Comments on: Fracking’s externalities Bridges, budgets, bonds Mon, 24 Nov 2014 00:29:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: BowMtnSpirit Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:36:11 +0000 @ Cate Long: Thank you. And thank you, and thank you again. It is nice to see a balanced piece of journalism appear here, in the MSM.

The reality is that regardless of the size of LP/NG reserves in the U.S. (and contrary to the narrow and limited understanding of OneOfTheSheep, above), the resource is finite, and the U.S. will never, ever achieve “self-sufficiency” in energy production at the present (or foreseeable) rates of consumption.

The undeniably valid point you make in this piece is that if the costs are socialized and the profits taken privately, the American public are NOT served by permitting these practices. That American citizens do not, or cannot, understand that their support of such practices harms them in far greater measure than the curtailed/reduced production that may result. They don’t understand that in order to keep their fuel costs a dollar lower, they are handing three dollars to the producers.

By: NobleKin Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:15:46 +0000 And then you have the likes of Rick Perry screaming for the destruction of the EPA, presumably to limit the government’s ability to monitor, regulate and mitigate the potential risks and long term damages this relatively new and unproven technology may pose.

I’d love to see America become energy self sufficient and natural gas looks like a great source, but not at the cost of water resources that irrigate our crops and supply our drinking water needs.

By: LEEDAP Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:36:51 +0000 Nice contribution, @Cate_Long. As a pro-business green party member, I am all for this clean new resource… as long as it is clean. One thing that America needs to do is employ the precautionary principal ( ary_principle).

As Kate Long astutely titled this piece, “externalities” should be born by the risk taker, not society at large. It is telling that a bond rating agency is advising investors of the potential risks being undertaken.

Most local governments are not sophisticated enough to manage this risk so it gets born on local residents and taxpayers. My pro business side says yay for more profits. My Green Party side says sneaky corporations are the scourge of the earth. Both are right. Finding the balance requires the inclusion of external risks in the analysis.

By: OneOfTheSheep Tue, 17 Jan 2012 22:01:53 +0000 You focus on “social cost potential” and ignore the overriding factor that America NEEDS meaningful access to the energy this process makes available. Yes, there should be “cost-benefits” analysis, and those companies that profit from such extraction should pay and write off the cost of getting associated “social costs” competently underwritten.

We need to move ahead with caution and courage, NOT stop as the environmental radicals would have us do in order to delay and run up associated expense to an unprofitable level.

By: Cate_Long Sat, 14 Jan 2012 12:21:09 +0000 Kroll Bond Rating Agency (KBRA) published a report today on the potential impact of shale gas development on municipal bond issuers. The goal of this preliminary report is to alert investors to a new dynamic in the market, the potential development of trillions of dollars of unanticipated, domestic shale gas reserves over the next few decades. While there are significant environmental challenges, particularly contamination of groundwater and aquifers, the focus of this report is the potential impact on municipal credit quality if these shale gas reserves are developed on a large-scale.

It has been known since the 1950s that North America has tremendous quantities of gas and oil trapped in shale formations, but until recently, almost all of this was deemed non-recoverable. Recent advances in combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling have materially reduced the cost of recovering shale gas and dramatically increased projected reserves.

This report provides estimates of these new reserves by state and metrics to help investors determine how their development could affect credit quality of “taxed-backed” municipal issuers. It also explains how the further expansion of shale gas development in the United States could benefit many public power utilities by:

— Reducing financing, operating, and construction risks associated with multi-billion dollar projects;

— Providing a low cost, relatively clean fuel with ample supply and expected price stability;

— Significantly reducing future capital costs and forecasted bond issuance; and

— Allowing an inexpensive way to reduce plant emissions of CO2, mercury, and sulfur oxides.

Although estimates surrounding many key factors are in flux, and concerns over health and environmental issues have still not been adequately addressed, we believe investors need to be cognizant of the potential credit impact shale gas development could have on securities issued on behalf of states, localities, and utilities.

On a macro level, the development of this resource has the potential to materially increase the nation’s GDP, lower energy costs, create a large number of new jobs, and enhance national security. However, significant environmental challenges must be overcome. ond-rating-agency-releases-report-on-the -potential-impact-of-natural-gas-frackin g-on-municipal-bond-issuers-2012-01-13

By: Nickers Sat, 14 Jan 2012 02:41:36 +0000 It’s working..If NIMBY prevails, oily states benefit.

By: Cate_Long Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:15:12 +0000 AP:

Residents of a small northeastern Pennsylvania town at the center of the political fight over natural gas drilling are disappointed that they traveled to Philadelphia but did not get to make their case directly to the head of the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

A handful of residents of Dimock joined about four dozen environmental activists Friday to protest well water contamination that came after natural gas drilling began in the Susquehanna County town in 2008.

The residents want the federal government to truck in fresh water. The EPA last week agreed to do so but reversed course within 24 hours.

The protesters are hoping the federal government will be their ally on an issue they believe state officials are ignoring.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson left the forum at Philadelphia’s Academy of Natural Sciences before protesters could talk to her. sf/2012/01/residents_of_pennsylvania_tow n.html