Your OGJ June 10, 2002, p. 21, editorial on the recent release of an EPA document on air quality is confusing on several levels, at least from the perspective of this independent geologist. The scientific measurement of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases was done by rigorous and redundant (sometimes overly redundant) methods by professionals, not by some "bean-counters" with random number generators. And they show that the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
It is debatable whether the CO2 has influenced our climate. A lot of information has been developed by highly respectable scientific organizations, like the American Association for the Ad vancement of Science, and this suggests some tie between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. The evidence that might be needed to convince the most ardent opposition to the climate change hypothesis might be unobtainable. Most probably, we will not know about any climatic changes until it is too late for us to proactively respond to them. Then we can respond to the changes, most probably by throwing money at them.
You seem to ignore that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has had a deleterious effect on the quality of the air that we breathe, and that the long-term effect of this is an increase in pulmonary diseases. There is a documented increase in childhood asthma, COPD, and lung cancer in areas in which degraded air quality exists. All you have to do is stick you head out the window and breathe the filth in your air in Houston (which has become the number 2 city in terms of poor air quality, falling only behind the LA Basin and its famous smog). As one who has suffered with loved ones that have died from air quality-related diseases, I would not wish this suffering on any one else.
What confuses me even more is that you have missed the opportunity that this EPA report offers. Slightly over 45% of all CO2 in the atmosphere came from coal-fired electrical-generation plants. The amount of CO2 generated by transportation-based sources and by oil or natural gas-fired plants, is less than 30% of total CO2 generated, and can be mitigated by naturally occurring CO2 sumps. In fact, all other "greenhouse" gases, including methane, have reduced concentrations over the 10-year study period. This shows that the Clean Air Act has had some positive effect on air quality. The only troubling data is that NO2 and CO2 generated from light duty trucks (real SUVs) has gone up significantly over the study period, but even this increase is not alarming.
Read pragmatically, this report suggests an obvious solution. Active coal-fired, electrical-generation plants must be retrofitted with or replaced by natural gas-fired plants. If proper design and filtration systems are used, the total amount of CO2 that will be released by gas-fired plants will be significantly re duced. What a better use for the vast reserves of coal-bed methane and natural gas from tight sands, fractured shale, and similar sources that exist in domestic basins, as well as in the basins of our immediate neighbors Canada and Mex ico. Further, the DOE has a program on CO2 sequestration, which involves the collection of excess CO2 and reinjection into deep reservoirs. Maybe some combination of these two approaches could be used to set up a closed reservoir system.
In addition to utilizing domestic resources, the use of this resource would provide a stabilizing effect for natural gas markets and protect the nation from outside threats. In addition, service com panies and professional employees could also begin to plan for the long term, instead of planning on the quarterly changes that have plagued this industry since the price collapse of the mid-1980s.
Arthur J. Pyron
Petroleum Geologist
Pottstown, Pa.
