have the power to ban gas drilling?

New York, as many of you know, has not allowed horizontal hydraulic fracturing (drilling for Marcellus and Utica Shale gas) to be begin. The state is in the “final” steps of issuing new drilling regulations. The best guess is that drilling will start sometime next year, likely within the first 3-6 months of 2012. In anticipation that drilling will begin, some townships in New York have decided to preemptively ban drilling within their borders. Problem is, there’s a couple of sentences in New York State law dating back to the 1980s that specifically disallows local municipalities from doing just that when it comes to the oil and gas industry. That is, state law supersedes local municipal laws, and any local law passed to ban drilling is technically illegal.

Local townships point out that they are allowed to restrict all other types of industrial business activity with zoning regulations, so oil and gas should be no different. Joe Martens, the new Commissioner of the NY Department of Environmental Conservation, the agency charged with regulating oil and gas drilling in the state, has the flippant attitude, “let the courts decide.” Now it seems they will.

Word of a new lawsuit came this week in Tompkins County. In August, the town of Dryden, NY, a rural bedroom community for Ithaca, NY, passed a law banning hydraulic fracturing. Anschutz Exploration has said they’re going to challenge it in court to have it overturned (see MDN’s coverage here). Who knows how long it will take to resolve this? Anschutz hopes it will be a slam dunk, no-brainer. Dryden hopes the court will see it their way. No matter who wins round one, there’s sure to be an appeal and this may ultimately drag out for years. Taxpayers in local municipalities will foot the bill for the legal costs—something not planned-for in their already-stretched budgets.

Pennsylvania allows more leeway with respect to local regulations. Municipalities can, in effect, ban drilling within their borders in PA.

Several municipalities in West Virginia have tried to ban gas drilling, most famously Morgantown, and have found the drilling industry giving them the cold shoulder (i.e., they take their money and jobs elsewhere). Most have reversed their previous bans, and in the case of Morgantown, a judge overturned the ban.

So MDN’s poll question this week wants to know what you think: Should local municipalities have the power to ban gas drilling? Register your vote along the right side of any page on the site.

Below are the most recent “top 5” lists and the calendar of Marcellus related events for the next two weeks.

Happy reading,
Jim Willis, Editor

Read More “MDN Weekly Update – Sept 18, 2011: Municipal Bans on Gas Drilling”