In Oregon, two coal companies vie for land at the Port of St. Helens to aid in shipping coal to China, but environmental activists have inhibited their effort [1]. From the economic standpoint the two ports would necessitate hiring over 100 people and bring in millions of dollars of property tax revenue. In addition, “the company promised to donate 10 cents per metric ton of coal to the school districts of Columbia and Morrow counties—$300,000 to $350,000 to each annually.” With unemployment at about 12% in Columbia County where the projects would be located, how can the area afford to say no? But environmentalists see an entirely different picture full of coal “dust polluting the air, barges spoiling local fishing and tourism, and cross-ocean fallout from burning the fuel in dirty Asian furnaces.” That’s right, burning fuel in Asia affects the air in the Pacific Northwest. The United States Environmental Protection Agency says coal-fired plants in China are one of the leading causes of mercury emissions across the world and even contribute to mercury contamination in seafood. Yikes!

The Wall Street Journal “Coal Fuels a Fight in Oregon”"]

Port St. Helens In Oregon- [1

If the two companies and those in favor of increased jobs are lucky, the port construction will begin sometime in summer of 2013. If the environmentalists have their way, the projects will get blocked as they did last year in Washington.

On the other side of the country, environmental issues have also slowed economic growth as road blocks pop up in the effort to green-light hydraulic fracturing of natural gas in New York [2]. Hydraulic fracturing, or injecting a pressurized fluid into a well to increase the  recovery of fossil fuels, is used in the extraction of natural gas from shale formations across the country. New York has not yet tapped into the vast shale play upon which it resides, the same shale play that Pennsylvania has benefited from so much.

EIA”]The state Department of Environmental Conservation canceled a meeting of the drilling advisory panel earlier this week for the second time after 40,000 comments funneled in on proposed state regulations and an environmental impact statement. Shale is often described as “one of the richest natural gas fields in the world,” and has yet to be used in New York because of awaiting deliberation. The panel is at a stand-still until all information can be interpreted, thereby leaving New York devoid of this new economic opportunity. Will Oregon and New York be able to find the happy medium between economics and the environment or will one dominate?

Meanwhile in Texas, where unemployment for December lowered to 7.8% while the country as a whole was at 8.5% (preliminary numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the US Department of Labor), hydraulic fracturing has boomed; the most influential of numbers, the state’s mining and logging percentage, is up 18.7% in the past 12 months [4]. Texas seems to be benefiting greatly from the increase in natural gas drilling.

However, according to Dr. Mark A Engle, a geologist with the United States Geological Survey’s Eastern Energy Resources Center, “Texas ranks pretty much dead last of any state I’ve worked with for keeping track of [the quality of water discharged in hydraulic fracturing]” [5]. And starting February 1, drilling operators in Texas will now have to report chemicals used and the amount of water needed in fracking each well (available at www.fracfocus.org). The old adage says “ignorance is bliss,” and in this case, it might be the truth behind Texas’s increased economy. What kind of effect will these new reports have on fracking regulations in Texas? The EPA already regulates the disposal of flowback from fracking wells into surface waters and diesel fuel used as the underground injected fluid, but the agency is still studying all of the environmental impacts of fracking [6]. According to the EPA, “in many regions of the U.S., underground injection is the most common method of disposing of fluids or other substances from shale gas extraction operation,” but in Wyoming, local well owners have complained of contaminated drinking water [7]. Case studies are being conducted around the country to test for potential groundwater contamination [8]. Will more stringent water quality standards be imposed to protect groundwater? Will fracking still be as economically viable if there is an increased cost of water treatment imposed upon the drilling companies?

This blogger eagerly awaits economic regulations and deliberations in each of these battles and wonders… Will there be a peaceful end to the war of economics vs. the environment? It seems like the deliberations have resulted in as much progress as regular peace talks. Where does one draw the line on compromise? For Oregon, the EPA may be the deciding force; economic development happens where the EPA’s regulations end. For New York, the public outcry will be the deciding factor in the potential economic progress. But maybe Texas can find a way to keep the money coming without hurting its citizenry. Maybe drilling is not as bad as the environmentalists in the Lone Star State think and those Wyoming complainers are just looking for a new frivolous lawsuit. We can only hope that our concerns are simply that. But in the mean time, we need the increase in energy, we need the boost in the economy, and we need to protect human health. We should probably find a way to do all three.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577185232624361026.html

[2] http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/new-yorks-fracking-deliberations-inch-along/?ref=energy-environment

[3] http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/usshalegas/

[4] http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

[5] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/new-data-not-so-sunny-on-us-natural-gas-supply.html?scp=1&sq=shale%20in%20texas&st=cse

[6] http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm

[7] http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracture/

[8] http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/case_studies.cfm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-battle-has-only-just-begun/2012/01/19/gIQAUa47BQ_story.html

In order for TransCanada to begin construction, they must obtain a Presidential Permit. On January 18, Obama rejected congressional Republican’s deadline for a decision saying that “a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment” could not be accurately completed in the time allotted by the arbitrary deadline. [3]

Yes, there are profound environmental risks associated with construction. The pipeline runs through the Nebraskan sand hills, a very a delicate ecosystem in which an oil spill would devastate. Also, the pipeline would cross the Ogallala aquifer, which provides 30% of the nations’ irrigation water [5]. However, TransCanada has no history of oil spills and I believe that if the proper safety and environmental precautions are taken, then hopefully there will be no leaks. There are already 55,000 miles of petroleum pipelines in the US and many of them cross sensitive areas [1]. I feel that because of the BP Deepwater Horizon’s spill, there is more attention on the topic of environmental preservation than necessary.

Given that this is an election year, I also feel that Obama is just postponing the decision so as to not deter voters.  The purpose of the presidential permit is to decide if the pipeline would be in the nation’s best interest. I believe that it would. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio stated Keystone XL’s construction would “create 100,000 new jobs [3]. Also, if we buy Canada’s oil, then we are less dependent on foreign sources. Besides, if we don’t buy this oil, then someone else will (i.e. China). Obama promised that he’s create jobs and push the US to cleaner energy. Having to make a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline would force him to break one of his campaign promises, a move that could ruin his chances for 2012. Deferring the decision is in the best interest of his campaign, not of the nation. The first permit to build Keystone XL was submitted in 2008 and was continually delayed until a proper EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) was completed. Continuing to defer decision is just going to push TransCanada to look for a different nation to buy its oil.

[1] http://www.pipeline101.com/Overview/energy-pl.html

[2] http://www.hartwrfs.com/HomePageNewsDetails.aspx?Id=5062

[3] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/president-obama-rejects-keystone-xl-pipeline/story?id=15387980#.TyXF8WDAU1c

[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-battle-has-only-just-begun/2012/01/19/gIQAUa47BQ_story.html

[5] http://www.kerrcenter.com/publications/ogallala_aquifer.pdf

Wind Farm near Lubbock, Texas during a sandstorm in January. (Photo By Kendall Berns 1/22/12)

Most people I know that have travelled to Lubbock, Texas, or live around that area, complain about the boring, monotonous drive. Call me crazy, but I love driving to Lubbock or San Angelo because I find the wind turbines beautiful and intriguing. However, would I want them near my home? Would the landscape-obstructing wind farms ruin the scenery for me if I had to see them every day? These are real issues that America and many other regions such as Australia, Canada, China, and South Africa are dealing with.

In the US, some farmers are frustrated with the amount of land that has been taken away in order to put in these wind farms. There has been debate over whether the decision to put wind farms in certain locations should be in the hands of local officials, state officials, or nationwide regulations. According to Michael Vickerman, executive director of RENEW Wisconsin, states that, “The whole reason for statewide rules is to have consistency and regulatory certainty,” and he claims that if a new bill being proposed in WI passed, it would, “essentially say the state is off limits to wind power.”

If bills like the one mentioned above passed, it would hinder the amount of valuable wind energy usable by the US. According to the Department of energy, all of the electrical power needed in the US could be taken care of solely by the wind in the Dakotas and Texas.

