Test - mining

Showing posts with label mining. Show all posts

Ecuador to Drill for Oil in the Amazon Rainforest

August 19, 2013 Add Comment Edit

Ecuador has abandoned a UN backed conservation plan that would have paid the country not to drill for oil in the 10,000 sq km (3,860 sq miles) Yasuni National Park located in the Amazon rainforest. According to President Rafael Correa, the plans to drill in the area are the result of rich nations failing to live up to their commitments.

"The world failed us," explained Correa, "It was not charity that we sought from the international community, but co-responsibility in the face of climate change."

Correa was looking to recover half of the revenues from drilling equivalent to $3.6 billion of the value of the reserves in the park's Ishpingo-Tambococha-Tiputini (ITT) oil field, over 13 years. The Yasuni oilfields hold an estimated 846 million barrels of crude, or 20 percent of Ecuador's reserves. Oil is Ecuador's primary export.

Drilling in the park is an environmental calamity as this is the home of a number of different indigenous communities and one of the most biodiverse areas in the world. This area is also home to species of birds, monkeys and amphibians found nowhere else on earth.

The drilling will reportedly add more than 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. The Yasuni drilling will add to a number of other hydrocarbon projects in the western Amazon.

A total of 78 percent of Ecuadorians are reportedly against drilling in the park. Although Correa was faced with protests, the hundreds of people gathered in Quito are unlikely to change plans to drill which are expected to start in the next few weeks.

Just after signing the executive decree, Correa said the decision was one of the most difficult he had to take as president.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Why Oil Prices Matter for Renewable Energy
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Debate: McKibben vs. Epstein—Are Fossil Fuels a Risk to the Planet? (Video)
350.org's Connect the Dots End Fossil Fuel (2012)
350.org's Bill McKibben on Connect the Dots (2012)
4 Principles for Climate and Energy Legislation
The Cost of Carbon
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

New Discoveries of Lithium Deposits

April 29, 2013 Add Comment Edit

There is an increasing demand for Lithium that is putting upward pressure on the cost of this rare earth mineral, but the discovery of new deposits will help address this growing demand. Lithium is an element that powers the modern world. A vast and growing number of portable devices including electronics like phones, tablets and laptops depend on lithium and so do electric and hybrid cars.

Some of the top producing countries for lithium are Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. These three countries are known as the “lithium triangle.” Chile is the world’s leading source of the element, turning out around 40 percent of global supply, however discoveries in Bolivia, (which opened its first lithium pilot plant in January), suggest that the country may have 50 percent of the world’s reserves, which is enough to power 4.8 billion electric cars.

Australia and China are also major sources of lithium. In 2009 worldwide estimates of known lithium reserves totaled 18,000 tonnes.

Currently, the US imports more than 80 percent of the lithium it uses, however, researchers at the University of Wyoming have found a huge deposit containing 228,000 tons of lithium in Rock Springs Uplift. That's enough to meet annual US demand, and almost twice as much as the reserves from the biggest domestic lithium producer (located at Silver Peak, in Nevada).

Although we are discovering new deposits of lithium, it is important to note that the rare earth mineral can also be recycled from old batteries.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Electric Vehicles Will Drive Demand for Lithium
Lithium Power Benefits Investors
Mobile Electronics are Driving Demand for Lithium
Lithium is the Next Big Investment Opportunity
Lithium is the Right Stock at the Right Time for the Right Reasons
Rare Earth Minerals Power the Green Economy

Documentary: On Coal River

December 27, 2012 Add Comment Edit

In the words from Mother and Director Francine Cavanaugh: We are documentary filmmakers but parents first. I was four months pregnant when we began filming over 6 years ago in Coal River Valley WV. Our first visit was to the local elementary school and we were blown away by its proximity to a large coal facility plant and looming sludge pond. We were also blown away by the spirit of resistance and resolve of a few individuals who took on the mission to have the school moved to a safer ground as well as taking on the coal industry that has been entrenched in their community for over a hundred years.

Judy Bonds whose story we follow says “I am first a mother and a grandmother and to the young people in the world today I have to say I am sorry for what we have done to your world because this is your planet first”. I feel her words today as our son is now seven and I continue to feel the responsibility to do as much as I can to make this a better world for him and all of the worlds children to live in and I continue to receive inspiration from people like Judy Bonds, Maria Lambert, Ed Wiley, and Bo Webb who are all parents and grandparents first.

