Blogs are a good way to state your opinion, and you are welcome to share your opinion with me on this or any other subject. I read an article today that stated that Greenpeace is against the exploration of unconventional gas. Unconventional gas includes tight-gas, shale gas, and coalbed methane resources. The International Energy Agency (IEA) said that a surge in unconventional natural gas over the next two decades would make a huge difference to the U.S., Australia, Canada, and Indonesia while lessening the importance of the Middle East and Russia due to cheaper oil prices. That translates into a healthier U.S.A and a less prosperous Middle East. A less prosperous Middle East just might make it harder for some nations to sponsor terrorism.
Imagine a world where natural gas becomes the second most important energy source after oil. The IEA thinks that will be the case by 2035. A much more energy independent U.S. means a reduction in the huge transfer of wealth that has been occurring for decades. It means jobs. It means more tax revenue at local, county, state, and federal levels. It means a relatively cheap source of energy that allows the U.S. to be globally competitive. It means less airborne pollutants as we shift from coal to natural gas. I would like to tell Greenpeace to be quiet and sit down.
Greenpeace stated that the impact of unconventional natural gas are not completely understood. Most innovations are not completely understood before they are brought on line. The long-term use of oil, automobiles, preservatives, and engineered food were not completely understood when they were introduced.
I hope the IEA and other regulatory agencies are not swayed by the Greenpeace noise. I heartily recommend Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout by Patrick Moore to those interested in learning more about the non-science that is Greenpeace. Mr. Moore was one of the founding members of Greenpeace, and he has a lot to say about the current condition of the organization he helped found.