Original Story: USAToday.com
PITTSBURGH (AP) — A major supplier to the oil and gas industry says it will begin disclosing 100% of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid, with no exemptions for trade secrets. The move by Baker Hughes of Houston is a shift for a major firm; it's unclear if others will follow suit.
The oil and gas industry has said the fracking chemicals are disclosed at tens of thousands of wells, but environmental and health groups and government regulators say a loophole that allows companies to hide chemical "trade secrets" has been a major problem.
A statement on the Baker Hughes website said the company believes it's possible to disclose 100% "of the chemical ingredients we use in hydraulic fracturing fluids without compromising our formulations," to increase public trust.
"This really good news. It's a step in the right direction," said Dr. Bernard Goldstein, the former dean of the University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. "One hopes that the entire industry goes along with it."
But Goldstein noted one "major hedge" in the Baker Hughes position, since the company said it will provide complete lists of the products and chemical ingredients used in frack fluids "where accepted by our customers and relevant governmental authorities."
Still, Goldstein said the Baker Hughes language sets a new standard for transparency and "clearly distinguishes them from Halliburton," another major industry supplier.
Baker Hughes spokeswoman Melanie Kania wrote in an email that it will take "several months" for the new policy to take effect. She said the end result will be a "single list" that provides "all the chemical constituents" for frack fluids, with no trade secrets.
Amy Mall, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Baker Hughes move is a positive step, and that "if one company can do it, it's very clear all companies can do it." Mall said NRDC doesn't believe companies should use the trade secret argument to hide drilling chemicals.
A spokeswoman for Houston-based Halliburton, another major oil and gas supplier, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A boom in drilling has led to tens of thousands of new wells being drilled in recent years using the fracking process. A mix of water, sand and chemicals is forced into deep underground formations to break rock apart and free oil and gas. That's led to major economic benefits but also fears that the chemicals used in the process could spread to water supplies.
The mix of chemicals varies by company and region — and some of the chemicals are toxic and could cause health problems in significant doses — so the lack of full transparency has worried landowners and public health experts.
Many companies voluntarily disclose the contents of their fracking fluids through FracFocus.org, a website partially funded by the oil and gas industry that tracks fracking operations nationwide. But critics say the website has loose reporting standards and allows companies to avoid disclosure by declaring certain chemicals as trade secrets.
An Energy Department task force report issued in March that found that 84% of the wells registered on FracFocus invoked a trade secret exemption for at least one chemical. The Task Force said it "favors full disclosure of all known constituents added to fracturing fluid with few, if any exceptions."
The FracFocus website is managed by the Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, both based in Oklahoma, and is funded by industry and the Energy Department.
Gerry Baker of the Oil and Gas Compact said he doesn't know of any other major supplier that has made a pledge similar to the one from Baker Hughes.
"It's a business decision on their part," Baker said. "Somehow, they've committed to this at the highest levels" of disclosure.
The Interior Department is expected to finalize proposed regulation for hydraulic fracturing on public lands by the end of the year. The measure would apply to some 700 million acres of federal lands and 56 million acres of lands controlled by federally recognized Indian tribes.
The rule proposed last year would require companies drilling for oil and natural gas to disclose chemicals used in fracking operations. The information would be made public.
The DOE said 25 states now mandate public disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, including 15 that use FracFocus as a reporting tool.
Industry groups oppose the disclosure rule, saying it would be costly for businesses, with little environmental or safety benefit. The American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry's top lobbying group, has praised the efforts of states to adopt the FracFocus database for disclosing chemicals, but has said additional federal regulations could jeopardize economic growth.
Asked about the Baker Hughes plan, API spokesman Zachary Cikanek said in an email that they "also welcome additional efforts by individual companies to increase public engagement and transparency."
Friday, April 25, 2014
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
KEYSTONE ROUTE RULING SHOULD BE OVERTURNED, NEBRASKA SAYS
Original Story: Bloomberg News
A court challenge holding up TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline should be dismissed, Nebraska’s governor said, urging his state’s high court to allow the project to move forward.
The case is delaying the Obama administration’s review of the project, the president said April 18. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman yesterday asked the state’s top court to throw out a trial judge’s ruling that the route for the pipeline was approved without proper authority. The court may not hear the case until at least September and may not rule until after mid-presidential term congressional elections in November.A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer said he has had not had a case quite like this before.
TransCanada is awaiting a U.S. permit to build the northern leg of Keystone XL, which would supply U.S. Gulf Coast refineries with crude from Alberta’s oil sands. Because it crosses an international boundary, the proposal requires U.S. State Department approval.
Based in Calgary, TransCanada is seeking to build the 830,000 barrel-a-day, 1,179-mile (1,897-kilometer) conduit running from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing network.
Backers of the project say it will create jobs. Opponents have countered it will contribute to global warming. If the Nebraska Supreme Court upholds the trial outcome, Keystone will need to apply to the state’s Public Service Commission for approval. Under law the commission has seven months to review such applications.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge Stephanie Stacy in Lincoln ruled on Feb. 19 that legislation enabling Heineman and TransCanada to bypass the commission when planning the pipeline route violated the state’s constitution.
Stacy erred in allowing a challenge by three property owners to move forward because they hadn’t shown they had been injured as taxpayers by the state’s plan, Heineman, a Republican, said in a filing yesterday with the supreme court.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning, a Republican running to succeed Heineman as governor, argued in the filing that the trial judge set too low a threshold for taxpayers to bring court challenges to state legislation.
Bruning also argued the not all crude oil pipelines qualified as “common carriers” falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
U.S. Senate
David Domina, a lawyer for the landowners, is seeking the Democratic Party nomination to run for U.S. Senate in the state, where he would follow Republican Mike Johanns, who is retiring after a single term.
Domina didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment on the governor’s arguments yesterday’s filing. A San Antonio Oil and Gas Lawyer would not comment on the case.
He argued in the trial court that the challenged legislation, which took effect in 2012, improperly divested the constitutionally-created Public Service Commission of jurisdiction over pipeline routing, placing it with the governor and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Stacy rejected the state’s contention that pipeline routing was outside the PSC’s purview.
In her Feb. 19 decision, Stacy agreed with the landowners that the shift in authority effected by the legislation was improper.
“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which such provisions could be constitutional,” she said. Addressing the state’s argument that its outlay of funds under the law, later recouped when TransCanada paid it $5.15 million, didn’t deprive the three plaintiffs of standing to sue.
“While private reimbursement of public expenditures may be good fiscal policy, it should not be used as a legislative tool to insulate allegedly unconstitutional laws from taxpayer challenge,” she said.
The case is Thompson v. Heineman, S-14-000158, Nebraska Supreme Court (Lincoln).
A court challenge holding up TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline should be dismissed, Nebraska’s governor said, urging his state’s high court to allow the project to move forward.
The case is delaying the Obama administration’s review of the project, the president said April 18. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman yesterday asked the state’s top court to throw out a trial judge’s ruling that the route for the pipeline was approved without proper authority. The court may not hear the case until at least September and may not rule until after mid-presidential term congressional elections in November.A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer said he has had not had a case quite like this before.
TransCanada is awaiting a U.S. permit to build the northern leg of Keystone XL, which would supply U.S. Gulf Coast refineries with crude from Alberta’s oil sands. Because it crosses an international boundary, the proposal requires U.S. State Department approval.
Based in Calgary, TransCanada is seeking to build the 830,000 barrel-a-day, 1,179-mile (1,897-kilometer) conduit running from Hardisty, Alberta, to Steele City, Nebraska, where it would connect to an existing network.
Backers of the project say it will create jobs. Opponents have countered it will contribute to global warming. If the Nebraska Supreme Court upholds the trial outcome, Keystone will need to apply to the state’s Public Service Commission for approval. Under law the commission has seven months to review such applications.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge Stephanie Stacy in Lincoln ruled on Feb. 19 that legislation enabling Heineman and TransCanada to bypass the commission when planning the pipeline route violated the state’s constitution.
Stacy erred in allowing a challenge by three property owners to move forward because they hadn’t shown they had been injured as taxpayers by the state’s plan, Heineman, a Republican, said in a filing yesterday with the supreme court.
State Attorney General Jon Bruning, a Republican running to succeed Heineman as governor, argued in the filing that the trial judge set too low a threshold for taxpayers to bring court challenges to state legislation.
Bruning also argued the not all crude oil pipelines qualified as “common carriers” falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.
U.S. Senate
David Domina, a lawyer for the landowners, is seeking the Democratic Party nomination to run for U.S. Senate in the state, where he would follow Republican Mike Johanns, who is retiring after a single term.
Domina didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment on the governor’s arguments yesterday’s filing. A San Antonio Oil and Gas Lawyer would not comment on the case.
He argued in the trial court that the challenged legislation, which took effect in 2012, improperly divested the constitutionally-created Public Service Commission of jurisdiction over pipeline routing, placing it with the governor and the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality.
Stacy rejected the state’s contention that pipeline routing was outside the PSC’s purview.
In her Feb. 19 decision, Stacy agreed with the landowners that the shift in authority effected by the legislation was improper.
“The court finds there is no set of circumstances under which such provisions could be constitutional,” she said. Addressing the state’s argument that its outlay of funds under the law, later recouped when TransCanada paid it $5.15 million, didn’t deprive the three plaintiffs of standing to sue.
“While private reimbursement of public expenditures may be good fiscal policy, it should not be used as a legislative tool to insulate allegedly unconstitutional laws from taxpayer challenge,” she said.
The case is Thompson v. Heineman, S-14-000158, Nebraska Supreme Court (Lincoln).
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE IS OBAMA’S BEST REVENGE ON PUTIN
Story originally appeared in MYPost.com.
It’s too late to save Crimea, and possibly half of Ukraine, now that Vlad the Annexer has articulated the Putin Doctrine: Russia will invade any country that “oppresses” its Russian minority.
But Putin’s Doctrine is underpinned by Russia’s oil and natural-gas industry, which provides 70 percent of the country’s export income and 52 percent of its governments revenues. Moscow now controls half the energy market in Europe and is able to adjust prices to punish or reward countries and to keep others quiet. A Tulsa Oil and Gas Lawyer is watching the story closely.
This strategy has made Russia, with an economy the size of California’s, wealthier than ever but also exceedingly vulnerable. Russia is a petro-economy and little else.
Since Ukraine’s crisis, sanctions have been imposed and its stock market and currency have tanked. But a geopolitical and energy policy shift is needed to stop Putin in his tracks, and only the United States and Canada can flex enough energy muscle to impede the Russian energy juggernaut.
Together, the US and Canada have more oil and natural-gas reserves than Russia or the Middle East.
Canada is the only supplier of natural gas and largest supplier of oil to the United States, at 2.5 million barrels a day. The US is nearly self-sufficient in natural gas, thanks to shale deposits, and in 2013 became the world’s second-biggest oil producer at more than 10.3 million barrels a day.
But Americans consume 19.4 million daily and, despite gains in oil production from shale, cannot become self-sufficient in oil until 2035, with 4 million barrels a day from the oil sands, according to the International Energy Agency.
Clearly, the two must gear up for battle by deploying oil and natural-gas weaponry. The most immediate retaliatory blow would be the approval of Keystone XL from Canada. This oil pipeline would add 830,000 barrels a day into the US oil market, more than enough to replace the 755,000 barrels a day of oil imports from Russia’s western hemispheric ally Venezuela.
A Keystone bomb would deliver several payloads: punishment toward anti-American Venezuela; proceeds toward Canada which buys more goods and services from the US than the European Union does; punishment toward Russia by casting into the markets more Venezuelan oil; replacement of Venezuelan oil with Canadian oil that is $30 a barrel cheaper (roughly 30 percent less) and even an improved environmental outcome. A Construction Consultant may be called in on the case.
A recent study by US energy consultant IHS Global Insight showed that oil sands crude represents 6 percent more emissions than average crude consumed in the US, but Venezuela’s is 14 percent higher.
President Obama has been dragging his feet on this pipeline even in light of his November speech that stated “after years of talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we are actually poised to control our own energy future.”
The fact is that the only way the United States can control its oil future is by tapping into the oil sands. For these and other reasons, Bill Clinton has called upon his environmental friends to “embrace” Keystone and move on.
America’s other weapon is natural gas exports in concert with Canada. Natural gas can only be transported by pipeline and vessel unless chilled to -161 degrees Fahrenheit. This process makes the gas more expensive, but the world now knows that Russian energy carries with it a hefty and hidden price tag.
A glimpse into a burgeoning American-Canadian strategy occurred this week when the Department of Energy and Canadian authorities approved a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant and port in Oregon using Canadian natural gas. Shipments will go to India and Japan, the world’s largest importer of LNG, reliant on Russia for 76 percent of its LNG. A Dallas Fort Worth Oil and Gas Lawyer is also considering to be an expert witness.
This week, Canada also approved its first four LNG projects in British Columbia and in the past 10 months, the US has approved five more LNG projects. One bill in Congress proposes immediate approval of the two dozen projects pending in the US. Most will help Europe and Asia reduce their dependence on Russian natural gas over time.
Europe’s 22 LNG ports are under-utilized but have the capacity to reduce Russian gas imports by 25 percent. Likewise, Japan, India, China and South Korea have the facilities and are eager to reduce dependence on Russian LNG.
The importance of North America’s entry into the energy war cannot be understated, as Lithuania’s energy minister Jaroslav Neverovic explained to the US Senate this week. His country is gouged by Russia, which has the monopoly on its gas supplies. So Lithuania is just 250 days away from completing its first LNG plant and he pleaded for the US “to release its gas to world markets as quickly as possible.” An Austin Energy Lawyer is analyzing the mineral aspects of the case.
The only obstacle to fighting fuel with fuel will be the environmental movement that has held up Keystone for five years and now opposes LNG exports.
But Putin is going to continue his aggression and the world is going to continue to use oil and natural gas until alternative energies are capable of replacing fossil fuels. Environmentalists should invest their time, and donations, on conservation efforts and financing scientific efforts to come up with viable alternatives — not opposing reality. A Salt Lake Energy Lawyer will keep a close eye to see how this case will be resolved.
Monday, February 24, 2014
EXXON MOBIL CEO: NO FRACKING NEAR MY BACKYARD
This story first appeared in USA Today.
Exxon Mobil's CEO has joined a lawsuit to stop construction of a water tower near his home that would be used to in the fracking process to drill for oil.
While fracking -- hydraulic fracturing of rock to release pockets of oil -- has raised complaints from environmentalists around the country, Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson's opposition to a project in his own neighborhood is interesting, given how deeply Exxon Mobil is involved in the process.
Tillerson appeared at a Town Council meeting in Bartonville, Tex., the wealthy enclave near his Dallas home last November to join in the protest over the water tower, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The lawsuit contends the project would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards." Trucks would be needed to haul and pump water.
The tower, being built by Cross Timbers Water Supply, would rise 15 stories, the Journal says. It's adjacent to Tillerson's 83-acre horse ranch and not far from an 18-acre homestead. Tillerson is devoting considerable time to the matter: he sat for three hours in the lawsuit last May and attended an all-day mediation session in September, besides his Town Council appearance.
Among the others opposing the project are those who are not exactly known for environmental crusading: former U.S.House Majority Leader Dick Armey and his wife are the lead plaintiffs.
An Exxon Mobil spokesman contacted by the Journal said that the suit is Tillerson's own matter and the oil giant "has no involvement in the legal matter."
Exxon Mobil's CEO has joined a lawsuit to stop construction of a water tower near his home that would be used to in the fracking process to drill for oil.
While fracking -- hydraulic fracturing of rock to release pockets of oil -- has raised complaints from environmentalists around the country, Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson's opposition to a project in his own neighborhood is interesting, given how deeply Exxon Mobil is involved in the process.
Tillerson appeared at a Town Council meeting in Bartonville, Tex., the wealthy enclave near his Dallas home last November to join in the protest over the water tower, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The lawsuit contends the project would create "a noise nuisance and traffic hazards." Trucks would be needed to haul and pump water.
The tower, being built by Cross Timbers Water Supply, would rise 15 stories, the Journal says. It's adjacent to Tillerson's 83-acre horse ranch and not far from an 18-acre homestead. Tillerson is devoting considerable time to the matter: he sat for three hours in the lawsuit last May and attended an all-day mediation session in September, besides his Town Council appearance.
Among the others opposing the project are those who are not exactly known for environmental crusading: former U.S.House Majority Leader Dick Armey and his wife are the lead plaintiffs.
An Exxon Mobil spokesman contacted by the Journal said that the suit is Tillerson's own matter and the oil giant "has no involvement in the legal matter."
EL NINO THREATENS TO RETURN, MAY TRIGGER DROUGHT IN INDIA
This story first appeared in The Economic Times.
SINGAPORE: The El Nino weather pattern that can trigger drought in some parts of the world while causing flooding in others is increasingly likely to return this year, hitting production of key foods such as rice, wheat and sugar.
El Nino - the Spanish word for boy - is a warming of sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific that occurs every four to 12 years. The worst on record in the late 1990s killed more than 2,000 people and caused billions of dollars in damage.
A strong El Nino can wither crops in Australia, Southeast Asia, India and Africa when other parts of the globe such as the US Midwest and Brazil are drenched in rains.
While scientists are still debating the intensity of a potential El Nino, Australia's Bureau of Meteorology and the US Climate Prediction Center have warned of increased chances one will strike this year.
Last month, the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization said there was an "enhanced possibility" of a weak El Nino by the middle of 2014.
"The world is bracing for El Nino, which if confirmed, could wreak havoc on supply and cause prices of some commodities to shoot up," said Vanessa Tan, investment analyst at Phillip Futures in Singapore.
Any disruption to supply would come as many crops have already been hit by adverse weather, with the northern hemisphere in the grip of a savage winter.
The spectre of El Nino has driven global cocoa prices to 2-1/2 year peaks this month on fears that dry weather in the key growing regions of Africa and Asia would stoke a global deficit. Other agricultural commodities could follow that lead higher if El Nino conditions are confirmed.
"Production estimates for several crops which are already under stress will have to be revised downwards," said Phillip Futures' Tan.
"Wheat in Australia may be affected by El Nino and also sugar in India."
In India, the world's No.2 producer of sugar, rice and wheat, a strong El Nino could reduce the monsoon rains that are key to its agriculture, curbing production.
"If a strong El Nino occurs during the second half of the monsoon season, then it could adversely impact the production size of summer crops," said Sudhir Panwar, president of farmers' lobby group Kishan Jagriti Manch.
El Nino in 2009 turned India's monsoon patchy, leading to the worst drought in nearly four decades and helping push global sugar prices to their highest in nearly 30 years.
Elsewhere in Asia, which grows more than 90 percent of the world's rice and is its main producer of coffee and corn, a drought-inducing El Nino could hit crops in Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.
And it could deal another blow to wheat production in Australia, the world's second-largest exporter of the grain, which has already been grappling with drought in the last few months.
El Nino could also crimp supply of minerals such as gold, nickel, tin, copper and coal if mines flood or logistics are disrupted.
In North America, crops in the US Pacific Northwest could suffer as El Nino tends to cause rain to the area, with the major white wheat region already abnormally dry.
But El Nino doesn't spell bad news for all farmers. It could bring rain to drought-hit California's dairy farms and vineyards.
"El Nino has a bad connotation, undeservedly so in the US," said Harry Hillaker, state climatologist in Iowa.
"Given the water supply issues they are having in California, more rain would be helpful."
And in Central America, while dryness associated with El Nino would curb coffee production, it would also help drive back the leaf rust that has blighted crops in the region.
SINGAPORE: The El Nino weather pattern that can trigger drought in some parts of the world while causing flooding in others is increasingly likely to return this year, hitting production of key foods such as rice, wheat and sugar.
El Nino - the Spanish word for boy - is a warming of sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific that occurs every four to 12 years. The worst on record in the late 1990s killed more than 2,000 people and caused billions of dollars in damage.
A strong El Nino can wither crops in Australia, Southeast Asia, India and Africa when other parts of the globe such as the US Midwest and Brazil are drenched in rains.
While scientists are still debating the intensity of a potential El Nino, Australia's Bureau of Meteorology and the US Climate Prediction Center have warned of increased chances one will strike this year.
Last month, the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization said there was an "enhanced possibility" of a weak El Nino by the middle of 2014.
"The world is bracing for El Nino, which if confirmed, could wreak havoc on supply and cause prices of some commodities to shoot up," said Vanessa Tan, investment analyst at Phillip Futures in Singapore.
Any disruption to supply would come as many crops have already been hit by adverse weather, with the northern hemisphere in the grip of a savage winter.
The spectre of El Nino has driven global cocoa prices to 2-1/2 year peaks this month on fears that dry weather in the key growing regions of Africa and Asia would stoke a global deficit. Other agricultural commodities could follow that lead higher if El Nino conditions are confirmed.
"Production estimates for several crops which are already under stress will have to be revised downwards," said Phillip Futures' Tan.
"Wheat in Australia may be affected by El Nino and also sugar in India."
In India, the world's No.2 producer of sugar, rice and wheat, a strong El Nino could reduce the monsoon rains that are key to its agriculture, curbing production.
"If a strong El Nino occurs during the second half of the monsoon season, then it could adversely impact the production size of summer crops," said Sudhir Panwar, president of farmers' lobby group Kishan Jagriti Manch.
El Nino in 2009 turned India's monsoon patchy, leading to the worst drought in nearly four decades and helping push global sugar prices to their highest in nearly 30 years.
Elsewhere in Asia, which grows more than 90 percent of the world's rice and is its main producer of coffee and corn, a drought-inducing El Nino could hit crops in Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines and China.
And it could deal another blow to wheat production in Australia, the world's second-largest exporter of the grain, which has already been grappling with drought in the last few months.
El Nino could also crimp supply of minerals such as gold, nickel, tin, copper and coal if mines flood or logistics are disrupted.
In North America, crops in the US Pacific Northwest could suffer as El Nino tends to cause rain to the area, with the major white wheat region already abnormally dry.
But El Nino doesn't spell bad news for all farmers. It could bring rain to drought-hit California's dairy farms and vineyards.
"El Nino has a bad connotation, undeservedly so in the US," said Harry Hillaker, state climatologist in Iowa.
"Given the water supply issues they are having in California, more rain would be helpful."
And in Central America, while dryness associated with El Nino would curb coffee production, it would also help drive back the leaf rust that has blighted crops in the region.
Monday, February 10, 2014
WITH SUPPLIES LOW, IT'S OVERTIME IN THE ROAD SALT MINES
This story first appeared in Bloomberg Businessweek.
Snow and sleet continue to fall across huge swathes of the U.S., and the national supply of road salt is running low. New York has declared a state of emergency, while Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and other states have also disclosed their difficulties in covering streets and sidewalks amid a long-running cold snap. What exactly is road salt and where does it come from?
The U.S. first began using salt on roads in 1938, and now spreads between 10 million and 20 million tons annually, according to the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Heavy salt deployment helps save drivers and pedestrians from icy dangers but isn’t without hazards of its own: The salt used on roads is also partly responsible for the potentially harmful increase in the salinity of our water. The U.S. is the second-largest road salt producer worldwide after China, accounting for an estimated 15 percent of world output in 2013, according to Roskill Information Services.
American companies like Morton Salt and Cargill get their rock salt from mines as well as evaporated salt plants and solar salt operations. Cargill’s salt, for example, comes from Kansas, Louisiana, California, Oklahoma, and New York, which has some of the country’s largest underground salt mines in which workers blast enormous walls of salt before processing the crystals down to size.
With salt reserves running low, companies are now struggling to keep up with orders. “We are working overtime in our mines to try and keep up with demand,” said Cargill spokesman Mark Klein in an e-mail. “In addition to widespread demand, the weather is affecting transportation, slowing trucks, trains and barges.” Desperate states and municipalities are already paying a premium for emergency deliveries. Whereas the Ohio Department of Transportation reported paying only $36 per ton this past summer, it recently shelled out $72 per ton for an extra delivery.
Road salt—also called rock salt (PDF)—is made of granular sodium chloride, the same chemical that’s in table salt. It works by lowering the freezing point of water, often by enough to melt existing ice. A solution with 20 percent salt, for example, freezes at 2F. Even when temperatures are too low for the ice to melt, salt still provides some traction, although it’s less effective than sand in this regard.
Some states are getting creative with alternative solutions. New York launched a pilot program to de-ice roads using beet juice, which helps stop the runoff of salt; waste from beer making would apparently do the same thing. Some New York towns have also used briny wastewater from fracking operations, which has environmentalists up in arms.
New Jersey, meanwhile, is experimenting with pickle brine, and Milwaukee in December began pouring cheese brine on its streets. “You want to use provolone or mozzarella,” Jeffrey A. Tews, a fleet operations manager for the public works department, told the New York Times. “Those have the best salt content. You have to do practically nothing to it.”
Snow and sleet continue to fall across huge swathes of the U.S., and the national supply of road salt is running low. New York has declared a state of emergency, while Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and other states have also disclosed their difficulties in covering streets and sidewalks amid a long-running cold snap. What exactly is road salt and where does it come from?
The U.S. first began using salt on roads in 1938, and now spreads between 10 million and 20 million tons annually, according to the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. Heavy salt deployment helps save drivers and pedestrians from icy dangers but isn’t without hazards of its own: The salt used on roads is also partly responsible for the potentially harmful increase in the salinity of our water. The U.S. is the second-largest road salt producer worldwide after China, accounting for an estimated 15 percent of world output in 2013, according to Roskill Information Services.
American companies like Morton Salt and Cargill get their rock salt from mines as well as evaporated salt plants and solar salt operations. Cargill’s salt, for example, comes from Kansas, Louisiana, California, Oklahoma, and New York, which has some of the country’s largest underground salt mines in which workers blast enormous walls of salt before processing the crystals down to size.
With salt reserves running low, companies are now struggling to keep up with orders. “We are working overtime in our mines to try and keep up with demand,” said Cargill spokesman Mark Klein in an e-mail. “In addition to widespread demand, the weather is affecting transportation, slowing trucks, trains and barges.” Desperate states and municipalities are already paying a premium for emergency deliveries. Whereas the Ohio Department of Transportation reported paying only $36 per ton this past summer, it recently shelled out $72 per ton for an extra delivery.
Road salt—also called rock salt (PDF)—is made of granular sodium chloride, the same chemical that’s in table salt. It works by lowering the freezing point of water, often by enough to melt existing ice. A solution with 20 percent salt, for example, freezes at 2F. Even when temperatures are too low for the ice to melt, salt still provides some traction, although it’s less effective than sand in this regard.
Some states are getting creative with alternative solutions. New York launched a pilot program to de-ice roads using beet juice, which helps stop the runoff of salt; waste from beer making would apparently do the same thing. Some New York towns have also used briny wastewater from fracking operations, which has environmentalists up in arms.
New Jersey, meanwhile, is experimenting with pickle brine, and Milwaukee in December began pouring cheese brine on its streets. “You want to use provolone or mozzarella,” Jeffrey A. Tews, a fleet operations manager for the public works department, told the New York Times. “Those have the best salt content. You have to do practically nothing to it.”
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
AGRICULTURE CHIEF: DELAYING FARM BILL WOULD HURT RURAL U.S.
Original Story: USAToday.com.
WASHINGTON – U.S. lawmakers risk slowing or even stopping the torrid economic growth in rural America if Congress fails to pass a farm bill this year, the head of the Agriculture Department said Friday.
The rural economy has been humming along in recent years with high crop prices and a record of $136.3 billion in farm exports during 2011. Farmers also are flush with cash after income vaulted past $100 billion for the first time last year as the rural economy rebounded from the recent global recession. In addition, land prices are high and there is a record amount of conservation activity in rural America. Many farmers are putting off equipment improvement such as purchasing Trelleborg Ag Tires.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview he understands lawmakers are saddled with a bevy of challenges that could make passing a farm bill difficult, including the need to balance the interests of different geographic regions and commodities. But he added that should not be enough to deter Congress from acting in order to keep the momentum going in agriculture.
"If it does not get done then we are left without programs to support farmers and ranchers, and we create a great deal of uncertainty, which no doubt will impact and effect decisions throughout the supply chain that will compromise the enormous progress we've seen recently," the former Iowa governor said.
"Why would you not want to get this done when things are going as well as they are going?" said Vilsack.
Efforts to complete a farm bill this year before the current legislation expires on Sept. 30 received a push this week after the Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version on Thursday. The bill would cut spending by $25 billion during the next decade, slashing subsidy payments in favor of new crop insurance programs.
Most U.S. farm groups were supportive of the legislation that passed the Senate even though they found areas that could be improved as lawmakers continue to work on the bill. Farmers were having group conversations in Outdoor Living Spaces.
"Get this farm bill done," was the message from Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau. "We need the certainty and confidence in the next growing season of what the programs will be," he said.
The House has floated more aggressive cuts of as much as $33 billion, including a larger reduction in spending for food stamps, but so far has not established a timetable for when it might act on its farm bill. Vilsack said he does not envy the challenges facing House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who has to listen to Republican lawmakers who want significant cuts to farm programs.
"I think everybody in Congress recognizes the need to get the job done, and you've got to do it quickly," said Vilsack, 61. When asked what would happen if the farm bill doesn't get passed before October, he said: "I don't want a backup plan. I don't want a plan 'b' because I want people to focus on plan 'a' and get it done."
Vilsack expressed concern over the "serious, serious depth of cuts" that are being floated in the House that could "irreparably harm" a host of farm programs ranging from conservation to nutrition. He pointed out that excessive cuts to programs such as food stamps, for example, could make their way down to the bottom line of farmers who collect about 16 cents of every dollar spent at the grocery store.
WASHINGTON – U.S. lawmakers risk slowing or even stopping the torrid economic growth in rural America if Congress fails to pass a farm bill this year, the head of the Agriculture Department said Friday.
The rural economy has been humming along in recent years with high crop prices and a record of $136.3 billion in farm exports during 2011. Farmers also are flush with cash after income vaulted past $100 billion for the first time last year as the rural economy rebounded from the recent global recession. In addition, land prices are high and there is a record amount of conservation activity in rural America. Many farmers are putting off equipment improvement such as purchasing Trelleborg Ag Tires.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview he understands lawmakers are saddled with a bevy of challenges that could make passing a farm bill difficult, including the need to balance the interests of different geographic regions and commodities. But he added that should not be enough to deter Congress from acting in order to keep the momentum going in agriculture.
"If it does not get done then we are left without programs to support farmers and ranchers, and we create a great deal of uncertainty, which no doubt will impact and effect decisions throughout the supply chain that will compromise the enormous progress we've seen recently," the former Iowa governor said.
"Why would you not want to get this done when things are going as well as they are going?" said Vilsack.
Efforts to complete a farm bill this year before the current legislation expires on Sept. 30 received a push this week after the Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version on Thursday. The bill would cut spending by $25 billion during the next decade, slashing subsidy payments in favor of new crop insurance programs.
Most U.S. farm groups were supportive of the legislation that passed the Senate even though they found areas that could be improved as lawmakers continue to work on the bill. Farmers were having group conversations in Outdoor Living Spaces.
"Get this farm bill done," was the message from Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau. "We need the certainty and confidence in the next growing season of what the programs will be," he said.
The House has floated more aggressive cuts of as much as $33 billion, including a larger reduction in spending for food stamps, but so far has not established a timetable for when it might act on its farm bill. Vilsack said he does not envy the challenges facing House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., who has to listen to Republican lawmakers who want significant cuts to farm programs.
"I think everybody in Congress recognizes the need to get the job done, and you've got to do it quickly," said Vilsack, 61. When asked what would happen if the farm bill doesn't get passed before October, he said: "I don't want a backup plan. I don't want a plan 'b' because I want people to focus on plan 'a' and get it done."
Vilsack expressed concern over the "serious, serious depth of cuts" that are being floated in the House that could "irreparably harm" a host of farm programs ranging from conservation to nutrition. He pointed out that excessive cuts to programs such as food stamps, for example, could make their way down to the bottom line of farmers who collect about 16 cents of every dollar spent at the grocery store.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
VOLKSWAGEN MADE THE WORLD'S MOST EFFICIENT CAR - BUT WON'T SELL IT IN THE UNITED STATES
Story first appeared on Forbes.com.
The most dangerous thing about Volkswagen’s XL1 is how it affects people outside the car.
They take cellphone photos and gesture frantically at highway speeds, looking across the steering wheel at a 90-degree angle from the road in front of them. They jump out in traffic directly in front of the vehicle, motioning for you to slow down so they can examine it closely. They yell out of open windows across traffic lights and multi-lane streets, asking how much it costs, how fast it’ll go and where they can buy one.
Thing is, they can’t. It’s not actually legal to drive in the United States.
“It was never designed for the U.S. market,” Mark Gillies, a VW spokesman, told me. “Things like, you have to have rearview mirrors for U.S. regulations.”
So was it technically illegal for me to be driving that thing around midtown last week?
“I suppose in theory, yeah,” he said, with a chuckle. “But you can bring prototypes into the states.”
Whew.
Not that we were too concerned. The car doesn’t move very quickly (0-60 in more than 12 seconds) or fast (top speed is 99mph). Its rear-situated 47hp two-cylinder turbo-diesel engine and 27hp electric motor gets just 68 horsepower.
But you won’t know that from looking at the top-opening scissor doors, the tightly drawn rear end, or the futuristic disc-shaped rims engineered to create shields that block wind in the wheel wells. The car looks fast.
It won’t break any speed records, but it can go 261 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. That’s like driving from New York City to Washington, D.C., for less than $5.
The head of VW Group himself, Ferdinand Piëch, commissioned XL1 with that goal—to get at least 100 miles in a production vehicle on 1 litre of gasoline. His engineering team accomplished it by making XL1 lightweight (1,753 pounds of carbon fiber in the chassis and body panels) and slim (the two seats inside are offset so that the passenger sits slightly behind the driver, which allows the car to be narrower). Inside, for additional weight-shaving, the dashboard is made of wood and the interior sacrifices most creature comforts like power steering and a proper sound system. The rear of the car is narrow through the trunk, and the roofline and clearance sit low to the ground. Its 5-kWh lithium-ion battery and a 2.6-gallon fuel tank sit nestled between the powertrain and passenger side of the car–a position also strategized to conserve space.
Did I mention the XL1 has no rear window or side mirrors? Instead, video cameras feed two small screens in the inner door panels. It’s all extremely compact.
Headroom, though, is adequate, as is leg room. And driving it feels like commanding a small hovercraft. It’s virtually silent except when you accelerate quickly and the diesel engine kicks in with a whirr. The steering is easy, the regenerative brakes adequate but abrupt.
Gillies says “relatively wealthy” Europe-based buyers who “want a really efficient commuter car” will be able to get the XL1 for 111,000 Euros ($145,000 USD) later this year. VW will make 250 of them, all at a factory in Germany.
Unfortunately for us, it’s clear that the cost of altering XL1 to be street-legal here far outweighs the foreseen benefit to bring it over. But it does seem a shame that Volkswagen couldn’t send at least a handful to our shores. Based on the popularity of cars like the Tesla Roadster and Model S alone—and the admittedly anecdotal but enthusiastic reactions from consumers here who loved the car on spec—it seems reasonable to believe VW wouldn’t have any problem selling 500 or 1,000 of them stateside.
Then again, maybe it’s just as well. There are enough cellphone-related fender benders around here anyway.
The most dangerous thing about Volkswagen’s XL1 is how it affects people outside the car.
They take cellphone photos and gesture frantically at highway speeds, looking across the steering wheel at a 90-degree angle from the road in front of them. They jump out in traffic directly in front of the vehicle, motioning for you to slow down so they can examine it closely. They yell out of open windows across traffic lights and multi-lane streets, asking how much it costs, how fast it’ll go and where they can buy one.
Thing is, they can’t. It’s not actually legal to drive in the United States.
“It was never designed for the U.S. market,” Mark Gillies, a VW spokesman, told me. “Things like, you have to have rearview mirrors for U.S. regulations.”
So was it technically illegal for me to be driving that thing around midtown last week?
“I suppose in theory, yeah,” he said, with a chuckle. “But you can bring prototypes into the states.”
Whew.
Not that we were too concerned. The car doesn’t move very quickly (0-60 in more than 12 seconds) or fast (top speed is 99mph). Its rear-situated 47hp two-cylinder turbo-diesel engine and 27hp electric motor gets just 68 horsepower.
But you won’t know that from looking at the top-opening scissor doors, the tightly drawn rear end, or the futuristic disc-shaped rims engineered to create shields that block wind in the wheel wells. The car looks fast.
It won’t break any speed records, but it can go 261 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. That’s like driving from New York City to Washington, D.C., for less than $5.
The head of VW Group himself, Ferdinand Piëch, commissioned XL1 with that goal—to get at least 100 miles in a production vehicle on 1 litre of gasoline. His engineering team accomplished it by making XL1 lightweight (1,753 pounds of carbon fiber in the chassis and body panels) and slim (the two seats inside are offset so that the passenger sits slightly behind the driver, which allows the car to be narrower). Inside, for additional weight-shaving, the dashboard is made of wood and the interior sacrifices most creature comforts like power steering and a proper sound system. The rear of the car is narrow through the trunk, and the roofline and clearance sit low to the ground. Its 5-kWh lithium-ion battery and a 2.6-gallon fuel tank sit nestled between the powertrain and passenger side of the car–a position also strategized to conserve space.
Did I mention the XL1 has no rear window or side mirrors? Instead, video cameras feed two small screens in the inner door panels. It’s all extremely compact.
Headroom, though, is adequate, as is leg room. And driving it feels like commanding a small hovercraft. It’s virtually silent except when you accelerate quickly and the diesel engine kicks in with a whirr. The steering is easy, the regenerative brakes adequate but abrupt.
Gillies says “relatively wealthy” Europe-based buyers who “want a really efficient commuter car” will be able to get the XL1 for 111,000 Euros ($145,000 USD) later this year. VW will make 250 of them, all at a factory in Germany.
Unfortunately for us, it’s clear that the cost of altering XL1 to be street-legal here far outweighs the foreseen benefit to bring it over. But it does seem a shame that Volkswagen couldn’t send at least a handful to our shores. Based on the popularity of cars like the Tesla Roadster and Model S alone—and the admittedly anecdotal but enthusiastic reactions from consumers here who loved the car on spec—it seems reasonable to believe VW wouldn’t have any problem selling 500 or 1,000 of them stateside.
Then again, maybe it’s just as well. There are enough cellphone-related fender benders around here anyway.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
MOST HEATING BILLS TO RISE THIS WINTER
Story first appeared in USA TODAY.
The government forecast Tuesday that most households will pay more for heat this winter. Heating oil users will catch a slight break, but still pay near-record prices to keep warm.
Prices for natural gas, electricity and propane should be higher, the primary reason that more than 90% of homes will incur higher heating expenses.
Homes using natural gas for heat will pay about $679. That is about 13% higher than a year ago but still 4% below the average for the previous five winters. Homes relying on electricity for heat, about 38% of the U.S., will likely pay about 2% more for heat compared with last year.
For heating oil customers, there is good news and bad news in the Energy Department's annual outlook for heating costs. Their average bill should drop 2%, to $2,046. But that's still the second highest average on record, behind last year's $2,092.
Some analysts are concerned about a spike in heating oil prices. That's because the fuels that refiners make alongside heating oil, including diesel and jet fuel, are in high demand around the world and inventories are low.
"If there's one type of product that could catch fire and go higher, it's heating oil," says Tom Kloza, Chief Oil Analyst at the Oil Price Information Service and GasBuddy.com.
Natural gas should average $11 per thousand cubic feet, the government said. That's the highest price since the fuel averaged nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in the winter of 2008-2009, but 4% below the five-year average.
Just over half of U.S. households use natural gas for heating. Only 6% use heating oil, but those homes tend to be in New England and New York, where winter heating needs are high. Many of the 38% of U.S. households that use electric heat live in warm regions where heating demand is not high.
Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which advocates for heating assistance for low income families, worries that high heating oil prices, colder weather, and cuts in federal heating assistance will leave more families vulnerable.
"Two years ago we could help close to 2 million more families than we can now," Wolfe says.
In 2010, Congress set aside $5.1 billion for heating assistance. This year, Wolfe is expecting $3 billion. "There's no ability to respond to spikes in prices," he says. "If this winter is really cold, it won't be adequate."
The Energy Department expects temperatures in the Northeast to be about 3% colder than a year ago, resulting in a 3% increase in consumption of heating oil. Bills will be lower, however, because the average price for heating oil will drop to $3.68 a gallon from $3.87.
But the government cautions that if temperatures are about 10% below expectations nationally, heating oil costs could rise around 9 percent from a year ago. That would mean an average bill of $2.280, a record.
The government forecast Tuesday that most households will pay more for heat this winter. Heating oil users will catch a slight break, but still pay near-record prices to keep warm.
Prices for natural gas, electricity and propane should be higher, the primary reason that more than 90% of homes will incur higher heating expenses.
Homes using natural gas for heat will pay about $679. That is about 13% higher than a year ago but still 4% below the average for the previous five winters. Homes relying on electricity for heat, about 38% of the U.S., will likely pay about 2% more for heat compared with last year.
For heating oil customers, there is good news and bad news in the Energy Department's annual outlook for heating costs. Their average bill should drop 2%, to $2,046. But that's still the second highest average on record, behind last year's $2,092.
Some analysts are concerned about a spike in heating oil prices. That's because the fuels that refiners make alongside heating oil, including diesel and jet fuel, are in high demand around the world and inventories are low.
"If there's one type of product that could catch fire and go higher, it's heating oil," says Tom Kloza, Chief Oil Analyst at the Oil Price Information Service and GasBuddy.com.
Natural gas should average $11 per thousand cubic feet, the government said. That's the highest price since the fuel averaged nearly $13 per thousand cubic feet in the winter of 2008-2009, but 4% below the five-year average.
Just over half of U.S. households use natural gas for heating. Only 6% use heating oil, but those homes tend to be in New England and New York, where winter heating needs are high. Many of the 38% of U.S. households that use electric heat live in warm regions where heating demand is not high.
Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which advocates for heating assistance for low income families, worries that high heating oil prices, colder weather, and cuts in federal heating assistance will leave more families vulnerable.
"Two years ago we could help close to 2 million more families than we can now," Wolfe says.
In 2010, Congress set aside $5.1 billion for heating assistance. This year, Wolfe is expecting $3 billion. "There's no ability to respond to spikes in prices," he says. "If this winter is really cold, it won't be adequate."
The Energy Department expects temperatures in the Northeast to be about 3% colder than a year ago, resulting in a 3% increase in consumption of heating oil. Bills will be lower, however, because the average price for heating oil will drop to $3.68 a gallon from $3.87.
But the government cautions that if temperatures are about 10% below expectations nationally, heating oil costs could rise around 9 percent from a year ago. That would mean an average bill of $2.280, a record.
Monday, October 7, 2013
SOME ANTI-DRILLING ACTIVISTS CHANGE TACTICS, TONE
Story first appeared on ABC News.
For years, activists have warned that fracking can have disastrous consequences — ruined water and air, sickened people and animals, a ceaseless parade of truck traffic.
Now some critics are doing what was once unthinkable: working with the industry. Some are even signing lucrative gas leases and speaking about the environmental benefits of gas.
In one northeastern Pennsylvania village that became a global flashpoint in the debate over fracking, the switch has raised more than a few eyebrows.
A few weeks ago, Victoria Switzer and other activists from Dimock endorsed a candidate for governor who supports natural gas production from gigantic reserves like the Marcellus Shale, albeit with more regulation and new taxes. Dimock was the centerpiece of "Gasland," a documentary that galvanized opposition to fracking, and Switzer was also featured in this summer's "Gasland Part II," which aired on HBO.
"We had to work with the industry. There is no magic wand to make this go away," said Switzer, who recently formed a group that seeks to work with drillers on improved air quality standards. "Tunnel vision isn't good. Realism is good."
For Switzer, the endorsement was a nod to reality; for some of her onetime allies, a betrayal. Either way, it was a sign that anti-drilling activism is evolving, with some opponents shifting tactics to reflect that shale gas is likely here to stay.
Plenty of anti-drilling activists still want nothing to do with the industry and continue to call for a ban on fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, the technique that drillers use to siphon gas from shale deposits more than a mile underground. In New York state, opponents have so far succeeded in blocking natural-gas development in the Marcellus Shale.
But Pennsylvania residents concerned about drilling no longer have the luxury of simply calling for a ban, Switzer said. Not with the Pennsylvania and West Virginia portions of the Marcellus already yielding more than $10 billion worth of gas annually, making it the nation's most prolific gas field.
"It's in full swing, and it's simplistic to think you could just tell them all to stop," said Rebecca Roter, another Pennsylvania activist.
The enormous volume of gas flowing from the Marcellus and other U.S. shale formations has turned energy markets upside-down and led to wholesale prices that are about one-third of what customers in Europe or Asia pay. That's led to lower costs for consumers and industry.
And that, in turn, got the attention of Vermont's anti-fracking governor.
It was Gov. Peter Shumlin who, in early 2012, signed the nation's first statewide fracking ban. But now he's promoting the economic benefits of natural gas. Last month, Shumlin spoke out in favor of a $90 million expansion of the state's natural gas pipeline system — which will transport fracked gas — saying the project was critical to industry, the environment and people who are struggling to pay energy bills.
Some drilling critics, meanwhile, have become reluctant partners with an industry they dislike.
Robert Donnan had been an outspoken critic of drilling in general and Range Resources, the company that sunk the first Marcellus well in 2004, in particular. In February, he leased his land to Range, according to public documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Donnan didn't respond to requests for comment, nor did members of the group to which he belongs, Marcellus Protest, whose stated goal is to "stop the destruction of our environment and communities caused by Marcellus drilling."
But one of Donnan's cousins said family members felt they had little real choice, considering their 296-acre property southwest of Pittsburgh is already surrounded by drilling.
"The choice is either sign the lease and have some control, or don't sign and have no control" over what happens in the area, said Geoffrey Smith, adding the family will still keep an eye on everything the drillers do.
"We're watching for any spills, any violation of the lease, for any hanky-panky with the money," said Smith, who praised his cousin for keeping the industry's "feet to the fire" on environmental issues.
Donnan is still speaking out, too. In the spring, he published a letter to the editor saying "gas production is filthy business." He also denounced drilling at a public forum in Pittsburgh — though without telling the audience he had signed a lease.
Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company views Donnan's decision to sign a lease after years of criticizing the industry "as an endorsement" of drilling, since he's clearly aware of the risks involved.
Some environmental groups are seeking to partner with the industry in a different way.
In southwestern Pennsylvania, environmentalists recently joined charitable foundations and major oil and gas companies to form the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, which aims to protect air and water from pollution in the Appalachian region. And in Illinois, industry and environmental groups worked together to support a bill on fracking that both sides could support.
That's similar to what Switzer is trying to accomplish in Dimock, the tiny crossroads where pro- and anti-drilling forces descended after state regulators held a gas driller responsible for contaminating residential water supplies with methane.
More than a year after Switzer and other residents settled their lawsuit against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., the rancor has mostly subsided. And Switzer settled on a new approach to the industry that she calls her "landlord."
"You have to sit down and not be the enemy," she said.
This year, Switzer and Roter co-founded Breathe Easy Susquehanna County, an organization that seeks to persuade companies to use advanced technologies to limit emissions. The group has won plaudits for its non-confrontational style.
It's a small, quiet effort to set aside philosophical differences over the wisdom of natural gas production and focus on how the negative impacts can be minimized. The group has even attracted pro-drilling residents who had clashed with Switzer and others who spoke out against the industry.
Switzer and Roter said it's time to move past the pro-gas, anti-gas dichotomy. The reality, they point out, is that thousands of wells have already been drilled, new compressor stations are going up and pipelines are being laid.
At Breathe Easy, Roter said, "we decided our first goal was to make concern about air quality mainstream as mainstream as going to church in this rural county."
For years, activists have warned that fracking can have disastrous consequences — ruined water and air, sickened people and animals, a ceaseless parade of truck traffic.
Now some critics are doing what was once unthinkable: working with the industry. Some are even signing lucrative gas leases and speaking about the environmental benefits of gas.
In one northeastern Pennsylvania village that became a global flashpoint in the debate over fracking, the switch has raised more than a few eyebrows.
A few weeks ago, Victoria Switzer and other activists from Dimock endorsed a candidate for governor who supports natural gas production from gigantic reserves like the Marcellus Shale, albeit with more regulation and new taxes. Dimock was the centerpiece of "Gasland," a documentary that galvanized opposition to fracking, and Switzer was also featured in this summer's "Gasland Part II," which aired on HBO.
"We had to work with the industry. There is no magic wand to make this go away," said Switzer, who recently formed a group that seeks to work with drillers on improved air quality standards. "Tunnel vision isn't good. Realism is good."
For Switzer, the endorsement was a nod to reality; for some of her onetime allies, a betrayal. Either way, it was a sign that anti-drilling activism is evolving, with some opponents shifting tactics to reflect that shale gas is likely here to stay.
Plenty of anti-drilling activists still want nothing to do with the industry and continue to call for a ban on fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, the technique that drillers use to siphon gas from shale deposits more than a mile underground. In New York state, opponents have so far succeeded in blocking natural-gas development in the Marcellus Shale.
But Pennsylvania residents concerned about drilling no longer have the luxury of simply calling for a ban, Switzer said. Not with the Pennsylvania and West Virginia portions of the Marcellus already yielding more than $10 billion worth of gas annually, making it the nation's most prolific gas field.
"It's in full swing, and it's simplistic to think you could just tell them all to stop," said Rebecca Roter, another Pennsylvania activist.
The enormous volume of gas flowing from the Marcellus and other U.S. shale formations has turned energy markets upside-down and led to wholesale prices that are about one-third of what customers in Europe or Asia pay. That's led to lower costs for consumers and industry.
And that, in turn, got the attention of Vermont's anti-fracking governor.
It was Gov. Peter Shumlin who, in early 2012, signed the nation's first statewide fracking ban. But now he's promoting the economic benefits of natural gas. Last month, Shumlin spoke out in favor of a $90 million expansion of the state's natural gas pipeline system — which will transport fracked gas — saying the project was critical to industry, the environment and people who are struggling to pay energy bills.
Some drilling critics, meanwhile, have become reluctant partners with an industry they dislike.
Robert Donnan had been an outspoken critic of drilling in general and Range Resources, the company that sunk the first Marcellus well in 2004, in particular. In February, he leased his land to Range, according to public documents obtained by The Associated Press.
Donnan didn't respond to requests for comment, nor did members of the group to which he belongs, Marcellus Protest, whose stated goal is to "stop the destruction of our environment and communities caused by Marcellus drilling."
But one of Donnan's cousins said family members felt they had little real choice, considering their 296-acre property southwest of Pittsburgh is already surrounded by drilling.
"The choice is either sign the lease and have some control, or don't sign and have no control" over what happens in the area, said Geoffrey Smith, adding the family will still keep an eye on everything the drillers do.
"We're watching for any spills, any violation of the lease, for any hanky-panky with the money," said Smith, who praised his cousin for keeping the industry's "feet to the fire" on environmental issues.
Donnan is still speaking out, too. In the spring, he published a letter to the editor saying "gas production is filthy business." He also denounced drilling at a public forum in Pittsburgh — though without telling the audience he had signed a lease.
Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said the company views Donnan's decision to sign a lease after years of criticizing the industry "as an endorsement" of drilling, since he's clearly aware of the risks involved.
Some environmental groups are seeking to partner with the industry in a different way.
In southwestern Pennsylvania, environmentalists recently joined charitable foundations and major oil and gas companies to form the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, which aims to protect air and water from pollution in the Appalachian region. And in Illinois, industry and environmental groups worked together to support a bill on fracking that both sides could support.
That's similar to what Switzer is trying to accomplish in Dimock, the tiny crossroads where pro- and anti-drilling forces descended after state regulators held a gas driller responsible for contaminating residential water supplies with methane.
More than a year after Switzer and other residents settled their lawsuit against Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., the rancor has mostly subsided. And Switzer settled on a new approach to the industry that she calls her "landlord."
"You have to sit down and not be the enemy," she said.
This year, Switzer and Roter co-founded Breathe Easy Susquehanna County, an organization that seeks to persuade companies to use advanced technologies to limit emissions. The group has won plaudits for its non-confrontational style.
It's a small, quiet effort to set aside philosophical differences over the wisdom of natural gas production and focus on how the negative impacts can be minimized. The group has even attracted pro-drilling residents who had clashed with Switzer and others who spoke out against the industry.
Switzer and Roter said it's time to move past the pro-gas, anti-gas dichotomy. The reality, they point out, is that thousands of wells have already been drilled, new compressor stations are going up and pipelines are being laid.
At Breathe Easy, Roter said, "we decided our first goal was to make concern about air quality mainstream as mainstream as going to church in this rural county."
Monday, September 23, 2013
Power Plants Issued New EPA Regulations on Emissions
Story first appeared in USA TODAY.
Lawsuits are expected to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal Friday to limit emissions from new power plants, and the main reason is cutting-edge, anti-pollution technology.
The EPA announced Friday morning its proposal to cap the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Coal-fired plants -- unlike most natural gas facilities -- won't meet the standard without costly technology to capture and store carbon emissions.
There's the rub. No commercial, coal-fired plant worldwide has yet to use this technology, but at least two are now under construction — one in Canada's Saskatchewan Province, and the other in Mississippi's Kemper County, which is scheduled to open in May. Three other U.S. coal plants are planned, two in Texas and one in Illinois.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Americans have a "moral obligation to the next generation" to protect the environment, and its proposal, updated from an initial one last year, is a "necessary step to address a public health challenge."
Rather than killing the U.S. coal industry, "it sets out a path forward" for it, McCarthy said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.,, adding the standard relies on "home-grown technologies" and is both achievable and flexible.
Critics, including the coal industry, disagree and say it's not legal to require a technology that's not yet proved itself commercially. Supporters, including environmental groups, say the standard will create demand for the technology and spur industry cleanup.
"There's no demand for the technology now," but an EPA rule will change that, says Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress, a research group that supports the limits. He says there are enough demonstration projects to prove that the technology, often called CCS (carbon capture and sequestration), works.
Not so, says Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm who was a senior EPA official under President George W. Bush. "CCS has not been adequately demonstrated," says Holmstead, who represents coal-fired plants. "It's not met the standard EPA has used for the last 40 years" that requires new technology also be cost-effective.
"It's a gray area," says Howard Herzog of MIT's Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program, begun in 1989. "All the components are commercial. What's not is having a business model where they all work together," he says, citing the lack of a "turn-key" system.
"If you had to do it, you could,' he says, but it would be expensive. He say it's costly, because it's new technology, and there's no federal policy requiring it. He says it's simply cheaper now for power plants to release greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
Herzog says power plants can capture up to 90% of their carbon emissions with CCS. The process typically has three phases. Carbon is captured and compressed, then transported (usually by pipeline) to a site where it's stored in deep underground rock formations.
In the Kemper County plant, it works a bit differently. After the carbon is captured, it will be sold to companies for enhanced oil recovery, says Amoi Geter, spokeswoman for Gulfport-based Mississippi Power, which is building the plant. Geter says about 65% of carbon emissions will be captured.
Coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of U.S. electricity, providing 37% of the total last year. They also emit a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gases — far more that natural gas counterparts. While they provided 18% of all energy consumed nationwide in 2012, they accounted for 31% of energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The EPA's proposal, which addresses only new power plants, is a dress rehearsal for a much larger one next year that will limit emissions from existing power plants. President Obama has directed the agency to propose a standard for existing plants by June and finalize it in 2015.
For new coal-fired plants, the EPA proposal caps emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon-dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced. A typical new plant, without CCS technology, emits about 1,800 pounds. In the initial 2012 proposal, the agency proposed a limit of 1,000 pounds.
The agency's updated proposal also sets a 1,100-pound standard for small natural gas plants that produce 850 megawatts or less of electricity and a 1,000-pound limit for larger units. Most natural gas plants would meet these caps without CCS technology.
Holmstead says the EPA's carbon rule, which won't be finalized until next year, is "effectively a ban" on new coal-fired power plants. "I'm quite confident there will be a legal challenge," he says. "There's a good chance it will be overturned in court, but that's a few years away."
Weiss agrees lawsuits will "absolutely" ensue, but he says the EPA gives plants time to adjust. The proposal allows plants to average emissions over a seven-year period if they meet a slightly tighter limit of between 1,000 and 1,050 pounds.
The coal industry says the EPA's proposed rule, if enacted, will lead to more coal plant closures and higher electric bills. It "would cause consumers' power bills to skyrocket over time and cause more pain at the plug than Americans have experienced at the pump," St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, said in a statement.
Geter says Mississippi Power has raised rates 15% this year and plans an additional 3% increase next year to help pay for the new Kemper County plant, whose price tag has risen from an initial $2.4 billion to $3.8 billion, of which at least $270 million is federal funding.
Obama administration officials say greenhouse gas emissions have high hidden costs. They say coal emits not only carbon dioxide, which raises Earth's temperature, but also sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and heavy metals (such as mercury and arsenic) and acid gases (such as hydrogen chloride), which have been linked to acid rain, smog and health issues.
"The industry wants to be able to blame EPA" for its economic troubles, says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. But he says low prices for natural gas, even wind, are bigger factors in coal's current and future prospects than EPA's proposed rule.
Environmentalists say the rule, though, is a major step toward cleaner air. Julian Boggs of Environment America, an advocacy group, says: "We can kiss goodbye any more dirty power plants."
Lawsuits are expected to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal Friday to limit emissions from new power plants, and the main reason is cutting-edge, anti-pollution technology.
The EPA announced Friday morning its proposal to cap the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants. Coal-fired plants -- unlike most natural gas facilities -- won't meet the standard without costly technology to capture and store carbon emissions.
There's the rub. No commercial, coal-fired plant worldwide has yet to use this technology, but at least two are now under construction — one in Canada's Saskatchewan Province, and the other in Mississippi's Kemper County, which is scheduled to open in May. Three other U.S. coal plants are planned, two in Texas and one in Illinois.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Americans have a "moral obligation to the next generation" to protect the environment, and its proposal, updated from an initial one last year, is a "necessary step to address a public health challenge."
Rather than killing the U.S. coal industry, "it sets out a path forward" for it, McCarthy said in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.,, adding the standard relies on "home-grown technologies" and is both achievable and flexible.
Critics, including the coal industry, disagree and say it's not legal to require a technology that's not yet proved itself commercially. Supporters, including environmental groups, say the standard will create demand for the technology and spur industry cleanup.
"There's no demand for the technology now," but an EPA rule will change that, says Dan Weiss of the Center for American Progress, a research group that supports the limits. He says there are enough demonstration projects to prove that the technology, often called CCS (carbon capture and sequestration), works.
Not so, says Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the Bracewell & Giuliani law firm who was a senior EPA official under President George W. Bush. "CCS has not been adequately demonstrated," says Holmstead, who represents coal-fired plants. "It's not met the standard EPA has used for the last 40 years" that requires new technology also be cost-effective.
"It's a gray area," says Howard Herzog of MIT's Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies program, begun in 1989. "All the components are commercial. What's not is having a business model where they all work together," he says, citing the lack of a "turn-key" system.
"If you had to do it, you could,' he says, but it would be expensive. He say it's costly, because it's new technology, and there's no federal policy requiring it. He says it's simply cheaper now for power plants to release greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.
Herzog says power plants can capture up to 90% of their carbon emissions with CCS. The process typically has three phases. Carbon is captured and compressed, then transported (usually by pipeline) to a site where it's stored in deep underground rock formations.
In the Kemper County plant, it works a bit differently. After the carbon is captured, it will be sold to companies for enhanced oil recovery, says Amoi Geter, spokeswoman for Gulfport-based Mississippi Power, which is building the plant. Geter says about 65% of carbon emissions will be captured.
Coal-fired power plants are the single-largest source of U.S. electricity, providing 37% of the total last year. They also emit a disproportionately large share of greenhouse gases — far more that natural gas counterparts. While they provided 18% of all energy consumed nationwide in 2012, they accounted for 31% of energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The EPA's proposal, which addresses only new power plants, is a dress rehearsal for a much larger one next year that will limit emissions from existing power plants. President Obama has directed the agency to propose a standard for existing plants by June and finalize it in 2015.
For new coal-fired plants, the EPA proposal caps emissions at 1,100 pounds of carbon-dioxide per megawatt-hour of power produced. A typical new plant, without CCS technology, emits about 1,800 pounds. In the initial 2012 proposal, the agency proposed a limit of 1,000 pounds.
The agency's updated proposal also sets a 1,100-pound standard for small natural gas plants that produce 850 megawatts or less of electricity and a 1,000-pound limit for larger units. Most natural gas plants would meet these caps without CCS technology.
Holmstead says the EPA's carbon rule, which won't be finalized until next year, is "effectively a ban" on new coal-fired power plants. "I'm quite confident there will be a legal challenge," he says. "There's a good chance it will be overturned in court, but that's a few years away."
Weiss agrees lawsuits will "absolutely" ensue, but he says the EPA gives plants time to adjust. The proposal allows plants to average emissions over a seven-year period if they meet a slightly tighter limit of between 1,000 and 1,050 pounds.
The coal industry says the EPA's proposed rule, if enacted, will lead to more coal plant closures and higher electric bills. It "would cause consumers' power bills to skyrocket over time and cause more pain at the plug than Americans have experienced at the pump," St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, the world's largest private-sector coal company, said in a statement.
Geter says Mississippi Power has raised rates 15% this year and plans an additional 3% increase next year to help pay for the new Kemper County plant, whose price tag has risen from an initial $2.4 billion to $3.8 billion, of which at least $270 million is federal funding.
Obama administration officials say greenhouse gas emissions have high hidden costs. They say coal emits not only carbon dioxide, which raises Earth's temperature, but also sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and heavy metals (such as mercury and arsenic) and acid gases (such as hydrogen chloride), which have been linked to acid rain, smog and health issues.
"The industry wants to be able to blame EPA" for its economic troubles, says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group. But he says low prices for natural gas, even wind, are bigger factors in coal's current and future prospects than EPA's proposed rule.
Environmentalists say the rule, though, is a major step toward cleaner air. Julian Boggs of Environment America, an advocacy group, says: "We can kiss goodbye any more dirty power plants."
Monday, September 16, 2013
U.S. energy lifting economy more than expected
Story originally appeared on USA Today.
Rising U.S. oil and natural gas production is having a bigger impact on the U.S. economy than estimated a couple years ago, according to a leading economic consulting firm.
Newly found sources of domestic oil and natural gas are having an even bigger impact on the economy than first projected, adding more than $1,200 last year to the discretionary income of the average U.S. family, a new study says.
The explosion in domestic energy production now supports 1.2 million jobs, directly or indirectly, says consulting firm IHS, in a study released Wednesday. That number will grow to 3.3 million by 2020, and new energy's contribution to U.S. families' disposable incomes will hit $2,000 per household per year by 2015, said IHS.
IHS' numbers are larger than findings by other economists, which also point to a major impact from shale oil and gas. The introduction of technologies like hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling, which made it practical to recover previously unused oil reserves, has helped drive a 58% increase in natural gas reserves since 2007, cut the price of natural gas by nearly three-fourths, and sparked more than $120 billion in U.S.-based investment last year, IHS said. Its study was partly financed by a number of energy and manufacturing industry groups.
"Anyone who doubts the reality of this is not paying attention,'' said John Larson, vice president of IHS and co-leader of a team of 13 contributors from the firm's energy, economics and manufacturing-industry consulting groups. "You're seeing the production numbers in both gas and oil to support it.''
The biggest impact on many U.S. households is lower electricity and heating bills, accounting for about 75% of the average household's gains, Larson said. About $800 of that represents lower prices for natural gas-fueled heat and cooking, and $100 to $150 is from electricity rates lower than they otherwise would be, he said.
Government data back up most of this analysis. Residential natural-gas prices, which vary widely by state, have fallen between 12% and 32% since 2008, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Electricity prices, however, have risen slightly on average. IHS' numbers were based on assumptions about what households would have spent if U.S. natural gas prices stayed near 2008 levels, Larson said.
Natural gas prices in much of Europe are three times U.S. levels, and Asian prices are even higher, reflecting the lack of new supplies there, he said.
Cheaper electricity also shows up in the price of other manufactured goods, and some families get a paycheck from producing oil and gas, or working for companies that ship petroleum or make supplies for drilling and pipelines, he said.
Earlier, IHS had only estimated the impact of new gas supplies, without attempting to quantify the effects of new oil supplies pouring out of places such as North Dakota and the Eagle Ford shale in Texas. In December 2011, it had said the shale gas industry was supporting 600,000 jobs by 2010.
Moody's Analytics, another leading economics consulting firm, estimates that 1 million of the 2.7 million jobs gained in the U.S. between 2002 and 2012 were related to shale oil and gas drilling, Moody's economist Chris Lafakis said.
Growth in shale-related employment since 2008 was almost four times as much as Moody's forecast in 2009, and is growing twice as fast as the overall economy despite a hiring lull caused by lower natural gas prices, Lafakis said.
'It's difficult to overstate the shale revolution's profound contributions to the US. economy,'' Lafakis said.
More domestic production is also slashing crude oil imports, which fell 19% in the first half of this year, according to the Census Bureau. That shaved $31.6 billion off the nation's trade deficit.
In 2011, U.S. oil and gas companies added almost 3.8 billion barrels of crude oil and related reserves, an increase of 15%, the biggest jump since the U.S. Energy Information Administration began publishing proved reserves estimates in 1977, the government said last month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)