ON COAL RIVER takes viewers on a gripping emotional journey into the Coal River Valley of West Virginia — a community surrounded by lush mountains and a looming toxic threat. The film follows a former coal miner and his neighbors in a David-and-Goliath struggle for the future of their valley, their children, and life as they know it.

Ed Wiley is a former coal miner who once worked at a toxic waste facility that now threatens his granddaughter’s elementary school. When his local government refuses to act, Ed embarks on a quest to have the school relocated to safer ground. With insider knowledge and a sharp sense of right and wrong, Ed confronts his local school board, state government, and a notorious coal company — Massey Energy — for putting his granddaughter and his community at risk. Along the way, Ed is supported by his neighbors Bo Webb and Judy Bonds, who have their own problems with Massey Energy. Ex-marine Bo Webb retired to his childhood home only to discover that this once-idyllic valley is being transformed by a company practicing “mountaintop removal” – blowing up mountains to extract coal.

Shot over a five year period, ON COAL RIVER follows the transformation of these four remarkable individuals as they fight for the valley they love and for future generations — making dramatic changes against all odds.

Click here to learn more.

For a limited time you can watch it for free on Snagfilms, click here.

Related Articles
Documentary: Chasing Ice Trailer (Video) Vanishing Ice: A Documentary about Vanishing Ice and Evidence for Climate Change
Video: Trailer for The Antartic Ozone Hole - from Discovery to Recovery
Documentary: Ecosystem in Crisis (Full Length Video)
Documentary: Greedy Lying Bastards Trailer (Video)
Video Trailer: Revenge of the Electric Car
Who Bombed Judi Bari? (Video Trailer)
Education for a Sustainable Future (Video)
Sustainability (Video)
The Alberta Tar Sands (Video)
11 Biggest Green Video Sites
10 Sites that Specialize in Green Video Content
11 Best Green Video Channels or Series
Hulu's Green Video Programming
Netvibes' Green Video Programming
Best Green Videos
Best Humerous Green Videos
The Best Books on Green and Sustainability

Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic

July 19, 2012 1 Comment Edit

Questions are being raised about Shell's ability to manage its oil and gas drilling operations in the Arctic Ocean. The company is reneging on its emissions commitments and is already having trouble with the ships tasked to locate fossil fuels.

Right before it begins its drilling operations in August, Shell is trying to change the terms under which it was granted permission to drill. In an application to the agency, dated June 28, Shell said they cannot meet the requirements for emissions of nitrogen oxide and ammonia of an air permit granted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in January. Shell has asked the EPA to loosen air pollution requirements for its Discoverer drill rig and to a lesser extent its Kulluk drill ship. “This is a classic bait-and-switch.”

“Shell promises the E.P.A. — and by extension, the American people — anything that will allow it to get permits to drill the Arctic, and then at the last minute, Shell says it won’t abide by its agreement and wants the E.P.A. to issue watered-down permits with no process whatsoever," Greenpeace’s executive director, Phil Radford said.

“This is just one more in a litany of broken promises from Shell when it comes to drilling in the Arctic,” Radford said.

Shell has run into problems even before drilling begins. The Discoverer, one of the ships shell is using to explore the Arctic Ocean, slipped its mooring and drifted close to one of Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

Questions have also been raised in June about the durability of one of Shell's underwater oil spill containment vessels in severe weather.

These events are leading many to question Shell's ability to protect the Arctic from its oil and gas drilling operations. As one Shell official stated, "even a near miss is unacceptable."

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Lawsuit Protecting Arctic from Oil and Gas Drilling
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand and Nigeria
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects

Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil and Gas Drilling

July 19, 2012 Add Comment Edit

A coalition of conservation groups filed a lawsuit on July 16th to protect the Arctic Ocean from Shell's exploratory drilling scheduled to get under way in August. The legal papers filed in U.S. District Court in Anchorage challenges the oil spill cleanup plans for Shell Alaska's upcoming operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. Shell claims it has already spend $4 billion on the drilling operation. The suit invokes the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a tough law passed in the wake of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. This act imposes strict standards on companies in the Arctic Ocean involved with oil and gas drilling and transport.

By Shell's own admission Arctic drilling is the "most complex, most difficult wells we've drilled in company history." An oil spill in the Arctic Ocean would be almost impossible to clean up and because of the remote setting and extreme cold, it could take years to control. Oil would probably become trapped under the ice, making it impossible to remove. An oil spill in the Arctic ocean could prove devastating to whales, polar bear, seals, and fish. Such a spill would also be devastating to the local people, as 79-year-old Abagail Nashupuq of Point Hope told CNN recently, "our subsistence for the winter, it all comes from the ocean, the fish and whale. It's going to ruin our ocean."

