Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)
Published: July 29, 2010

A provision to require disclosure of all chemicals used in fracturing Marcellus Shale to extract natural gas could wind up as part of the scaled-down national energy bill the U.S. Senate might consider soon.

Sen. Bob Casey said he convinced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to fold disclosure provisions of his Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act into the energy bill.

“It’s a great breakthrough,” he said. “It’s a substantial step forward. … It gives people information they wouldn’t have otherwise about what’s happening underneath their property.”

Senate leaders are hoping to pass the bill before the summer recess Aug. 6, after realizing they did not have the votes to pass a more comprehensive energy bill. Even if the smaller energy bill gets through the Senate, the House would have to pass it before President Barack Obama can sign it. Neither is assured.

Industry groups said the fracturing chemicals are already well known to the public and state regulators, and further disclosure would harm the development of natural gas.

“We fundamentally believe that regulation of hydraulic fracturing is best addressed at the state level, and we have been unable to reach a consensus with congressional advocates on how this program would be overseen by the federal government,” America’s Natural Gas Alliance said in a statement.

Congress and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are studying whether the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing of shale contaminate drinking water.

Energy In Depth, an industry group, argues regulation should be left to states, which “have effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years with no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination associated with (fracturing) activities.”

At public meetings on gas drilling, local residents regularly dispute the claim.

Though the industry argues the chemicals it uses are well known, a Times-Tribune investigation determined that DEP scientists who analyzed spilled fracturing chemicals at a Susquehanna County well site in September found 10 compounds never disclosed on the drilling contractor’s material safety data sheet.

None of the 10 was included in a state Department of Environmental Protection list of chemicals used in fracturing, a list developed by the industry. When DEP posted a new list earlier this month, none of the 10 was on it.

Mr. Casey dismissed the industry criticism.

“That’s why I called it a substantial step forward, if they’re attacking it,” he said. “If they’re feeling that this is giving information to people that they are reluctant to disclose, that’s why I think it’s an important change, and it’s progress on an issue that some would have thought would have taken years to get done.”

Mr. Casey’s legislation would amend the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which requires employers to disclose what hazardous chemicals they use.

The amendments would require:

– Well-drilling operators to disclose to state regulators and the public a list of chemicals used in fracturing, commonly known as fracking. The requirement would cover chemical constituents but not chemical formulas whose manufacturers are allowed by law to keep the formulas secret, according to Mr. Casey’s office.

– Disclosure to be specific to each well.

– Disclosure of secret formulas or chemical constituents to doctors or nurses treating a contamination victim in an emergency.

– An end to thresholds for reporting chemicals normally required by law so all amounts of chemicals are reported.

In an analysis of the legislation, Energy In Depth said it would “chill” investment in innovations in fracturing and place “unrealistic burdens” on natural gas producers by requiring them to disclose secret chemical compounds whose composition they legally can know nothing about.

In an interview, DEP Secretary John Hanger said he welcomed the federal legislation, argued Pennsylvania already requires more disclosure than his bill and believes companies should disclose the volume and mix of chemicals they use in fracking.

Contact the writer: bkrawczeniuk@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times

By Bob Kalinowski (Staff Writer)
Published: June 25, 2010

WILKES-BARRE – State Rep. Phyllis Mundy on Wednesday moved ahead with a plan to halt all new natural gas drilling permits in Pennsylvania and two other proposals aimed at protecting drinking-water sources from contamination related to drilling.

Ms. Mundy, D-120, Kingston, formally introduced two bills and a resolution in the state House, which include:

n House Bill 2609, which would establish a one-year moratorium on the issuance of new natural gas drilling permits to give state officials more time to analyze the Marcellus Shale drilling industry and make sure proper protections are in place.

n House Bill 2608 would prohibit natural gas drilling companies that use fracking, or horizontal drilling, from drilling wells within 2,500 feet of a primary source of supply for a community water system, such as a lake or reservoir. The current restriction is only 100 feet.

n House Resolution 864 would urge Congress to pass the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. It asks Congress to repeal a provision in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, known as the “Halliburton loophole,” that exempts oil and gas drilling industries from restrictions on hydraulic fracturing near drinking-water sources. The act also would require oil and gas industries to disclose all hydraulic fracturing chemicals and chemical constituents currently considered proprietary rights of the company.