While it is projected by many sources that 20% of the US energy will come from wind farms by 2030, some cities are already seeing the benefits. In Illinois the wind turbines under construction are suggested to bring in in $800,000 in increased tax revenue because with the new turbines, the value of the area in Galva would increase by about $20 million.

It is clear that wind power is becoming a major source of renewable energy. How will the rest of America respond?

Sources:

http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/12/01/bill-give-local-officials-control-over-windmill-siting-would-trump-state-rules

http://www.galvanews.com/news/x364057695/Galva-schools-could-see-300K-net-gain-from-windmills

http://www.windenergyamerica.com/faqs.html#9

“Google is making several calculated and risky bets on the future of technology. From computer-driven vehicles in California that do not require any driver interaction, to multi-billion dollar wind farms off of the Eastern Seaboard of the U.S. Specifically, Google is targeting the Atlantic seaboard from Virginia to New England. There, Google is installing an undersea cable to transport, as of yet un-built energy from wind farms, off of the coast. Many believe that Google’s continued push with large investments in wind energy will jump-start the off-shore wind market and position Google to hold a near monopoly on off-shore wind during the first few years of the initial boom [1].

Google Wind Production in North Dakota {2}

Because of the new nature of offshore wind, the legislative procedure has not been formulated for this type of alternative energy. This has caused an 8-year lag between the time the Cape Cod offshore wind project was put-forth and the time it will actually begin construction (now). I believe that given Google’s cash flows and sheer size and history for innovation, their push might be what the off-shore wind movement needs to spur quicker turnaround. Furthermore, Google cannot wait 8 years for a return on its investment and I believe Google will avidly push for off-shore wind. Companies like Google have realised that diverse investments and markets make them more viable over the longer term and provide for more profit options. Hopefully, other companies will begin to think outside of the box and help make America the global alternative energy leader!” [3]

Google's Offshore Wind Plans {4}

In my 2010 blog post I predicted that given Google’s investment in the offshore wind energy sector their “push might be what the off-shore wind movement needs to spur quicker turnaround” [3]. On December 20th, 2011 Reuters reported that the U.S. government will decide in the next few months whether or not to approve Google’s offshore win project while also pledging “that the project would not face the bureaucratic delays that plagued previous offshore renewable energy projects”  [5] . Furthermore, Google’s investment into the off-shore wind market is continuing with a push into the European market [6]. All signs point to success with Google’s bet in offshore wind. The Obama administration’s push towards jump-starting American-made renewable energy has cleared the regulatory roadblocks for Google and Google’s continued investment into the offshore wind market has spurred additional investment by other companies [7]. It appears that it is finally time to being the renewable energy revolution.

Offshore Wind {8}

[1]- http://spectrum.ieee.org/podcast/green-tech/wind/google-gambles-on-offshore-wind/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110410  (podcast)

[2] – http://renewableprojects.com/tag/wind-farm

[3]- http://webberenergyugs.blogspot.com/2010/11/google-gambles-on-offshore-wind.html#comment-form

[4]- http://cleantechnica.com/2010/10/12/google-builds-first-us-off-shore-superhighway-for-clean-energy/

[5]- http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-usa-offshore-wind-idUSTRE7BJ1GS20111220

[6]- https://www.google.com/calendar/render?eid=bXQzZXB2ZXQ0bmZkNmlhdWFvamd1NjI1Y3Mgb2ZmaWNlQHJlLWRhdGFiYXNlLmNvbQ&pli=1&sf=true&output=xml

[7]- http://www.ecogeek.org/wind-power/3685-atlantic-city-offshore-wind-farm-could-start-const

[8]- http://greenenergyreporter.com/renewables/wind/google-backs-crucial-offshore-wind-infrastructure-project/

