Issues: Oil & Energy

Chapter 3
Creating a Responsible Natural Gas Policy

Natural gas is used in a variety of ways, including as a source for heating, as fuel for electricity generation, and even as a power source for buses and other motor vehicles. It is the cleanest burning fossil fuel, particularly when modern equipment is used. But as with other fossil fuels, extracting and burning natural gas causes various forms of pollution. Natural gas is not sufficiently clean to be considered the long-term answer to America's energy needs, but it can act as a bridge to greater reliance on cleaner and renewable forms of energy.

Growing demand and sharp increases in short-term natural gas prices in 2004 have prompted some to call for more drilling on public lands and fewer environmental safeguards on gas exploration and use. Yet sacrificing our natural heritage and circumventing public participation in energy plans on public lands are simply not necessary in order to power our economy and homes.

The best way to reduce our economy's vulnerability to high natural gas prices is to waste less gas. The energy efficiency tax incentives laid out in the electricity section of this report would save more than 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually when fully phased in, or more than 10 percent of national consumption. Simply by issuing new efficiency standards for commercial air conditioners, residential furnaces and boilers, and electric distribution transformers, America would save 6.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas over the next 20 years.

Even with efficiency measures in place, however, America will continue to need natural gas. To ensure that natural gas is obtained in the safest and most sustainable way, America must take the following steps:

Do not drill in sensitive offshore areas, including moratorium areas, Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

According to the most recent Department of Interior assessment, 80 percent of economically recoverable gas reserves in offshore areas are now open to development. Only a portion of America's most important national coastal treasures -- from Big Sur to the Florida Keys and Alaska's Bristol Bay -- has been afforded federal protection. Other special places could be added to this list without undermining the natural gas industry or increasing prices for consumers.

These protections are critical to saving our most sensitive marine ecosystems from the damaging consequences of drilling. Extracting oil or gas from beneath the ocean floor creates massive amounts of waste, including toxic metals and other contaminants, most of which is dumped untreated into surrounding waters. Offshore seismic exploration causes noise pollution harmful to whales and other marine mammals that depend on sound to communicate. Offshore development also brings with it the risk of toxic oil spills, which in turn threaten a wide variety of marine species. And every well drilled generates tons of air pollutants. Congress should protect fragile areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, including waters off the East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, and offshore Alaska from the hazards of exploration and drilling.

Maintain existing protections for sensitive onshore public lands and extend protection to other special places.

Developing natural gas onshore can turn wildlands into industrialized zones. Well fields can cover thousands of acres and encompass hundreds, even thousands, of wells and drill pads. Each field is accompanied by a dense web of power lines, miles of pipelines and roads, waste pits, compressors, processing plants, and other production facilities. These activities degrade wildlife habitat, harm fragile soils, and encourage damaging off-road vehicle use.

Natural gas production on some public lands will continue to be necessary and should always be done in an environmentally responsible manner. But certain areas within the federal public lands system merit special protection from gas development. The energy production industry and its champions in Washington claim that these safeguards interrupt supply and cause price spikes. Yet according to a January 2003 report by the Interior, Energy, and Agriculture departments, only 12 percent of "technically recoverable" federal gas resources in the five major Western basins are totally off-limits to leasing and development -- and most of that 12 percent is in lands that Congress has designated as wilderness and national parks.

Protecting a few more remarkable pieces of America's natural heritage will not disrupt the industry. In fact, the industry is having trouble keeping up with the leases it already has: almost 73 percent of the total onshore acreage under oil and gas leases from the Bureau of Land Management is not in production. In the Rocky Mountains alone, only 32 percent of lands leased for gas drilling are in production. And more than half of the record number of drilling permits approved by the bureau in FY 2004 went unused. Congress could designate more sensitive areas off-limits to drilling without harming the natural gas industry or consumers' pocketbooks. NRDC recommends that Congress permanently protect several special places, including the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Utah's redrock canyon country, and Wyoming's Jack Morrow Hills in the heart of the Red Desert.

Ensure that pipelines are constructed in an environmentally sensitive and safe manner.

Natural gas pipelines can significantly alter the landscape. To construct them, builders often carve networks of new roads through forests or coastal areas and dig miles and miles of trenches to lay the pipeline. Once in operation, pipelines have to be closely monitored to avoid dangerous leaks: pipelines are highly explosive and have been responsible for several deaths.

To minimize the impacts of natural gas pipelines, the federal government should issue rigorous siting and safety guidelines. Pipelines should not be routed through national parks, wildlife refuges, or wilderness areas. New pipelines should follow current rights-of-way whenever possible to take advantage of existing infrastructure and to avoid damaging sensitive wild places with pipeline construction or inadequate maintenance. For example, NRDC strongly opposes a pipeline that would carry Prudhoe Bay gas that goes "over the top" offshore from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to the MacKenzie Delta in the Northwest Territories in Canada. Instead, the natural gas pipeline should follow the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and the Alaskan Highway. Finally, Congress should ensure that pipelines are safely maintained once they are in operation by providing adequate funding for inspection and enforcement.

Plan an Alaska gas pipeline to deliver Prudhoe Bay gas to the lower 48 states that follows the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and the Alaskan Highway.

In Alaska's Prudhoe Bay region, geologic formations already drilled on state-owned lands contain at least 35 trillion feet of natural gas -- equivalent to about one-fifth of all U.S proved reserves, or slightly less than two years' worth of nationwide consumption at current levels. A pipeline route linking these reserves to the U.S.-Canadian gas transmission system was approved almost 20 years ago, although it has not yet been constructed. According to the original plan, the pipeline would use existing rights-of-way and run parallel to Alaska's principal oil pipeline and the Alaskan Highway.

NRDC does not oppose construction of this system, as long as the earlier environmental reviews are updated according to U.S. and Canadian regulations and the project incorporates the best pipeline environmental and safety measures.

Ensure that infrastructure for liquefied natural gas imports follow careful siting guidelines, and that imports do not come from environmentally sensitive areas or from countries without adequate environmental safeguards.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is natural gas that has been cooled to 261 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, reducing the volume of the gas 600-fold. Specially designed tankers can carry more than 2.5 billion cubic feet of gas per shipment, delivering LNG from around the globe to one of four U.S. marine terminals. Proposals have surfaced for at least 16 more import facilities to serve the U.S. market. But LNG facilities have very challenging siting requirements. LNG tankers are massive: they can only dock in harbors wide enough to allow the 900-foot-long tankers and deep enough to handle their 36-foot draft below the waterline. Extensive local opposition to LNG terminals and U.S. Coast Guard restrictions on LNG tanker movement further limit possible sites for new LNG facilities.

With careful siting, LNG can offer a valuable substitute for more environmentally destructive fuels. But increased use of LNG must not become a means for shifting natural gas exploration and extraction to especially sensitive areas, or to nations lacking adequate environmental and public-health safeguards. And all LNG siting decisions must analyze potential environmental and safety impacts and allow the public to participate in decision making. New facilities should also avoid marine sanctuaries, marine protected areas, and fragile resources like deep corals.

Back to contents page