There was no indication if or when the bills would come up for a vote by the House.

Contact the writer: bkalinowski@citizensvoice.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times

The Luzerne County legislator has higher hopes for another bill related to drilling.

By Andrew M. Sederaseder@timesleader.com
Times Leader Staff Writer

State Rep. Phyllis Mundy said her proposal to establish a one-year moratorium on the issuance of new permits for drilling in the Marcellus Shale formation is well intentioned, but she does not believe it has the support of enough of her colleagues to be passed this year.

“The moratorium bill is a long shot,” Mundy, D-Kingston, said on Thursday, responding to questions related to two bills and a resolution she introduced on Wednesday. The three were referred Thursday to the state House Committee on Environmental Resources and Energy.

House Bill 2608 would prohibit natural gas drilling companies that use fracking, or horizontal drilling, from drilling wells within 2,500 feet of a primary source of supply for a community water system, such as a lake or reservoir. The current restriction is only 100 feet.

That bill gained the largest number of cosponsors, including the other six state representatives who serve Luzerne County: Karen Boback, R-Harveys Lake; Mike Carroll, D-Avoca; Eddie Day Pashinski, D-Wilkes-Barre; Todd Eachus, D-Butler Township; Jim Wansacz, D-Old Forge; and John Yudichak, D-Plymouth Township. In total, the bill has 47 cosponsors, and Mundy.

She said that legislation has the best chance of being approved, but it will likely have to be offered as an amendment to another bill.

House Resolution 864, if approved, would urge the U.S. Congress to pass the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act. The resolution urges Congress to repeal a provision in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, known as the “Halliburton loophole,” that exempts oil and gas drilling industries from restrictions on hydraulic fracturing near drinking water sources.

The act would also require oil and gas industries to disclose all hydraulic fracturing chemicals and chemical constituents currently considered proprietary rights of the company.

That resolution has the support of Mundy and 43 of her colleagues who signed on as cosponsors. Eachus, Pashinski, Wansacz and Boback were the other Luzerne County representatives who signed on as cosponsors.

House Bill 2609 seeks to establish a one-year moratorium on the issuance of new natural gas drilling permits, which Mundy said would give state officials more time to analyze the drilling industry and ensure proper protections are in place and if they’re not, what measures should be enacted.

That bill received the cosponsor support of 18 of Mundy’s colleagues, but of her fellow Luzerne County Caucus members, only Pashinski signed his name as a cosponsor. Two Lackawanna County-based state House members signed on, Kevin Murphy, D-Scranton, and Ed Staback, D-Sturges. They were among a handful of House members who signed their names as cosponsors to all three measures.

Mundy’s opponent in November, Republican Bill Goldsworthy, said the 20-year lawmaker is using Marcellus Shale exploration “to help her re-election campaign.”

“First Ms. Mundy votes to increase spending and pay for it with a new tax on gas drilling, then turns around and calls for that drilling to stop. This is the type of political double-talk that has gotten our state where we are today,” said Goldsworthy in a written statement.

Goldsworthy, the mayor of West Pittston, said he supports gas exploration, as long as it is done in an environmentally responsible manner.

“I do not think a moratorium would pass the House at this point, let alone the Senate. Perhaps a few more disasters will change people’s minds,” Mundy said, continuing to voice frustration with the way things work in Harrisburg that she expressed at a House Transportation Committee field hearing in Scranton two weeks ago. At that time, speaking about the gaping hole in the transportation budget and the state of disrepair of hundreds of roadways and bridges throughout the state, she quipped “We in Pennsylvania don’t do anything unless there’s a crisis.”

In addition to Mundy, Pashinski, Staback and Murphy, only 14 representatives signed their names as cosponsors on all three pieces.

Copyright: Times Leader

Sporting groups, conservationists and anti-drilling neighbors protest the large-scale gas exploration.

MICHAEL RUBINKAM Associated Press Writer

PLEASANT MOUNT, Pa. — A few hundred yards from Louis Matoushek’s farmhouse is a well that could soon produce not only natural gas, but a drilling boom in the wild and scenic Delaware River watershed.

Energy companies have leased thousands of acres of land in Pennsylvania’s unspoiled northeastern tip, hoping to tap vast stores of gas in a sprawling rock formation — the Marcellus Shale — that some experts believe could become the nation’s most productive gas field.

Plenty of folks like Matoushek are eager for the gas, and the royalty checks, to start flowing — including farmers who see Marcellus money as a way to keep their struggling operations afloat.

“It’s a depressed area,” Matoushek said. “This is going to mean new jobs, real jobs, not government jobs.”

Standing in the way is a loose coalition of sporting groups, conservationists and anti-drilling neighbors. They contend that large-scale gas exploration so close to crucial waterways will threaten drinking water, ruin a renowned wild trout fishery, wreck property values, and transform a rural area popular with tourists into an industrial zone with constant noise and truck traffic.

Both sides are furiously lobbying the Delaware River Basin Commission, the powerful federal-interstate compact agency that monitors water supplies for 15 million people, including half the population of New York City. The commission has jurisdiction because the drilling process will require withdrawing huge amounts of water from the watershed’s streams and rivers and because of the potential for groundwater pollution.

The well on Matoushek’s 200-acre spread in the northern Pocono Mountains in Wayne County is up first. The commission is reviewing an application by Stone Energy Corp. of Lafayette, La., to extract gas from the well — the first of what could be thousands of applications by energy companies to sink wells in an area roughly the size of Connecticut.

Stone Energy’s application has already generated more than 1,700 written comments to the DRBC. The company, which paid a $70,000 penalty for drilling the Matoushek well without DRBC approval in 2008, has already received a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Eager gas companies have leased more than 300 square miles of watershed land, conservation officials estimate.

“This is certainly just the start. There’s a lot of acreage out there, and a lot of people interested in leasing their land,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the anti-drilling Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

The Marcellus Shale is a rock formation 6,000 to 8,000 feet beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio, including about 36 percent of the Delaware River basin. New drilling techniques now allow affordable access to supplies in the Marcellus and other shales in the U.S. that once were too expensive to tap.

Energy companies combine horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a technique that injects vast amounts of water, along with sand and chemicals, underground to break up the shale and release the gas.

While gas companies refuse to identify the chemicals they use — claiming that is proprietary information — critics cite contamination problems in other natural gas drilling fields. They worry that unregulated fracking can taint drinking water, deplete aquifers and produce briny wastewater that can kill fish. In Dimock, Pa., about 40 miles west of the Matoushek well but outside the Delaware basin, state environmental regulators say that cracked casings on fracked wells have tainted residential water supplies with methane gas.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced last month that it will study the impact of fracking on the environment and human health. The EPA said in 2004 there was no evidence that fracking threatens drinking water quality, but critics, including a veteran engineer in the Denver regional EPA office, argued that report’s methodology was flawed.

The industry contends environmental concerns are overblown. It says the drilling techniques are safe and that there has never been a proven case of groundwater contamination caused by fracking — in part because fracking occurs far below the water table. Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal oversight in 2005.

Dozens of people told the DRBC at a recent public hearing why they oppose the watershed drilling. A few supporters called it an economic boon and a property-rights issue.

Richard Kreznar, who owns property in the Pennsylvania riverfront community of Damascus, said gas drilling primarily benefits large landowners and exploration companies.

“After the Delaware River and the stream next to my house are messed up, what compensation will I get? Who will put it back together again?” he asked DRBC staff.

Lee Hartman, the Delaware River chairman for Trout Unlimited, worries that large water withdrawals required for fracking will create low stream flows in the Delaware’s tributaries, damaging fish habitat. For the Matoushek well, Stone Energy wants to take 700,000 gallons a day from the Lackawaxen River’s narrow west branch.

Hartman and others say the DRBC should first study the cumulative environmental impacts of drilling in the Delaware watershed, and pass drilling regulations, before it allows any gas extraction to take place. The agency has asked for $250,000 in federal funds for a study, but commissioners have not said whether they will wait before voting on Matoushek’s well.

Opponents say they will sue if Stone Energy’s application is approved.

Downstream communities that rely on the Delaware for drinking water are worried about the coming gas boom. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposes any drilling in the watershed, while the Philadelphia City Council has asked the basin commission for an environmental study.

New York state regulators have put a moratorium on drilling in the Marcellus region, saying they won’t approve permits until they are finished drafting new regulations.

Back in northeastern Pennsylvania, Matoushek, 68, a semiretired farmer who signed a lease with Stone Energy three years ago, said he is counting on royalty checks from gas production to help fund his golden years and secure the land for future generations of his family. As far he’s concerned, the benefits far outweigh any theoretical harm.

Copyright: Times Leader

Beaver County lawmaker opposes bill introduced by U.S. Sen. Casey to close “Halliburton loophole.”

By Rory Sweeneyrsweeney@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

Concern over environmental damage from natural-gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale region has increased enough to attract federal attention, but at least one state representative believes regulation should be left to the states.

The state Department of Environmental Protection is strengthening its regulations for well construction, and Gov. Ed Rendell responded to the concern last week by announcing a plan to begin hiring 68 more DEP workers for inspections and compliance of gas drilling.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced last week an “Eyes on Drilling” tip line for citizens to report – anonymously, if preferred – anything that “appears to be illegal disposal of wastes or other suspicious activity,” according to an EPA news release.

Also, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Scranton, has introduced the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, which would close the so-called “Halliburton loophole.”

In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” was exempted from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, creating the loophole. Fracking forces water, sand and chemicals into rock formations underground such as the shale to crack the rock and release natural gas.

In a resolution introduced in the state House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee last week, Rep. Jim Christiana, R-Beaver, called for lawmakers to urge the U.S. Congress to not pass Casey’s proposal.

Noting that fracking itself has not caused any known groundwater contamination at more than 1.1 million wells in which it’s been used, Christiana’s resolution supports continued state regulation of the process. The resolution refers to the 2005 energy act, indicating that Congress specifically meant to exclude fracking.

It also states that a federal Environmental Protection Agency report from 2004 found that hydraulic fracturing in coal bed methane wells “poses minimal threat” to drinking water sources.

State Rep. Jim Wansacz, D-Old Forge, wasn’t sure whether he supported the resolution, but felt confident that it doesn’t really matter either way. Congress members “don’t pay much attention to that,” he said. “Resolutions don’t mean a whole lot.”

He said a federal regulation might help by keeping all states at an equal minimum, but he said treading on states’ rights would “bother” him.

Wansacz said he doubted the bill by Casey would overrule states’ authority, but he was sensitive to the issue.

“Once the feds come in, they take over … so we’ve got to be careful what we ask for.”

State Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, isn’t so sure the resolution is focused on states’ rights. “This resolution is obviously industry driven” she noted in an e-mail.

“The industry somehow got hydraulic fracking exempted from the (drinking-water act) and now Senator Casey has a bill to eliminate this exemption. I support the Casey bill. … It would protect drinking water and the public health from the risks imposed by hydraulic fracturing.”

Separately, the EPA is offering citizens a way to report drilling problems. The announcement comes in the wake of several controversies over whether companies are reporting all spills.

The state Department of Environmental Protection fined a Towanda company earlier this month for spilling seven tons of drilling wastewater last year. The incident was reported only after a nearby Pennsylvania Department of Transportation crew witnessed it.

In October, a complaint was filed with DEP to investigate a suspicion that trees were damaged at a Wayne County site from an unreported drilling-fluid spill.

According to the release, “public concern about the environmental impacts of oil and natural gas drilling has increased in recent months, particularly regarding development of the Marcellus Shale formation where a significant amount of activity is occurring. … The agency is also very concerned about the proper disposal of waste products, and protecting air and water resources.”

The EPA doesn’t grant drilling permits, but its regulations may apply to storing petroleum products and drilling fluids, the release noted. The EPA wants to have “a better understanding of what people are experiencing and observing as a result of these drilling activities,” the release noted, because “information collected may also be useful in investigating industry practices.

The new DEP employees will be paid for through well-permitting fees that were increased last year. There will also likely be more of them: Rendell said the industry expects to apply for 5,200 permits this year, three times as many as last year.

The new DEP regulations they’ll have to obey include increased responsibility to repair or replace affected water supplies, procedures to correct gas migration issues without waiting for DEP’s direction and re-inspection of existing wells.

The draft regulations were opened for public comment on Friday.

Rory Sweeney, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7418.

Copyright: Times Leader

Cleaner than coal and cheaper than oil, a 90-year supply is under our feet, experts say.

By MARK WILLIAMSAP Energy Writer

An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It’s cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.

It’s natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It’s now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low.

Long used to heat half the nation’s homes, it’s becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.

Natural gas’ abundance and low price come as governments around the world debate how to curtail carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to global warming. The likely outcome is a tax on companies that spew excessive greenhouse gases. Utilities and other companies see natural gas as a way to lower emissions — and their costs. Yet politicians aren’t stumping for it.

In June, President Barack Obama lumped natural gas with oil and coal as energy sources the nation must move away from. He touts alternative sources — solar, wind and biofuels derived from corn and other plants. In Congress, the energy debate has focused on finding cleaner coal and saving thousands of mining jobs from West Virginia to Wyoming.

Utilities in the U.S. aren’t waiting for Washington to jump on the gas bandwagon. Looming climate legislation has altered the calculus that they use to determine the cheapest way to deliver power. Coal may still be cheaper, but natural gas emits half as much carbon when burned to generate the same amount electricity.

Today, about 27 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions come from coal-fired power plants, which generate 44 percent of the electricity used in the U.S. Just under 25 percent of power comes from burning natural gas, more than double its share a decade ago but still with room to grow.

But the fuel has to be plentiful and its price stable — and that has not always been the case with natural gas. In the 1990s, factories that wanted to burn gas instead of coal had to install equipment that did both because the gas supply was uncertain and wild price swings were common. In some states, because of feared shortages, homebuilders were told new gas hookups were banned.

It’s a different story today. Energy experts believe that the huge volume of supply now will ease price swings and supply worries.

Gas now trades on futures markets for about $5.50 per 1,000 cubic feet. While that’s up from a recent low of $2.41 in September as the recession reduced demand and storage caverns filled to overflowing, it’s less than half what it was in the summer of 2008 when oil prices surged close to $150 a barrel.

Oil and gas prices trends have since diverged, due to the recession and the growing realization of just how much gas has been discovered in the last three years. That’s thanks to the introduction of horizontal drilling technology that has unlocked stunning amounts of gas in what were before off-limits shale formations. Estimates of total gas reserves have jumped 58 percent from 2004 to 2008, giving the U.S. a 90-year supply at the current usage rate of about 23 trillion cubic feet of year.

The only question is whether enough gas can be delivered at affordable enough prices for these trends to accelerate.

The world’s largest oil company, Exxon Mobil Corp., gave its answer last Monday when it announced a $30 billion deal to acquire XTO Energy Inc. The move will make it the country’s No. 1 producer of natural gas.

Exxon expects to be able to dramatically boost natural gas sales to electric utilities. In fact, CEO Rex Tillerson says that’s why the deal is such a smart investment.

Tillerson says he sees demand for natural gas growing 50 percent by 2030, much of it for electricity generation and running factories. Decisions being made by executives at power companies lend credence to that forecast.

Consider Progress Energy Inc., which scrapped a $2 billion plan this month to add scrubbers needed to reduce sulfur emissions at 4 older coal-fired power plants in North Carolina. Instead, it will phase out those plants and redirect a portion of those funds toward cleaner burning gas-fired plants.

Lloyd Yates, CEO of Progess Energy Carolina, says planners were 99 percent certain that retrofitting plants made sense when they began a review late last year. But then gas prices began falling and the recession prompted gas-turbine makers to slash prices just as global warming pressures intensified.

“Everyone saw it pretty quickly,” he says. Out went coal, in comes gas. “The environmental component of coal is where we see instability.”

Nevada power company NV Energy Inc. canceled plans for a $5 billion coal-fired plant early this year. That came after its homestate senator, Majority Leader Harry Reid, made it clear he would fight to block its approval, and executives’ fears mounted about the costs of meeting future environmental rules.

“It was obvious to us that Congress or the EPA or both were going to act to reduce carbon emissions,” said CEO Michael Yackira, whose utility already gets two-thirds of its electricity from gas-fired units. “Without understanding the economic ramifications, it would have been foolish for us to go forward.”

Even with an expected jump in demand from utilities, gas prices won’t rise much beyond $6.50 per 1,000 cubic feet for years to come, says Ken Medlock, an energy fellow at the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston. That tracks an Energy Department estimate made last week.

Such forecasts are based in part on a belief that the recent spurt in gas discoveries may only be the start of a golden age for gas drillers — one that creates wealth that rivals the so-called Gusher Age of the early 20th century, when strikes in Texas created a new class of oil barons.

XTO, the company that Exxon is buying, was one of the pioneers in developing new drilling technologies that allow a single well to descend 9,000 feet and then bore horizontally through shale formations up to 1 1/2 miles away. Water, sand and chemical additives are pumped through these pipes to unlock trillions of cubic feet of natural gas that until recently had been judged unobtainable.

Even with the big increases in reserves they were logging, expansion plans by XTO and its rivals were limited by the debt they took on to finance these projects that can cost as much as $3 million apiece.

Under Exxon, which earned $45.2 billion last year, that barrier has been obliterated.

Copyright: Times Leader

By JOSEPH B. WHITE The Wall Street Journal

First it was ethanol made from corn. Then ethanol made from twigs and stems and trash. Then, the future was going to belong to hydrogen. Now, the alternative fuel flavor of the month in Washington is natural gas.

You may know this already, thanks to vigorous public-relations campaigns mounted to promote natural gas as a vehicle fuel by energy billionaire T. Boone Pickens and allies such as Chesapeake Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Aubrey McClendon. Mr. Pickens touts natural gas as a fuel for cars as part of his broad “Pickens Plan” to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil.

Mr. Pickens, in a television ad, summarizes his case for using natural gas as a vehicle fuel in nine words: “It’s cleaner. It’s cheaper. It’s abundant. And it’s ours.”

Nothing is ever that simple in the energy business. A lot of natural gas isn’t “ours.” It belongs to the same companies that currently supply us with oil, or to big gas utilities such as Ch esapeake. But Mr. Pickens is correct when he says that natural gas is abundant in the U.S. Recent advances in drilling technology have made it possible to exploit gas reserves that weren’t economical to tap before, such as the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian region of the Northeastern U.S.

The macro problem that Mr. Pickens and gas industry executives need to solve is what to do with all that new gas – assuming it becomes available as forecast. Already, natural-gas prices have slumped about 40 percent since May. Grabbing some of petroleum’s more than 90 percent share of the U.S. vehicle fuels market is a smart strategy for the gas industry.

The question for consumers who don’t own shares in natural-gas companies is whether a compressed-gas fueled vehicle is a better deal than some other green technology, or the status quo.

The only natural gas car on the U.S. market right now is a Honda Civic GX. Honda Motor Co. let me borrow one for a few days to road t est the NGV (natural-gas vehicle) lifestyle.

Driving the Civic GX isn’t different than driving a standard, petrol-fueled car. My white test car had an automatic transmission and the usual bells and whistles. The adventure of driving a natural-gas fueled Civic only starts when the fuel gauge gets close to empty – and that happens fairly quickly because the car’s range is only 200 to 220 miles between fill-ups.

At this point, you’ll need an Internet connection to help you find a public natural-gas vehicle refueling station in your metro area. If you are fortunate will you find one in your ZIP code, because there are only about 1,100 natural-gas refueling stations in the U.S. The closest one to my house was about 18 miles away at a depot owned by the City of Ann Arbor.

The unmanned refueling station had an imposing looking pump with two hoses that dispensed compressed gas at different pressures. The Civic’s manual explained that I should use the one marked 360 0 pounds per square inch. Behind the Civic GX’s fuel door is a nozzle fitting. After a couple of tries, I got the fitting from the high-pressure hose properly locked on, and threw a lever on the pump to “On” to start the flow.

I realize it was irrational and techno-phobic to worry that I would somehow overfill the compressed gas tank on board the car and turn my Civic into an explosive device. Let’s say that I was nervous enough that I had done something wrong that when the pump shut off automatically, I was relieved, even though the system had only refilled the tank to the half-full mark. Mr. Pickens could add another element to his plan: It will create jobs for filling station attendants who can help nervous natural-gas newbies.

On the positive side, my natural gas was about half the price of the equivalent quantity of gasoline – $1.94 a gallon.

The Honda Civic GX illustrates almost perfectly the chicken-and-egg problems besetting efforts to wean personal transportation in the U.S. away from petroleum fuels.

Because there aren’t many natural-gas refueling stations, Honda only builds a couple of thousand natural-gas Civics a year, and other car makers are reluctant to push the technology to consumers. Because there are so few natural-gas vehicles, outside of commercial or government fleets, fuel retailers don’t have much incentive to sink $500,000 to $750,000 into a natural-gas refilling station capable of handling cars as rapidly as a conventional gas station can, says Richard Kolodziej, president of NGV America, a Washington advocacy group that represents about 100 natural-gas companies and other enterprises with a stake in promoting natural gas as a motor fuel.

Because there is little demand for natural-gas vehicles, the ones that are available come with a hefty price premium, in part because their fuel tanks aren’t molded plastic, but are instead heavily engineered, high-pressure tanks. A Civic GX lists for ab out $24,590, compared to about $17,760 for the mid-range Civic LX on which it is based. Tax credits can offset as much as $4,000 of that price. And in some states, natural-gas cars can use high-occupancy vehicle express lanes – a major perk for time-pressed commuters.

The Civic GX achieves about 24 miles to the gallon in the city and 36 on the highway, when its consumption is converted to gasoline equivalent miles per gallon, Honda says. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the GX’s annual fuel costs at $884 a year, compared to $1,987 a year for a petroleum-fueled Civic. That indicates a payback, after the tax credit, of about 2½ years on the premium over the standard car.

One problem with the natural-gas Civic, Mr. Kolodziej concedes, is that it doesn’t look any different than a normal car. It doesn’t advertise the owner’s green cred the way a Prius does. “Where’s the sex in that?” He asks. “The sex comes in when you fill up for $10.”

Mr. Kolodzie j says he refuels his Civic GX using a Phill home-fueling system. This costs about $5,000 and allows a natural-gas vehicle owner to refuel overnight with gas from the lines running into the house. (A $1,000 tax credit is available for the Phill system.) But the hardware in Mr. Kolodziej’s garage isn’t all that’s different. He also says he doesn’t care that the vehicle has a limited range and takes hours to refill using the home refueling device.

“I go to work. I go to the store,” he says. “That’s what 99 percent of people do. Americans want to be able to drive to California tomorrow. They won’t.”

Mr. Kolodziej would say that. But he’s right. A switch to natural-gas cars would require a change of attitudes and expectations both by consumers and car makers. More of us would need to accept owning a car that can do one job – commuting and running errands in fewer than 200 miles a day. It’s the same fundamental proposition behind plug-in hybrids such as the Chevrolet Volt or plug-in Prius.

The big hurdle for natural-gas vehicles is that somebody will need to invest substantial sums in a consumer refueling infrastructure. The gas industry was hoping that somebody would be Uncle Sam. Unfortunately, Congress just found out last week it may have to spend $700 billion salvaging the global financial system. That could put big federal subsidies for natural-gas cars – and a lot of other worthy ideas – on the back burner.

___

Send comments about Eyes on the Road to joseph.white@wsj.com.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Posted At: Times Leader