Figure 1: California Renewable Energy Capacity and Generation (GWh, 2010) {1}

Figure 2: Geothermal Energy Process {4}

However, I do not agree with a recent article from Aol Energy that predicts that geothermal power will become the state’s baseload power [3]. While I agree that California will be creating a bigger geothermal impact in the near future, natural gas is still the state’s biggest in-state electricity provider. According to the California Energy Commission, 56.7% of the in-state electricity generation was from natural gas while only 13.9% was from renewables in 2009 [6]. The article also seemed hopeful that the state’s San Onofre nuclear power plant license is about to expire in 20 years, even though the nuclear produced 15.3% of the in-state electricity in 2009 [3, 6]. While nuclear has its disadvantages, so does geothermal energy. The biggest drawback of geothermal energy that can affect California is that the steam production from a well-established geothermal plant can suddenly decline or stop; a drought that can last about 10 years  [7]. Though leading the world’s geothermal energy production is great, California needs to be aware of the potential unreliability of geothermal before it depends on this renewable resource becoming the state’s baseload power.

The following video gives a more visual representation of the geothermal energy process for those interested:

References:

http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-econ.html

I also researched a little bit about the Northeastern blackout in 2003. The link below estimates that this blackout resulted in  “11 deaths and cost an estimated $6 billion.”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=2003-blackout-five-years-later

The blackout apparently did not last for a huge amount of time, but it was certainly problematic for everyone affected by it. I want to know where the $6 billion was spend or lost from the blackout, and if maybe perhaps the blackout saved money because of the limited energy usage in that part of the North American continent. Maybe the blackout was good for the country in that it showed us that we cannot keep up our wasteful energy habits. I think that is definately a need for limited usage of lighting, especially for empty parking lots and highways at night. Even though light pollution is not the biggest waste of energy, it certainly is a problem. The image shown in class of the earth at night that shows the ‘rich’ countries definately shows way too much light being used, especially since most human beings fall asleep for most of any given night. Why do we need so many street lights for no one being awake?

Also, below is another article that shows reasons why too much light is bad for people’s safety and security:

http://physics.fau.edu/observatory/lightpol-security.html

I would like to do more research on this topic, but it seems to me that wasteful light habits are a problem and are being ignored by most people in the world. Plus, I like to think that most people would enjoy walking out of their front door, looking up, and seeing the Milky Way and all its wonders. You don’t need to have a power outlet to enjoy that.

Now, many people, without hesitation, will agree that getting more electricity from renewable sources, such as solar, wind, and tide, is a good, sound course of action for a variety of reasons. What people don’t agree on is whether RPSs should be used or not.

Currently, the coalition, Maine Citizens for Clean Energy, is getting signatures for a ballot initiative that will change Maine’s current RPS, 10% by 2017, to 14% by 2017 and 20% by 2020 [2].  They state that this will lower energy prices and increase the number of jobs [3].

The governor of Maine, Gov. Paul LePage, told a group on Thursday (January 26, 2012) that this ballot initiative “will destroy the state of Maine” [4]. Governor LePage stated that according to the Maine Public Utilities Commission, the group’s plan would increase electricity costs from $44 to $88 million per year [5]. Maine already has the 12^th highest electricity prices in the nation, and Gov. LePage says that the increased prices will hurt the economy and job growth [5]. In his own words, Gov. LePage believes consumers should have the “choice when it comes to energy decisions, rather than government imposing mandates on Maine people [5]”.

Now, the group’s new RPS proposal is not astonishing or sensational compared with other states’ RPSs (listed here in [1]). Furthermore, one study stated that the initiative would initially increase residential bills up to 84 cents a month but would then save $8.70 by 2030 [6]. A poll last October indicated that 76 percent of Maine favors the initiative with 17 percent opposed and 7 percent undecided [6, the comments from this source give an energetic representation of what some Mainers are thinking].

What would you vote if you were a Mainer? The answer is not simply whether you think your state should rely more on renewable sources but concerns who should make the decision of where your electricity comes from. Or is your answer based on balancing the short-term and long-term economic ramifications? Studies have shown that states with a binding RPS have electricity prices that are 39% higher [7]. Should your reasoning be based on the long-term environmental costs/benefits? Clearly, the difficulty is that there are different reasons why people will either support or oppose RPSs and it is challenging to quantify the economic/environmental effects.

Obviously, whatever happens in Maine will affect us here in Texas very little. However, while there currently is no federal RPS, the idea has been floating around, though each attempt has failed. For example, in 2009, President Obama proposed that 10% of U.S. electricity come from renewable sources by 2012 and 25% by 2025, a national standard that was to be incorporated into a comprehensive energy bill [8].

RPSs offer a solution to incorporate more renewable energy technologies. Many states already have RPSs, and in the future, a national RPS could become mandated. The issues surrounding RPSs are both economic and environmental, and there are many people that support or oppose RPSs. Mainers** are debating the issue now. What do you think?

*Note that different states have different requirements of what is considered a renewable source, as seen in the following figure [1].

**An interesting Maine side note: the DOE recently reported that Maine could potentially supply 10% of the nation’s tidal power energy (15 terrawatt-hours of electricity per year) [9].

1. http://www.epa.gov/chp/state-policy/renewable_fs.html

2. http://www.nawindpower.com/naw/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.9292

3.http://www.cleanenergymaine.org/pdfs/Maine%20Citizens%20for%20Clean%20Energy%20factsheet.pdf

4. http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/lepage-energy-bill-would-kill-jobs_2012-01-26.html

5. http://mdi.villagesoup.com/column/columnpost/energy-proposal-a-job-killer/480346

6. http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/renewable-energy-is-a-moral-imperative_2012-01-24.html

7. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/pdf/statereport.pdf

8. http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/next-up-a-renewable-portfolio-standard/

9. http://www.sustainablebusinessoregon.com/national/2012/01/maine-could-generate-10-percent-of.html

“Jobs creation, our nation’s energy future, and the reputation of the United States as a safe place to invest capital will command attention in the coming presidential debates. President Obama has made a precarious choice.”

On the other side, environmental advocacy groups such as the National Wildlife Foundation have argued that the pipeline will be of no benefit to Americans anyway- the pipeline terminates at the Gulf of Mexico, and Big Oil is simply planning to sell the oil to other markets and reap substantial profits. Additionally, they state that there will likely be far fewer jobs created than estimated by TransCanada, so it’s not worth risking the environmental degradation that could result from a spill.

In reality, both sides are probably taking an extreme view of the matter, as a quick look at the facts seems to confirm. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is an extension of an existing pipeline, and extends from Cushing, OK to the Texas Gulf Coast city of Nederland. Additionally, a new line will originate in Alberta and terminate in Cushing, OK (the current operational Keystone Pipeline, completed in 2011, travels from Alberta to Steele City, NE and then to Cushing). The link from Cushing to the coast is intended to transport crude for eventual export, although it is conceivable that oil could flow in reverse, from the gulf to Cushing, for redistribution to refineries if needed. The Keystone XL would roughly double the present amount of oil being exported through the Keystone Pipeline, from ~590,000 bbl/day to 1.1 million bbl/day [4].

The anti-Keystone XL argument that the pipeline won’t create very many jobs has some merit, although actual jobs numbers are likely between the 4000 and 200,000 figures cited in the media [3],[4] – the original Keystone project employed around 9000 people for 36 months, and TransCanada estimates that the Keystone XL project will employ around 20,000 total workers, when including the manufacturing of parts in other areas [5]. Nonetheless, pro-pipeline supporters note that these are jobs which can be filled relatively quickly and will at least provide some employment- a good thing in the current economy.

The Athabasca Tar Sands (the source of oil which the pipelines will transport) are being developed by a number of different interests, including companies from Canada, the US, China, France, Norway, Japan, and others [6]. These companies undoubtedly have significant say in where and to whom they sell their oil, and having additional transportation infrastructure will benefit all parties involved. In other words, some of the oil is going to be exported, and some will be burned here in the US. However, concerns that all of it is going to be sold overseas are likely unfounded.

In conclusion, the Keystone XL pipeline can probably be best thought of as a highway, which is going to benefit many different corporations and entities. It will not solve US energy security issues, as its capacity is quite small compared to the amounts of oil imported by the US- in other words, there are also a lot of other highways. Additionally, it is no magic bullet for the unemployment problem. We would do well to reach a decision quickly about the pipeline and move on. If it does not get constructed, the oil in the tar sands will still go to those who have the rights to it- one way or another.

 [1] http://www.texasinsider.org/?p=57730

[2] http://www.downstreamtoday.com/news/article.aspx?a_id=11890&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

[3]: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/24/bad-statistics-on-the-clean-economy/?__lsa=346784ec

[4] http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-the-word/key-facts-keystone-xl/

[5] http://beta.fool.com/bobbiejohnson/2012/01/21/part-three-understanding-transcanada-and-keystone-/1082/

[6]http://web.archive.org/web/20080409105246/http://www.alberta-canada.com/energyCommodities/files/pdf/oilSandsUpdate_December_2007.pdf

[1] 350.org. 25 Jan. 2012. <www.350.org>.
[2] “Comparing Cost Estimates for the Kyoto Protocol.” 16 Jul. 2002. Department of Energy. 25 Jan. 2012. <www.eia.gov/oiaf/kyoto/cost.html>.
[3] Bjørn Lomborg. “Let’s Improve life in the present, and the future.” 5 Jul. 2007 Spiked. 25. Jan. 2012. <www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/3568>.
[4] Johns Hopkins Children’s Center. “Functional Significance Of Iron Deficiency In Children.” 6 Jun. 1997. ScienceDaily. 26 Jan. 2012. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/06/970606121500.htm>
]]> http://webberenergyblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/how-to-use-our-money-and-resources/feed/ 1 rvcrawford http://webberenergyblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/newberry-volcano-project-and-hydroshearing-vs-hydraulic-fracturing/ http://webberenergyblog.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/newberry-volcano-project-and-hydroshearing-vs-hydraulic-fracturing/#comments Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:45:55 +0000 lbissey http://webberenergyblog.wordpress.com/?p=1975 Continue reading →]]> The Newberry Volcano Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/14/geothermal-newberry-volcano_n_1206867.html

I’ve kept up with a lot of the media about hydraulic fracturing, which has not been received well and continually gets bad/misinformed press (mostly from the environmental side). After taking a natural gas engineering course last semester and now starting out in a hydraulic fracturing design class, I think I could say that I have fairly good judgement on what has been blown out of proportion or presented falsely. That brings me to this article. There are a number of articles on the Newberry Volcano which are almost identical to this one, so I figured it didn’t matter too much which one I chose. The title caught my eye, and when I first started to read it, I had no idea that it was tied to hydraulic fracturing. The main thing I noticed was that the process that is used to capture this geothermal energy uses “hydroshearing” which they say is similar to hydraulic fracturing, but not the same. Some other articles go as far to say that they are completely different.

They’re not.

They are still pumping millions of gallons of water down to fracture the rock and using proppant to hold the rock open, allowing for (in this case) water vapor to escape. They say the difference between the two is that hydraulic fracturing uses “chemical-laden fluids”, which implies that  hydroshearing does not. The chemicals in the hydraulic fracturing fluids (which usually make up less than 2% of total fluid volume) are added to ensure proper distribution of fluid in the fractures and more even proppant settling. Others are added based on the type of rock that is being fractured and the potential chemical interactions between the fluid and rock. Seems to me that similar amounts of chemicals would need to be added to the water used in hydroshearing that take in account rock chemistry and that ensure proper proppant settling. But they don’t say this. They want to distance the two processes as much as possible because hydraulic fracturing has been bashed for its environmental effects. I would say that hydroshearing poses the same threats (which, to mention, is really only from damaged well casings that protect water aquifers. The same problems would exist when drilling for oil, not just natural gas and not just hydraulic fracturing). There would also be the issue of treating the flowback water before re-injection (not to mention the amount of water usage to begin with, which is another slam point for hydraulic fracturing). Still, they want to avoid the connection between hydraulic fracturing and hydroshearing because they want this new process to seem more “green” and environmentally friendly. Hence the new name.

Outside of my view on how the media presents hydroshearing vs hydraulic fracturing, I actually think that using Enhanced Geothermal Systems and tapping that source of energy is a neat idea. It’s like what Dr. Webber said though – it won’t solve our energy problems or provide enough to offset other sources of energy, but its definitely a start.