The suit names the federal Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, which earlier this year approved separate Oil Spill Response Plans, or OSRPs, for the Beaufort and Chukchi seas. "This lawsuit is not just about this summer. It's about the future of the Arctic Ocean," said Michael LeVine, Pacific senior counsel for Oceana, one of 10 plaintiffs. Others include the Alaska Wilderness League, the Sierra Club, Earthjustice and the Center for Biological Diversity.

© 2012, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand and Nigeria
Canadian Government Spending on Dirty Projects

Whats the Fracking Problem?

June 12, 2012 Add Comment Edit

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has been associated with water contamination, global warming-causing air pollution, health problems, falling property values and even earthquakes. Each year fracking pumps billions of gallons of water and chemicals deep underground under high pressure to force open cracks and release natural gas.

According to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the chemicals used in fracking fluids include over 750 different chemicals. Some are innocuouse (salt, gelatin) while others pose significant human health hazards (methanol, isopropanol and 2-butoxyethanol). About 650 of the 750 chemicals used in fracking operations are known carcinogens, according to the report filed with the U.S. House of Representatives in April 2011. They include toxic chemicals like benzene and tholuene.

Returning fracking fluids are referred to as “flowback” and in addition to chemical additives, they can include many naturally occurring substances that pose hazards, including methane, heavy metals like barium and radioactive matter. Fracking can unlock 2,552 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the U.S., which is enough to power the country for more than a century. However, there are some serious problems with fracking as well as natural gas itself.

Although natural gas burns cleaner than other fossil fuels (combustion of natural gas releases less carbon dioxide per BTU than combustion of either coal or gasoline), when all things considered, natural gas is not cleaner than other fossil fuels and may even be worse.

Water contamination

According to American Rivers, fracking threatens rivers and streams that provide clean drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, and recreational opportunities, such as fishing and boating. Many of America’s greatest rivers are under threat from natural gas development. They include the Upper Delaware, Susquehanna, Monongahela, and Hoback Rivers.

A PNAS study found that drinking wells near the Marcellus Shale contained 17 times as much methane as those half a mile away. Part of the problem is that natural gas development enjoys exemptions from keystone environmental laws, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act.

“Unchecked by adequate safeguards, natural gas production has the potential to pollute clean water for millions of people. We have already experienced instances of surface and groundwater pollution, air pollution, soil contamination, habitat fragmentation, and erosion from extracting gas from shale using fracking,” American Rivers said.

Earthquakes

While it is widely suspected that fracking pollutes waterways, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the practice can also cause earthquakes. According to scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the oil and gas industry is “almost certainly” responsible for the earthquakes in the U.S. Midwest.

The midsection of America is a relatively quiet geologically zone, but in 2009 USGS seismologist Bill Ellsworth noticed a dramatic increase in the number of quakes in this area. Ellsworth and his colleagues watched the number of quakes go from an average of 20 tremors a year to more 50 in 2009, 87 in 2010 and 134 last year.

What makes the earthquakes in this area so anomalous is the fact that the thick basement rock underlying the U.S. Midwest is relatively static and it is not near an active volcano. This has led him and his team to conclude that the startling increase is “almost certainly man-made.”

Ellsworth’s closer inspection revealed that many of the new quakes were clustering around the wastewater wells, which are very deep holes where companies dump the frack water once it has been used.

Air pollution

As reported in the Washington Post, another problem with fracking is the fact that it inevitably causes methane to escape into the atmosphere. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, it is more than 20 times the heat trapping capacity of carbon dioxide. Modeling studies have suggested that if more than 2 percent of the methane from natural-gas production escapes out into the air, then natural gas may not offer much of a climate advantage over coal. The EPA pegs the leakage rate at around 2 percent, but a study from Cornell’s Robert Howarth suggests that the leakage rate could be as high as 7.8 percent. An NOAA studyestimated the methane leakage at around 4 percent, but this study did not include inevitable leaks from distribution pipelines.

In addition to contributing to global warming , the air pollution associated with fracking also endangers human health. A Texas hospital serving six counties near drilling sites reported asthma rates three times higher than the state average; one-quarter of young children in the community had asthma.

Opponents to fracking point to numerous cases of health problems such as headaches, nosebleeds and rashes in humans, and reproductive problems in livestock in areas of the country with heavy gas-drilling activity.

