John H. Quigley

John Quigley
John H Quigley LLC

John Quigley is the principal of John H Quigley LLC. He also is Strategic Advisor to Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future (PennFuture). He served as secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources from April 2009 to January 2011. Prior to his appointment, Quigley worked for the agency in several capacities, including overseeing strategic initiatives and operations, and as chief of staff. As secretary, Quigley helped to position Pennsylvania as a leader in land conservation, outdoor recreation, alternative energy, and public land management. He tirelessly fought to protect the integrity of the state park and forest systems in tough economic times. During his tenure as secretary, Pennsylvania State Parks were named the Best in the Nation. He also directed agency efforts that have become a national model in helping communities capitalize on their natural resources to improve economic development and quality of life. Under Quigley’s leadership, Pennsylvania undertook efforts to address the impacts of climate change, including studying the use of biomass as an alternative fuel, the impacts of wind power on wildlife, and a comprehensive carbon management plan and a science-based business plan for the geologic sequestration of greenhouse gases – the first plan in the nation to analyze the economics of a large, integrated, utility-scale geologic carbon sequestration network. He led a cross- organizational strategic response to Marcellus Shale gas development, including a comprehensive monitoring program to assess the impacts of gas exploration on the state forest.

Quigley has had a diverse career in the nonprofit, public, and private sectors, including eight years as the mayor of the City of Hazleton, government relations manager with Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, and management positions with industry-leading companies. He is a graduate of Bloomsburg University with a degree in economics, and holds a Master of Public Administration degree from Lehigh University.


Presentation- “Shale gas environmental issues: A Natural Resource Perspective

  1. July 26, 2011 at 5:36 PM

    Mr. Quigley stated that Robert Howarth’s work on Life Cycle GHG impact of Methane has been debunked by the Dept. of Energy. Dr. Howarth offers a explication of the discrepancies at:

    “Comment from Howarth:
    We are working on a more detailed response, but in the meanwhile, I have
    sent the following message out to some folks. Feel free to share,
    “We are working hard to try to understand what the DOE/NETL analysis is based upon. This is not easy, as their data are not well documented in the PowerPoint from their talk. Apparently, NETL is working towards publication of a technical report, which one would hope would have far better documentation. But that is not yet available to us. To date, the PowerPoint available to us and to the public has not seen any rigorous, independent peer review.
    We have ascertained that the NETL analysis has an estimate for methane emissions from coal that is similar to ours. Therefore, the reasons for the differences between their estimates and ours lie elsewhere. At this point, we believe there are 4 major differences:
    1) we believe they have underestimated the fugitive emissions of methane. They apparently assume no emissions from storage and from distribution systems, and their estimate for >transmission losses are far lower than the estimates we developed for losses from transmission, storage, and distribution. Their estimates are also far lower than those from the US EPA, which we also feel are too low (as is discussed in our paper).
    2) they have a very high, optimistic estimate for the total amount of gas produced over the life of a well. This has the effect of giving a low estimate for percentage losses from venting and leaks, particularly during the initial well completion period. Only time will tell what the actual production of these wells will be, as the technology is too new to know. However, we used the best available information on estimates of life-time production, thoroughly documented in our paper. The NETL estimates are far higher.
    3) they used a global warming potential for methane of 25, based on a 100-year time integral and the old data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We used values of 33 for a 100-year time integral and 105 for a 20-year time integral, based on more recent science (Shindell et al. 2009). Their use of the older science results in significantly down-playing the importance of methane venting and leakage on the climate system.
    4) they focused solely on generation of electricity. We included generation of electricity in our study, and the analysis by David Hughes for the Post Carbon Institute took that even further. HOWEVER, only 30% of the natural gas in the US is used for electricity. The other 70% is used in home and commercial heating and for industrial processes. To focus on just electricity provides the most optimistic view of natural gas, as that is the only use where natural gas has an efficiency advantage over other fossil fuels.
    This focus on electricity generation by the NETL group is curious, as in their own talk, they emphasized that it was not likely that natural gas from shales would replace coal for electricity generation over coming decades. Rather, they predict a DECREASE in the amount of natural gas used to generate electricity in the US. The development of shale gas is expected largely to replace conventional gas in its current uses, and they predict some increase in the use of gas for industrial purposes. Both the replacement of conventional gas by shale gas and the increased use of gas for industrial purposes will significantly increase the overall methane emissions from the US, and the overall greenhouse gas footprint of our nation. The NETL study chose to ignore these aspects.”
    Robert W. Howarth, Ph.D.
    David R. Atkinson Professor of Ecology and
    Environmental Biology, Cornell University
    Telephone: 1-607-255-6175

  2. June 18, 2012 at 1:10 AM

    Fracking: Weighing the Risks on PBS WOSU Sunday, June 17, 2012 Liked your cautious approach on fracking it’s a balancing act. Land owners want freedom, protection (safety) and money. How do we balance it. Thanks you

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: