How will Pennsylvanians Benefit from Marcellus Shale Formations?

I had suggested a while ago that PA should mandate the use of gas from the Marcellus Shale formations to help create cleaner energy for our state citizens. Here is a good, short article making that same argument in February's Popular Mechanics.

The same argument about reducing the amount of Greenhouse gas by using natural gas instead of coal can be used when talking about burning 2 million pounds of Tires a day in Erie. Does anyone know how much CO2 will be created?

One other point concerning how much natural gas is located in PA. Does National Fuel buy its gas in PA? Would the transportation cost be lower if the gas came from PA?

The second link that I have included is to information on Alaska and its oil and gas rebate program. Every year residents get a check from the oil and gas that is removed from their state. What will Pennsylvania residents get back in return for the natural resources taken from us? Will we get a rebate? Will we get cheaper natural gas? How will we benefit? 

Dennis Stratton

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4339171.html

The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis
Will coal become the clean, green fuel of the future? Not so fast.
By James B. Meigs
Published on: December 8, 2009

The focus on mythical clean coal is particularly frustrating because practical, cost-effective alternatives do exist—and I don't mean just wind and solar power. Natural gas is plentiful in the U.S., and gas-fired power plants produce only about half as much CO2 as coal. Not only that, but once it's ready, the CCS technology envisioned for coal plants would be even more effective if used with natural gas.

Tiny gas-fired cogeneration plants in individual homes could also help. Because these mini electrical generating systems use their waste heat to drive the homes' climate control systems, they avoid the huge energy losses involved in making power at distant facilities. This technology exists today.

Nuclear power is another proven, low-CO2-emitting option—and despite public fears, U.S. nuclear plants have been paragons of safety compared to the harm done by coal-fired plants.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

The Alaska Permanent Fund sets aside a certain share of oil revenues to continue benefiting current and all future generations of Alaskans. Many citizens[who?] also believed that the legislature too quickly and too inefficiently spent the $900 million bonus the state got in 1969 after leasing out the oil fields. This belief spurred a desire to put some oil revenues out of direct political control.