Gag order

Gas companies are using state legislatures to push ahead with an agenda that destroys the environment and endangers public health. In at least two states it is now illegal for medical professionals to report the human health effects from fracking. On May 15, the Ohio State Senate approved legislation that would prevent physicians from sharing information about patients’ exposure to hydrofracking chemicals (the oil and gas industry has given hundreds thousands of dollars to the Ohio General Assembly to help secure this support).
Gas companies have also resisted efforts to find out about the toxic chemicals used in fracking. A new Pennsylvania law forbids health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in fracking.

“I have never seen anything like this in my 37 years of practice,” says Dr. Helen Podgainy, a pediatrician from Coraopolis, Pa. She says it’s common for physicians, epidemiologists, and others in the health care field to discuss and consult with each other about the possible problems that can affect various populations. Her first priority, she says, “is to diagnose and treat, and to be proactive in preventing harm to others.” The new law, she says, not only “hinders preventative measures for our patients, it slows the treatment process by gagging free discussion.”

The law is not only “unprecedented,” but will “complicate the ability of health department to collect information that would reveal trends that could help us to protect the public health,” says Dr. Jerome Paulson, director of the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C. Dr. Paulson, also professor of pediatrics at George Washington University, calls the law “detrimental to the delivery of personal health care and contradictory to the ethical principles of medicine and public health.” Physicians, he says, “have a moral and ethical responsibility to protect the health of the public, and this law precludes us from doing all we can to protect the public.” He has called for a moratorium on all drilling until the health effects can be analyzed.

Fracking bans

France banned fracking in July 2011, followed by South Africa in August 2011 and most recently Bulgaria did the same. In Canada, the province of Quebec has banned fracking and now Quebec’s neighbors in Vermont have followed suit. Vermont is the first U.S. state where fracking is now illegal. On May 4, 2012, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a statewide hydraulic-fracturing ban into law.
The town of Dryden, N.Y., won a court ruling saying it could prohibit fracking as part of its zoning ordinance. State environmental officials in New York placed a moratorium on fracking while they come up with new regulations to cover oil and gas drilling in the underground geological deposits. Now that New York’s courts have given municipalities the power to ban fracking within their borders, environmentalists are pushing Governor Andrew Cuomo to outlaw the practice altogether.

More states seeking to ban fracking

In Michigan, citizens are pushing for a ballot initiative to amend the state’s constitution to ban horizontal hydraulic fracturing statewide. The proposed amendment would also ban the storage of wastes from horizontal hydraulic fracturing. An inclusive group of citizens called for a ban on fracking, in California and 50,000 Californians have signed a CREDO Action petition that supports a ban on fracking.

“Californians from rural Kern County to urban South Los Angeles and throughout the state are standing together in opposition to fracking, which threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land upon which we grow food and build our homes,” said Kristin Lynch, Pacific Region director of Food & Water Watch. “No amount of regulation can make this fundamentally destructive and toxic drilling safe; most certainly not mere notice of where fracking is taking place or the carcinogenic chemicals being used.”
Other American states and Canadian provinces are also rallying to ban fracking along with people in countries around the world.

Growing US Resistance

“Across the United States, people are waking up to the threat fracking poses to our environment and health,” said Josh Fox, creator of the critically acclaimed documentary Gasland. “Once you contaminate an aquifer, you can’t go back—just ask the residents of Pavillion, Wyo., Dimock, Pa., or Garfield County, Colo. The evidence is indisputable that this destructive practice must be stopped.”
“The grassroots are tens of thousands of people using their vacation days to go to rallies, spending their savings to get the word out, and going door-to-door getting thousands of signatures on petitions,” said Sue Rapp of Vestal Residents for Safe Energy, a local group in Broome County.

The combination of air pollution, water contamination, earthquakes, public health issues and falling property values make fracking a less than attractive option.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Natural Gas is Not Clean Energy

June 12, 2012 Add Comment Edit

Natural gas has garnered a lot of attention, but the research reveals it is anything but clean. To increase domestic energy production and reduce reliance on coal, there is a natural gas boom in the U.S. and elsewhere. However, reliance on natural gas is not a panacea to our energy woes. According to a February 2012 study published in Nature, extracting and producing natural gas releases enough methane into the atmosphere to negate any greenhouse gas advantages that its somewhat cleaner burning chemistry provides.

Approximately 85 percent of natural gas is composed of methane, which is 105 times worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG). Based on EPA data, methane leaks at a rate of 3.3 percent and that number more than doubles (7.9 percent) when fracking is employed to extract natural gas. Extrapolating from this data, gas burning for electricity is much dirtier than coal burning in terms of GHG emissions.

Dr. Drew Shindell and colleagues (NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) have published a paper in the scientific journal Science (US), in which he said:

“We found that gas-aerosol interactions substantially alter the relative importance of the various emissions. In particular, methane emissions have a larger impact than that used in current carbon-trading schemes or in the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, assessments of multigas mitigation policies, as well as any separate efforts to mitigate warming from short-lived pollutants, should include gas-aerosol interactions.”

The Nature News part of the prestigious scientific journal Nature (UK) has summarized the key findings of Shindell and colleagues as follows:

“a range of computerized models to show that methane’s global warming potential is greater when combined with aerosols — atmospheric particles such as dust, sea salt, sulphates and black carbon. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol assume methane to be, tonne-for-tonne, 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide at warming the planet. But the interaction with aerosols bumps up methane’s relative global warming potential (GWP) to about 33, though there is a lot of uncertainty around the exact figure.”

Dr. Shindell has summarized the findings by saying: “What happens is that as you put more methane into the atmosphere, it competes for oxidants such as hydroxyl with sulphur dioxide. More methane means less sulphate, which is reflective and thus has a cooling effect. Calculations of GWP [Global Warming Potential;] including these gas-aerosol linkages thus substantially increase the value for methane.”

Major systemic gas leakage from the hydraulic fracking of shale formations has led Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, to conclude:

“The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”.

The February 2012 study of air samples revealed high emission levels from gas fields. The study explains that methane leaks during production may offset any benefits of natural gas. In 2007, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) researchers noticed pollutants including methane, butane and propane, in air samples from a tower north of Denver, Colorado. They linked the pollutants to a nearby natural-gas field. Their investigation produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be better than coal when it comes to climate change.

In 2008, NOAA researchers and the University of Colorado, Boulder, estimated that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin (where more than 20,000 oil and gas wells have been drilled during the past four decades) are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere. Additional emissions come from the storage tanks and pipelines.

Natural gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal per unit of energy when burned, but separate teams at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that methane emissions from shale gas are much larger than previously thought.

Robert Howarth, a Cornell researcher whose team raised concerns about methane emissions from shale-gas drilling in a pair of papers, said “I’m not looking for vindication here, but [the NOAA] numbers are coming in very close to ours, maybe a little higher.” Howarth said natural gas might still have an advantage over coal when burned to create electricity, because gas-fired power plants tend to be newer and far more efficient than older facilities that provide the bulk of the country’s coal-fired generation. But only 30% of US gas is used to produce electricity, with much of the rest being used for heating, for which there is no such advantage.

Natural gas is touted as a cost effective energy, but capturing and storing gases that are vented during the fracking process is feasible, but considered too costly to adopt. An EPA rule that is due out as early as April would promote such changes by regulating emissions from the gas fields.

A major 2011 study by Tom Wigley of the Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concluded:
The most important result, however, in accord with the above authors, is that, unless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below 2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude of future climate change.

As explained by Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, “I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.” The findings surrounding natural gas has far reaching consequences, not the least of which is the emerging understanding that natural gas is not the bridge energy solution many had hoped for.

Howarth’s online version of his new 2012 paper concludes: We reiterate our conclusion from our April 2011 paper that shale gas is not a suitable bridge fuel for the 21st Century. Even without a high-leakage rate for shale gas, we know that Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere. The International Energy Agency, in its big June 2011 report on gas, said “Golden Age of Gas Scenario” Leads to More Than 6°F Warming and Out-of-Control Climate Change.

These studies demonstrate the urgency to radically reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Even with large and early cuts in emissions, the indications are that temperatures are likely to rise to around 2 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. Currently the world’s overall emissions are increasing at a rate of 1 percent every year.

We need to shift away from fossil fuels including natural gas. We need to rapidly adopt renewable forms of energy energy like wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal. We must rapidly move toward an economy based on renewable fuels. Studies by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi and Robert Howarth indicate that the U.S. and the world could rely 100% on such green energy sources within 20 years.

We need to expose the subterfuge of the fossil fuel industry, which falsely asserts that “gas is clean energy” or that “gas is cleaner energy” than coal burning. Natural gas does not reduce GHGs compared with coal and therefore it will not minimize the impacts of global warming. In fact, as revealed by a growing body of research, increased reliance on natural gas will actually hasten catastrophic climate change.

Source: Global Warming is Real (http://s.tt/15HRX)

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )