Members of the Pipeline Compliance Surveillance Initiative hiked into the George Washington National Forest to document tree felling for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. Ben Cunningham / YouTube
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline (ACP), which would have carried fracked natural gas through 600 miles of West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina, will never be completed.
<p>Pipeline owners Dominion and Duke Energy <a href="https://news.dominionenergy.com/2020-07-05-Dominion-Energy-and-Duke-Energy-Cancel-the-Atlantic-Coast-Pipeline" target="_blank">announced</a> Sunday they were cancelling the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuel</a> project due to mounting delays and uncertainty. They said the many legal challenges to the project had driven up the projected costs by almost half, from $4.5 to $5 billion when it was first announced in 2014 to $8 billion according to the most recent estimate.</p><p>Environmental and community groups, who have long opposed the project on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate</a>, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/conservation" target="_self">conservation</a> and racial justice grounds, welcomed the news.</p>
<p>"If anyone still had questions about whether or not the era of fracked gas was over, this should answer them," <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a> Executive Director Michael Brune said in a statement emailed to EcoWatch. "Today is a historic victory for clean water, the climate, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/public-health" target="_self">public health</a>, and our communities. Duke and Dominion did not decide to cancel the Atlantic Coast Pipeline — the people and frontline organizations that led this fight for years forced them into walking away. Today's victory reinforces that united communities are more powerful than the polluting corporations that put profits over our health and future."</p>
<div id="7760c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="02fa5b9ea441fd87a18bdc09cdeb8193"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1279897090894835721" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">VICTORY! Dominion and Duke Energy abandon the Atlantic Coast Pipeline https://t.co/hJhEdmooRj #NoACP #breakingnews https://t.co/iqavGTa4nr</div> — SELC (Environmental Law) (@SELC (Environmental Law))<a href="https://twitter.com/selc_org/statuses/1279897090894835721">1593986220.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The utilities' announcement comes a little less than three weeks after the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines" target="_self">pipeline</a> scored an important legal victory when the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/atlantic-coast-pipeline-appalachian-trail-supreme-court-2646182413.html" target="_self">Supreme Court ruled</a> that it could pass beneath the Appalachian Trail. But environmental groups at the time pointed out that the project still needed eight other permits.</p><p>Early this year, a federal court <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/atlantic-coast-pipeline-black-community-2644561804.html" target="_self">vacated</a> a permit the pipeline needed to build a natural gas compressor station in Union Hill, a historic Black community in Virginia, after community members successfully argued that it would disproportionately harm the health of the mainly African American residents who lived nearby.</p><p>"We the People have overcome today!" <a href="http://www.friendsofbuckinghamva.org/friends/" target="_blank">Friends of Buckingham</a>, a community group instrumental to the compressor opposition, tweeted Sunday. "Many many hands, hearts n minds are singing it out!"</p>
<div id="edad6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cb21ef5fa539806d655539c27c675b7d"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1279886821510479877" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">David & Goliath. We the People have overcome today! Many many hands, hearts n minds are singing it out!… https://t.co/kaqRMQJrH2</div> — Friends of Buckingham (@Friends of Buckingham)<a href="https://twitter.com/FriendsofBucki1/statuses/1279886821510479877">1593983772.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Courts have also tossed permits over the pipeline's plans to cut a visible scar through the forest as it crosses beneath the Blue Ridge Parkway, its crossing of more than 1,500 streams and rivers in West Virginia and its impact on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/endangered-species" target="_self">endangered species</a> like the Indiana bat and Madison cave isopod, <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/atlantic-coast-pipeline-risky-and-costly-and-unnecessary" target="_blank">Sierra Magazine pointed out in 2019</a>.</p><p>"All of the ACP's problems are entirely self-inflicted," Greg Buppert, a senior attorney for the <a href="https://www.southernenvironment.org/" target="_blank">Southern Environmental Law Center</a>, told Sierra Magazine at the time. "It was never a good idea to build this pipeline through two national forests, a national park, across the Appalachian Trail, and through the steepest mountains in West Virginia."</p><p>But the legal climate described by Duke and Dominion in their statement reflects the growing vulnerability of all fossil fuel pipeline projects. The utilities' cited as a major challenge the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/keystone-xl-pipeline-waterways-endangered-species-2645978077.html" target="_self">decision</a> of the United States District Court for the District of Montana cancelling Nationwide Permit 12, a stream-and wetland-crossing permit used by the Army Corps of Engineers to fast-track infrastructure projects. The ruling was prompted by a legal challenge to the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/keystone-xl" target="_self">Keystone XL</a> pipeline in particular, but it ended up cancelling the permit for all new oil and gas pipeline projects without further review of their impact on endangered species.</p>
<p>"We regret that we will be unable to complete the Atlantic Coast Pipeline," Dominion and Duke Energy chairs, presidents, and chief executive officers Thomas F. Farrell, II and Lynn J. Good said in Sunday's statement. "For almost six years we have worked diligently and invested billions of dollars to complete the project and deliver the much-needed infrastructure to our customers and communities. Throughout we have engaged extensively with and incorporated feedback from local communities, labor and industrial leaders, government and permitting agencies, environmental interests and social justice organizations. We express sincere appreciation for the tireless efforts and important contributions made by all who were involved in this essential project. This announcement reflects the increasing legal uncertainty that overhangs large-scale energy and industrial infrastructure development in the United States. Until these issues are resolved, the ability to satisfy the country's energy needs will be significantly challenged."</p><p>But the pipeline's opponents insist that pipelines like the ACP are not in fact necessary to meet the country's energy needs.</p><p>"The costly and unneeded Atlantic Coast Pipeline would have threatened waterways and communities across its 600-mile path," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> attorney Gillian Giannetti said in a statement reported by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/05/business/atlantic-coast-pipeline-cancel-dominion-energy-berkshire-hathaway.html#new_tab" target="_blank">The New York Times</a>. "As they abandon this dirty pipe dream, Dominion and Duke should now pivot to investing more in energy efficiency, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wind" target="_self">wind</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/solar" target="_self">solar</a> — that's how to provide jobs and a better future for all."</p>
<div id="380f1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dfd22eb3c95f7d1f1f8c8c3d3150891a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1279966961657659398" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Today's changes to the @ACPipeline #wiki are pretty remarkable. #was #cancelled https://t.co/iiouuZRazQ</div> — Gillian Giannetti (@Gillian Giannetti)<a href="https://twitter.com/GillianEnergy/statuses/1279966961657659398">1594002878.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>But someone still thinks there is money in fossil fuels. Also on Sunday, Dominion Energy announced that it was selling its natural gas transmission and storage assets to Berkshire Hathaway Energy for an estimated $10 billion, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063511423" target="_blank">E&E News reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Atlantic Coast Pipeline Faces Pushback Ahead of Dominion ... ›
- Atlantic Coast Pipeline Opponents Down But Not Out After ... ›
- Supreme Court Rules Atlantic Coast Pipeline Can Cross ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A Chesapeake Energy drilling rig is located on farmland near Wyalusing, Pennsylvania, on March 20, 2012. Melanie Stetson Freeman / The Christian Science Monitor / Getty Images
By Eoin Higgins
Climate advocates pointed to news Sunday that fracking giant Chesapeake Energy was filing for bankruptcy as further evidence that the fossil fuel industry's collapse is being hastened by the coronavirus pandemic and called for the government to stop propping up businesses in the field.
<p>"Fracking giant Chesapeake Energy just declared bankruptcy thanks to its massive $9 billion debt," <a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/status/1277644540866965505" target="_blank">tweeted</a> Friends of the Earth. "Meanwhile the Trump administration continues to try and bail out this garbage fire industry with our tax dollars—despite clear risks."</p>
<div id="e5f24" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6e7171f8e2904f47ed8066a7a21bd48a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1277573943340171264" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The poster company for US fracking has fallen. https://t.co/n1MWs3sszT</div> — Andrew Thaler (@Andrew Thaler)<a href="https://twitter.com/DrAndrewThaler/statuses/1277573943340171264">1593432338.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The company, which at its peak in 2008 was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/28/chesapeake-energy-once-power-gas-business-files-bankruptcy" target="_blank">valued</a> at $37 billion, had a market capitalization of just $115 million on Friday.</p><p>"The debt bubble made it unable for Chesapeake to maneuver when the pandemic ruined demand for energy," David Dayen <a href="https://prospect.org/coronavirus/unsanitized-medicare-for-coronavirus/" target="_blank">wrote</a> of the bankruptcy for <em>The American Prospect</em>.</p><p>News reports put most of the blame for the bankruptcy on former CEO Aubrey McClendon, who bought up leases and rights around the country as the fracking industry boomed. </p><p>As <em>Forbes</em> <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2020/06/29/chesapeake-energy-finally-succumbs-with-chapter-11-filing/#52549bb56b58" target="_blank">reported</a>, a number of bad business decisions and moves left Chesapeake in bad condition even before gas prices collapsed due to the slowed demand from the pandemic.</p>
<p>According to <em>Forbes</em>:</p><blockquote>As natural gas prices <a title="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm" href="https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngwhhdm.htm" target="_blank">collapsed in the late 2000s</a>, McClendon next turned to sales of his own company's assets or portions of working interests in big play areas as a means of continuing to finance and pay down that debt. He sold shares of the company's working interests in the Barnett, the Eagle Ford, the Marcellus and the Haynesville to various other players, like <a title="https://bp.com" href="https://bp.com/" target="_blank">BP</a> and <a title="https://cnooc.com" href="https://cnooc.com/" target="_blank">CNOOC</a>, but every sale also meant less and less cash flow coming into the company itself. Many in the business during that time joked about it being a sort of a pyramid scheme in which the debts would ultimately end up outstripping the company's income and ability to pay.<br><br>McClendon also made the decision in 2010-11 to shift Chesapeake's gas-heavy asset mix to one more heavy in liquids. That strategic decision certainly helped during a time of $100 oil prices, but the bust of 2015-16 and the current COVID-19-related price collapse ultimately proved to heavy a burden for current CEO Doug Lawler—who was brought on board in 2013—and his management team to navigate. A company that once had a market cap of over $37 billion at one point in May saw its market cap drop as low as $200 million. A company that once employed over 8,000 individuals today employs around 2,300.</blockquote>
<p>John Thieroff, a senior analyst at Moody's Investors Service, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/31f35631-7b7d-4fa1-8eef-6255bf18cf88?segmentId=b0d7e653-3467-12ab-c0f0-77e4424cdb4c" target="_blank">told</a> the <em>Financial Times</em> Sunday he expected other companies to follow suit.</p><p>"There will no doubt be others to file for bankruptcy in the near term as the sector looks to get out from under the copious amount of debt it took on during the boom," said Thieroff.</p><p>President Donald Trump has weighed bailing out the fossil fuel industry as part of a coronavirus pandemic recovery plan. The plans have been met with stiff resistance from environmental groups like Western Values Project, which <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/05/19/trump-admin-punishes-renewables-while-bailing-out-oil-and-gas" target="_blank">said</a> in May that the move was an example of the White House "using a public health crisis as an excuse to bail out the president's corporate cronies while leaving everyone else to fend for themselves."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/29/poster-company-us-fracking-has-fallen-chesapeake-energy-files-bankruptcy" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Fracking Industry's Propaganda Hypes Shale Gas Production and ... ›
- Another Blow to the Fracking Industry—Chesapeake Energy's ... ›
- Former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon Is Back to ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Grand Jury Finds PA Regulators Failed to Protect Public and Environment From Fracking
26 June
Popular
A woman ignites the tap water in her kitchen on March 19, 2012 in Granville Summit, Pennsylvania, within the Marcellus Shale region. Melanie Stetson Freeman / The Christian Science Monitor / Getty Images
Pennsylvania regulators failed to protect public health and the environment from pollution and other harms caused by fracking operations, a grand jury investigation concluded.
<p>The scathing 235-page <a href="https://newsletter.climatenexus.org/e2t/tc/VXgD-730Rt62W3Mw7Zs6gLTthW6mk3Cf4bPqFJMcSJQV5nxGrV3Zsc37CgV-DVZMXRt8bLwVBW8L42H97FyDs5W6z8fL51Fyq_rW9bswbP6920tMW3CCjP44NQFFJW7p9GYv4PLw4PW2Khwcr4DF7V4W4Z6pr5904KZ6W5BVcZV24W3RyW26lMkm1YNRRFW94gGxM2Xnt-8W1Kjs-K5CVD2zW2n5Mzf7g84CcW3Vj4QW1wYl1NW1lbn1C4D99lwN3m43nGNRqWzW2vQQ0W94WwjpW4bjmlP29lX7kW8gSCdW8y75qkW2vxn4j2-Xbg4N1b_0NkRZ590W8jNLk48hWqw8W68CXTV8ZMwnlW8srL8636W2W8W1Gt6L83sLqlfW4Q3Bd91v3KGmW8P98Pf4TDPs0W8FxQbP67DjG_W4n_MFN8NnzZZW2nQ5TB2QM187W1rb0F34cQPsHW7P-X7p4_BMt2VtY2nX36G6tgVGPwKC34d21Z368v1" target="_blank">report</a>, outlined by Attorney General Josh Shapiro yesterday, is based on 287 hours of testimony from 70 households in the shale gas fields as well as government officials. It detailed the systemic failure of the state environment and health departments to protect the public from the "inherent dangers" of fracking operations. "As we see it, the purpose of government agencies like [the Department of Environmental Protection] is to proactively ... prevent harm — not wait and see if the worst really happens," Shapiro said.</p>
<p>The grand jurors concluded fracking caused residents to suffer from listing rashes, headaches, nausea, tremors, and burning eyes -- symptoms that would often subside when residents left their homes. Parents testified that their children would wake at night with severe nosebleeds and in one instance vibrations from fracking forced worms "up out of the ground" into yards and basements. "That is not a reality we are willing to accept," the jurors wrote. </p>
<p><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong></p><p><a href="https://www.post-gazette.com/news/environment/2020/06/25/Grand-jury-report-Pennsylvania-systemic-failure-regulation-fracking-shale-gas-industry-oil-Josh-Shapiro/stories/202006250132?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=90290227&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9o9Rx8mgMAziSSRom-2exOu3jiclqRLU4YHECdeuaS7uIC8wDETcC7xyA1KXdjkZBMgNdD9Qh_eACsWnnmUARxO4dKtFqzTAzMRrJFU2-1wCgGXbw&utm_content=90290227&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">Pittsburgh Post-Gazette</a>, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2020/06/25/stories/1063453181?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=90290227&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_meWqE3dqiFguy37X1nEXylBHAan6yez2iVLXbeFQwOvDM9CKrwkPx7iKVz1f3-jPQRUEpYsHGtn8xJBD16rXNjZ8uk3-lr0FmXIjWcmzadHTPhSs&utm_content=90290227&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">E&E</a>, <a href="https://apnews.com/5827e287c5b36c9deb50e1b21f5e5d74?utm_campaign=Hot%20News&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=90290227&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_NZcpgvZwmvmTXfIBvCki_rPwDKGQ9hsGqV-dq48vGlBa4v85vMWmGB5W-PN88N0eA4ehKtmO7BFSAZxsRaU7yB5mTlLB6n68PkuemTTBddjLudh0&utm_content=90290227&utm_source=hs_email" target="_blank">AP</a></p><p><em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Fracking Cases in Pennsylvania Expose the Human Cost of Drilling ... ›
- Fracking Caused Pennsylvania Earthquakes, New Report Confirms ... ›
- Pennsylvania Fracking Water Contamination Much Higher Than ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
More than 700 New Yorkers marched across the Brooklyn Bridge on April 18, 2019 to demand Governor Andrew Cuomo block the controversial Williams Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) Pipeline, which would carry fracked gas through New York Harbor. Erik McGregor / Pacific Press / LightRocket via Getty Images
New York state has rejected the controversial Williams pipeline that would have carried fracked natural gas from Pennsylvania through New Jersey, running beneath New York Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean before connecting to an existing pipeline system off Long Island.
<p>The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) <a href="https://www.dec.ny.gov/press/120414.html" target="_blank">announced</a> the decision Friday, arguing that pipeline construction would have harmed <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/water" target="_self">water</a> quality and threatened <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/marine-life" target="_self">marine life</a>.</p><p>"New York is not prepared to sacrifice the State's water quality for a project that is not only environmentally harmful but also unnecessary to meet New York's energy needs," DEC spokesperson Erica Ringewald said in a statement <a href="https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/05/15/cuomo-administration-cites-new-climate-law-in-denying-controversial-new-york-new-jersey-pipeline-1284299" target="_blank">reported by POLITICO</a>.</p><p>The decision is a victory for grassroots activists who have long campaigned against the pipeline. After Oklahoma-based company Williams submitted its most recent application, New Yorkers sent in more than 25,000 comments opposing the pipeline in two weeks, <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bc942dbb10f255d8dde1e5c/t/5ebf10266fb5fa69a13fd327/1589579814146/%5BPRESS+RELEASE%5D+2020+Williams+NESE+Pipeline+Denial+With+Prejudice.pdf" target="_blank">according to the Stop the Williams Pipeline Coalition</a>.</p><p>"We know [New York State Gov. Andrew] Cuomo only did this because we pressured him to do so," anti-pipeline campaigner Lee Ziesche told <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cuomo-williams-pipeline_n_5ebdbe5dc5b6c9c1874157a6?ri18n=true" target="_blank">HuffPost</a>. "At the end of the day, he still needs to make a plan to get New York off of gas."</p>
<div id="1845d" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="dd090adf94140b51fb0658d858929fbe"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1261418760218521600" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">WE STOPPED THE WILLIAMS PIPELINE!
Read our full stament here: https://t.co/ZVPbkPmfeh
#StopTheWilliamsPipeline https://t.co/001XBpamwf</div> — Stop the Williams Pipeline (@Stop the Williams Pipeline)<a href="https://twitter.com/NoNYHarborPipe/statuses/1261418760218521600">1589580643.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The rejection comes a little less than a year after New York state passed ambitious <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/grassroots-climate-campaign-new-york-2638905712.html" target="_self">climate legislation</a> requiring the state to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. That deadline is one of the reasons that NYSDEC rejected the pipeline, according to POLITICO.</p><p>"While the Department recognizes that many building assets in the State currently rely on natural gas for heating and other energy uses, the continued long-term use of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fossil-fuels" target="_self">fossil fuels</a> is inconsistent with the State's laws and objectives and with the actions necessary to prevent the most severe impacts from <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate change</a>," DEC wrote in a <a href="https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/permits_ej_operations_pdf/nesewqcdenial05152020.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> explaining its decision. "Without appropriate alternatives or GHG mitigation measures, the Project could extend the amount of time that natural gas may be relied upon to produce energy, which could in turn delay, frustrate, or increase the cost of the necessary transition away from natural gas and other fossil fuels."</p>
<p>NYDDEC also said that construction would disturb toxic sediments like copper and mercury and harm habitats like shellfish beds.</p><p>Williams disagreed with New York's assessment.</p><p>"We continue to believe that the fundamentals of our project align with New York's clean energy goals because it would have improved local air quality and, at the same time, supported economic development and led to lower heating bills," Williams said in a statement <a href="https://www.nj.com/news/2020/05/ny-rejects-controversial-pipeline-across-raritan-bay-nj-could-soon-do-the-same.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=tweet&utm_campaign=NESE" target="_blank">reported by NJ.com</a>.</p><p>New York utility National Grid has argued that the pipeline is necessary to meet growing demand, according to HuffPost, but a study released in April by the <a href="https://ieefa.org/ieefa-report-proposed-nese-gas-pipeline-may-stick-nys-ratepayers-with-one-billion-dollar-cost/" target="_blank">Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis</a> found no evidence this was the case.</p>
<p>While the Williams pipeline, officially called the Northeast Supply Enhancement Pipeline, has been rejected before by both New York and New Jersey officials, this rejection is more final, HuffPost explained. The previous rejection was without prejudice, meaning the pipeline owners were invited to reapply if they addressed environmental concerns. Friday's rejection was with prejudice.</p><p>"That's the end of the line," anti-pipeline campaigner and former NYSDEC regional director Suzanne Mattei told HuffPost. "A denial with prejudice means the department has determined the environmental impacts of the pipeline are unacceptable and that the company has not given it reason to believe that it can make changes to its proposal that would convert it into an acceptable proposal."</p><p>The project received yet another blow later Friday, when New Jersey also denied the pipeline the permits it would have needed to cross the state, NJ.com reported.</p>
<div id="8ef14" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72d3ecd8a69c0f038dc104d6c96a1a2a"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1261703283489624069" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Incredible! 🥳 Following New York’s lead, New Jersey also STOPPED the Williams Pipeline! A truly victorious feat for… https://t.co/jZ99RMvooR</div> — NRDC 🌎🏡 (@NRDC 🌎🏡)<a href="https://twitter.com/NRDC/statuses/1261703283489624069">1589648478.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>"This month, new reporting from New York indicated that the energy needs proposed to be served by this project could be met through existing infrastructure, energy efficiency, and other means," the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said in a statement Saturday. "With no compelling public need demonstrated, and a denial issued by New York, DEP denied approvals for the project on May 15, 2020."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New York Regulators Block Controversial Natural Gas Pipeline ... ›
- People Power Can Stop the Line 3 Tar Sands Pipeline in Minnesota ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Across the country, millions of people live within half a mile of fracking sites, like this one in Frederick, Colorado. milehightraveler / Getty Images
By Emily Pontecorvo and Naveena Sadasivam
On a spring weekend morning a few weeks ago, Judy Kelly stepped outside of her house in Broomfield, Colorado, to grab the newspaper when her nose perked up. It smelled like something was burning.
<p><br/></p>
<p>Kelly, who's 73, lives in an upscale, 55-and-up retirement community called Anthem Ranch, which sits below the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The 1,300-home development is manicured and quiet, with green lawns and landscaped roads that flower out into smaller cul-de-sacs. Its active residents enjoy their own private fitness center, pool, movie theater, and more than 90 clubs that meet in a central community center. But about a quarter of a mile away from the southern border of this retirement dreamland sits a circle of fortress-like walls that enclose the Livingston fracking site, which contains 18 wells owned by Extraction Oil and Gas.</p><p>Kelly is among <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vLyFee6vdXi_uaZliyDRYTkdKP1wmHoE/view" target="_blank">more than 200</a> Broomfield residents who have submitted complaints to the city since November, reporting chemical smells and symptoms like headaches, burning eyes, and nosebleeds that they believe are caused by oil and gas activity in the area.<span></span></p>
<img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI0MDUwMC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0MjUxNTQzMn0.RVnAakHo_HY7Zn933bFrr_AMoraKwiNnqoH98oIbTkQ/img.jpg?width=980" id="fc523" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="906f763cc7878ec90aea69f45896cd18" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
An excerpt from an email sent to the city by a resident concerned about the Livingston fracking site.
<p>When she notified the city about the smell that morning, she was told that a city inspector had been on the site already and nothing was wrong. But Kelly was on high alert. Just a few days earlier, Extraction had begun "flowback," a part of the fracking process that is <a href="https://coloradosun.com/2019/10/17/oil-and-gas-drilling-health-impacts-colorado/" target="_blank">associated with</a> <a href="https://garfield-county.com/air-quality/files/sites/33/2019/06/Garfield-County-CSU-Final-Report-presentation-06_16.pdf" target="_blank">some of the highest emission</a> rates of carcinogenic chemicals like benzene. Even under normal circumstances, flowback scared Kelly, who had followed the devastation in neighboring Weld County when one of Extraction's wells <a href="https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.18/energy-industry-how-site-workers-and-firefighters-responding-to-a-2017-natural-gas-explosion-in-windsor-colorado-narrowly-avoided-disaster" target="_blank">exploded</a> during the process in 2017, causing a major fire and injuring a worker. Kelly and her husband, who has pulmonary interstitial fibrosis, a lung disease, had planned on leaving town to stay with their son when flowback at Livingston began.</p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic threw a wrench in those plans. On March 25, when Colorado Governor Jared Polis issued a statewide stay-at-home order to stop the coronavirus's spread, Kelly and her neighbors were suddenly trapped, trying to avoid one health hazard while worrying about being exposed to another. After all, fracking <a href="https://grist.org/energy/coronavirus-has-states-hitting-pause-except-when-it-comes-to-oil-and-gas-drilling/" target="_blank">remained a "critical" business</a>, according to the state.</p><p>"Where am I going to go?" Kelly asked. "I can't go to a hotel. I can't risk that with my husband. I have nowhere to go now."</p><p>Kelly's dilemma is not unique. Across the country, <a href="https://oilandgasthreatmap.com/threat-map/" target="_blank">millions of people</a> live within half a mile of fracking sites and other oil and gas activity and are exposed to a slew of toxic chemicals in their day-to-day lives. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6616936/" target="_blank">Researchers have found</a> that those living close to fracking are more likely to suffer from cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses — the very underlying conditions that make them more vulnerable to the most severe outcomes from COVID-19. While many residents may have found ways to seek respite from these toxic emissions during normal times — whether it was working or going to school elsewhere, or simply moving in with friends and family during the most intense periods of activity — those options went out the window when state governors began announcing stay-at-home orders.</p><p>For its part, Extraction says that Anthem Ranch residents have nothing to worry about. The company did not respond to Grist's detailed list of questions, but in legal filings and public testimony it has stated that the new technology it uses for flowback has been shown to keep emissions far below the levels associated with traditional techniques. In a complaint filed in a Colorado court, the company's lawyers said that the "anxiety and stress" experienced by Broomfield residents was "self-induced."</p>
Broomfield vs. Extraction
<p>The unsettling bind that the stay-at-home order put many residents in was not lost on Laurie Anderson, a Broomfield city councilwoman who lives just half a mile from the fracking site in another neighborhood called Anthem Highlands. The night Governor Polis' order came down, a special meeting of the city council was scheduled to <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/10m9nX3vilG4IEOl0zJdfMsKIZz68jte8/view" target="_blank">discuss</a> the potential dangers of work continuing at the Livingston site during the pandemic. The council decided to draft a proposal ordering Extraction to postpone flowback — a process where the chemical-laden water used to fracture open the shale flows back to the surface and must be collected, treated, and disposed of — until the stay-at-home order was lifted.</p><p>"The thought was to protect these residents, to delay flowback, understanding that it has to happen because they've already fracked these wells," said Anderson, who is also an organizer for Moms Clean Air Force, a national advocacy group that fights polluters. "It was only going to delay them for a couple weeks."</p><p>Of particular concern was Anthem Ranch, where the median age is 70 years old. The city's public health staff drafted up an order and included <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vLyFee6vdXi_uaZliyDRYTkdKP1wmHoE/view" target="_blank">data</a> showing that people over 65 are more susceptible to COVID-19 complications, that the top symptom reported by older Broomfield residents in the city's <a href="https://broomfield.org/2842/File-an-Immediate-Concern" target="_blank">oil and gas complaint system</a> was "anxiety/stress," and that stress and anxiety are linked to poor health outcomes in general.</p><p>But two days later, before the council could discuss the draft proposal, Extraction headed them off at the pass. The company secured a temporary restraining order from the Seventeenth Judicial District Court in Colorado, which prohibited the city from halting or delaying its operations. According to court documents, Extraction alleged that the city was acting in bad faith, trying to "shut down Extraction's operations not because they pose any real health risk, but because they are unpopular." Then, on March 30, the company filed an official complaint with the district court against the city, seeking damages for a breach of contract.</p><p>It's true that this was far from the first time Broomfield had tried to interfere with Extraction's … extraction. The city has battled the company at every stage of the drilling process in response to complaints from residents about odors, health symptoms, and <a href="https://www.kunc.org/post/broomfield-tried-limiting-oil-and-gas-noise-now-company-pushing-back-0#stream/0" target="_blank">noise</a>.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI0MDUwOC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMjcxNTc5OH0.tq-Dc7C2szR3mE0MrYLfio6FLQkNxWLmV20ArQ4zwJg/img.jpg?width=980" id="534dc" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="674f50ef2de67f27aca1a58936eb425e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
An excerpt from an email sent to the city by a resident concerned about the Livingston fracking site.
<p>Several times the city has contacted the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC), a state regulatory body, to address those complaints. According to Megan Castle, a COGCC spokesperson, the agency intervened once in response to a noise issue and a second time to request the company swap drilling fluids which were causing odor complaints. Castle said the agency has conducted additional noise monitoring and did not find that the site was out of compliance with state regulations.<br></p><p>Andrew Bare, a spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said that the nature of some of the complaints — such as odors that would likely have dissipated by the time inspectors reached the site — made taking action against Extraction "difficult." Bare said that the agency sent a mobile air monitoring lab to the site in response to residents' concerns and that the lab will remain near the Livingston site for at least another two weeks.</p><p>In legal documents, Extraction claims it has gone above and beyond the best management practices required by its operating agreement with the city, including investing more than $250 million on a "Next Generation Flowback" system to reduce emissions during the <a href="https://broomfield.org/DocumentCenter/View/29674/Current-Broomfield-Project-Schedule---10-31-19?bidId=" target="_blank">two to three months</a> flowback is expected to last. At the public meeting last month, representatives from the company <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-SOMCErjKsJtHr3mjeBesrKqbwDzvMSt/view" target="_blank">explained</a> to the council that instead of storing and processing the flowback fluid on site, the company would ship it via pipeline to a facility in Weld County. They asserted that the design eliminates "99.9 percent of emissions" and significantly reduces the duration of the flowback phase. Later at the meeting, Barbara Ganong, a petroleum engineer who was hired by the city as a consultant, asserted that Extraction's decision to pipe fracking fluids offsite represented a "paradigm shift."</p><p>Air quality experts hired by the city gave a <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_N4HobIw7JMmHlD9r0kZnLPSjZnKoASR/view" target="_blank">presentation</a> showing that without this new closed system, emissions during flowback could have been 31 times higher than during fracking. Still, when they measured emissions during flowback at another Extraction well in a less populated part of town, they said emissions were still double those during fracking, even with the new system.</p>
<p>Broomfield residents interviewed by Grist were not reassured by Extraction's new technology. Kelly said the company told Broomfield that it was using the latest technology in every step of the process so far, but that the city has nevertheless had to step in multiple times after residents complained of noise and health symptoms.</p><p>"They've done nothing to make me feel like I can trust them and trust what they say," said Elizabeth Lario, who lives with her husband and daughter in the Wildgrass neighborhood a little less than a mile south of the Livingston site. Lario said she and her family have experienced migraines, nose bleeds, stress and anxiety, and throat irritation since drilling began last summer.</p><p>Broomfield fought the company's restraining order, and on April 6, the same judge who originally issued the temporary order agreed to dissolve it. He found that it was granted too soon, considering the city had not even officially taken action to delay or halt Extraction's operations yet. But the judge also issued a warning: If Broomfield exercised its regulatory powers in a way that was "arbitrary and capricious and not rationally related to combating the spread of COVID-19," it would be back where it started, facing more legal action from Extraction.</p><p>The judge's warning created a new problem for Broomfield: The city's order was designed to protect public health, but it had nothing to do with preventing the spread of the virus.</p><p>Two days after the judge dissolved the restraining order, the city council finally put its public health order to a vote, but by that point, it had become harder to justify. Anderson and other city council members tried to rewrite the order in a way that didn't flout the judge's ruling. If they did, they thought Extraction was likely to take them to court again and the restraining order might be reinstated.</p><p>"I kept thinking we'll find a way forward," said Anderson. "But sometime between that Tuesday and Wednesday it became clear that there just wasn't a way forward that wouldn't result in a legal battle."</p><p>Ultimately, Anderson and the majority of the council voted the public health order down 9 to 1.</p><p>It was a devastating blow for Kelly and some other residents. As a member of the League of Oil and Gas Impacted Coloradans, a nonprofit representing community groups and residents affected by fracking, Kelly has been at the forefront of the battle with Extraction, and in the past, the city has taken bold action to protect residents. While her home is about a mile from the Livingston site, she said she's most worried about some of her neighbors who are as close as a quarter-mile from the site.</p><p>"People that I've gotten to know over the last … almost seven years, who I really care about, are very close to it," she said. "And it scares me to death."</p>
‘Why Didn’t You Protect Us?’
<p>Leading up to that final vote, the city council was flooded with emails begging them to forge ahead with the public health order. After it decided to drop the issue, community members were on edge. Kelly said she understands why the city did what it did. But others are incredibly frustrated with the outcome. "I get so many calls from people that say, 'why didn't you protect us?'" she said. "They're so concerned about their health that they would have rather seen us in court."</p><p>One concern is what residents will do in case there is an emergency, like a major emissions release or an explosion like the one in Weld County. The Broomfield police department has told families that live within a half-mile of the site to keep a bag packed in case an evacuation is necessary. But Elizabeth Lario is not sure where her family would go. Under normal circumstances, the city's emergency shelter is its recreation center, but as long as social distancing is necessary, that no longer feels like a safe option. "The evacuation plan is to wait and hear what the evacuation plan is," Lario said.</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzI0MDU1Mi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxMDg5MjEzMn0.JG28Mziva9UU324p428TQ1zzphopRnHpBOfc0Og5bdY/img.jpg?width=980" id="6d77a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2470d4f20b48740b060fc1e459495de4" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
An excerpt from an email sent to the city by a resident concerned about the Livingston fracking site.
<p>On April 13, the Broomfield Office of Emergency Management held a telephone town hall to present evacuation instructions. Residents told Grist that instructions on where they should go were not very clear, and that the evacuation plan was fluid depending on the scale of emergency and the status of the pandemic. "It was a plan left in chaos, in my opinion, that fortunately hasn't had to be used," said Anderson.</p><p>The Broomfield police department told Grist that it uses a cell phone alert system for emergency notification. An "Emergency Management Update" powerpoint created by the department instructs residents to "follow the instructions you receive" and monitor the situation on the city's social media accounts. In the case of an evacuation, it says to go to the home of a family member or friend — and to go to the recreation center only if needed. The department advises that residents who do elect to evacuate to the recreation center remain in their cars "if quarantined/isolated."</p><p>Not all of Broomfield's citizens are worried about the fracking site. In fact, some actively opposed the city's idea to delay Extraction's work. Anderson said there had been pressure from residents who felt that the city was already wasting too many public dollars on its clashes with the company, and worried that another lawsuit could bankrupt the city. A former council member <a href="https://westernwire.net/broomfield-criticized-for-oil-and-gas-witch-hunt/" target="_blank">accused</a> the city of conducting a witch hunt.<br></p><p>Broomfield has indeed spent a significant amount of money on oil and gas oversight, including hiring additional personnel, outside counsel, and consultants. It has also deployed systems to monitor air quality and noise. The Broomfield Enterprise, a local newspaper, <a href="https://www.broomfieldenterprise.com/2020/01/10/broomfield-to-consider-emergency-noise-ordinance-2/" target="_blank">reported</a> that the city spent $1.8 million in 2018, $1.5 million in 2019, and is expected to spend $3.1 million this year just on oil and gas-related personnel and programs. The city has approved approximately <a href="https://www.broomfieldenterprise.com/2019/12/23/broomfield-air-quality-monitoring-contract-updated/" target="_blank">$1.5 million</a> for air quality monitoring contracts in 2020 alone.</p><p>Broomfield's <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CqZGbwWaZgVMWnTpC1BYfJ1FtcjDlnkp/view" target="_blank">air monitoring system</a> is impressive, given that it's a city of only about 70,000 people. The city currently has 11 new sensors set up to monitor emissions, as well as two mobile air quality laboratories and <a href="https://engr.source.colostate.edu/to-monitor-air-quality-scientists-chase-methane-plumes-in-dead-of-night/" target="_blank">a mobile "plume tracker"</a> — a Chevy Tahoe equipped to measure real-time methane concentrations in the air — from Colorado State University that will be deployed periodically. The city's sensors do not measure the specific amount of benzene and other harmful compounds in the air, but they set off "triggers" to take an air sample any time they register a spike in emissions.</p><p>Anderson hopes that collecting this data will give the town a clearer picture of the public health risks fracking poses to residential communities. She said that part of the reason the town's order was abandoned was due to a lack of data showing that flowback would put residents at greater risk. Now they are collecting that data — but by the time any potential harms come into focus, it will be too late. Residents will have been exposed.</p><p>"This community feels like guinea pigs, and I'm right there with them," she said. "We're doing things that we don't have the data to show that it's safe."</p>
<p class=""><em>This story originally appeared in</em> <a href="https://grist.org/" target="_blank"><em>Grist </em></a><em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Governor Undermines Climate Action Plan in Colorado - EcoWatch ›
- A Must Read Account of Fracking Colorado - EcoWatch ›
- Trump Advances Fracking on Colorado Public Land - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare burns in the Permian Basin in Texas. Bronte Wittpenn / Bloomberg Creative Photos
The largest oil and gas producing area in the U.S. is emitting more than twice as much methane as previously believed.
<p>The calculations came in a study of the Permian Basin published in <a href="https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/17/eaaz5120" target="_blank">Science Advances Wednesday</a> and undertaken by scientists at Harvard University and the <a href="https://www.edf.org/" target="_blank">Environmental Defense Fund</a> (EDF). The findings cast doubt on the argument that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> is a cleaner energy source than <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> when it comes to fueling the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/" target="_self">climate crisis</a>.</p><p>"Our study found that the quantity of methane emitted in the Permian Basin [is] the highest ever measured from any U.S. oil and gas basin. This is a really big deal from a climate standpoint," lead authors Harvard atmospheric scientist Yuzhong Zhang and EDF scientist Ritesh Gautam said in an <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/permian-basin-oil-fields-leak-enough-methane-for-7-million-homes" target="_blank">email to Bloomberg Wednesday</a>.</p>
<div id="10cec" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bb6b222d01cf4c76a45619b2033c42f1"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1254153333079707649" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">New satellite study: "There's so much methane escaping from Permian oil and gas operations that it nearly triples t… https://t.co/WBc9ADUjxT</div> — Fred Krupp (@Fred Krupp)<a href="https://twitter.com/FredKrupp/statuses/1254153333079707649">1587848430.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The Permian Basin, which straddles West Texas and New Mexico, produces more than a third of the country's oil and 10 percent of its natural gas, according to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/methane-permian-basin-oil-gas-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR2TIwNX6rZpo3ErIXu8O4fc0A7Uu07oWEA7WRpXyZsk3jyNX_EHJLyE4nM" target="_blank">CBS News</a>. The researchers used 200,000 individual readings from the European Space Agency's TROPOMI satellite instrument to determine the field was leaking 3.7 percent of the methane it produces, <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2020/04/22/satellites-and-state-regulators-new-data-spotlights-extreme-emissions-and-need-for-action-in-nations-largest-oilfield/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=fkrupp_none_upd_marcomm&utm_medium=social-media&utm_id=1587752428" target="_blank">EDF reported</a>. That's more than two times the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimate, according to <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22042020/permian-basin-methane-emissions-texas-new-mexico" target="_blank">InsideClimate News</a>. It's also enough wasted gas to power 7 million Texas homes and as much greenhouse gas pollution as the carbon dioxide emissions of all U.S. homes, the study found.</p><p>What's more, it nearly triples the climate impact of the natural gas produced in the region over the last 20 years, according to EDF, challenging the argument that natural gas can be a cleaner bridge fuel in the transition from coal to renewable energy.</p>
<p>"The most <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ese3.35" target="_blank">up-to-date thinking</a> is that for comparing coal and natural gas to generate electricity, gas is worse than coal if the methane emission rate is greater than 2.7%," Cornell University methane expert Dr. Robert Howarth, who was not involved in the study, told CBS News. At 3.7 percent, the Permian Basin leakage rate definitely fits the bill.</p><p>Methane is so dangerous for the climate because it is around 28 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the planet over 100 years and more than 80 times more powerful over 20 years, according to <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/methane/" target="_blank">National Geographic</a>. Because it only stays in the atmosphere for 12 years, however, reducing its emissions can have a more immediate impact on fighting global warming, InsideClimate News pointed out.</p><p>The increased emissions are partly linked to the rise of <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" target="_self">fracking</a>, which, along with horizontal drilling, has driven the increase in U.S. oil and gas production since 2005, according to CBS News.</p><p>"After staying level for the first decade of the 21st century, methane emissions have been rising quickly over the past decade," Howarth told CBS. "My <a href="https://www.biogeosciences.net/16/3033/2019/" target="_blank">research</a> indicates that shale gas development in the U.S. is responsible for at least one-third of the total increase in these emissions globally."</p>
<p>The study's authors had several recommendations for how oil and gas producers could reduce methane emissions, such as improving design, management, regulation and infrastructure.</p><p>However, the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/trump-administration" target="_self">Trump administration</a> is making it easier for the industry to sidestep improvements.</p><p>"Trump's EPA has proposed to substantially weaken or even eliminate regulations, adopted during the Obama administration, to control methane emissions from oil and gas facilities," Romany Webb, a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, told CBS.</p><p>There is also the question of how the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/oil-prices-fall-below-zero-2645784342.html" target="_self">fall in oil demand</a> prompted by the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coronavirus" target="_self">coronavirus</a> pandemic will impact methane emissions. The data in the study was collected over 11 months in 2018 and 2019, when production and demand was normal.</p><p>"There is going to be a lot less wells being drilled, probably less gas being flared, even wells [that] will [probably] be shut in," study coauthor and EDF scientist David Lyon told InsideClimate News. "If that is done properly, then I think you will have less emissions. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of operators cut back on their environmental staff and they do [fewer] leak inspections and other activities that would reduce emissions. They may have less ability to respond to malfunctions and things that cause emissions."</p>
From Your Site Articles
- Exxon Now Wants to Write the Rules for Regulating Methane ... ›
- CEO of Major Shale Oil Company 'Has Second Thoughts' on ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery illuminates the sky on August 21, 2019 in Norco, Louisiana. Drew Angerer / Getty Images
By Jessica Corbett
As calls for a People's Bailout in response to the coronavirus pandemic continue to grow across the United States, a new analysis warns that the country's Big Oil companies "stand to reap yet another billion dollar bailout" thanks to the Federal Reserve's plans to buy up to $750 billion in corporate debt.
The analysis (pdf), released Wednesday by the advocacy group Friends of the Earth (FOE), explains that this expected bailout for polluters relates to a controversial $500 billion corporate slush fund included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that Congress passed in March.
<p>According to FOE's report, <em>The Big Oil Money Pit</em>:</p><blockquote>Of that amount, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin enjoys direct control over a comparatively small $46 billion reserved for aviation and industries deemed essential to "national security." But the remaining $454 billion went to the Federal Reserve, which will use the money to implement emergency lending programs for corporations and municipalities. Secretary Mnuchin must approve these lending programs and wields considerable power over their design, but the money itself will move through the Fed.<br>After weeks of unprecedented human suffering and an ongoing failure to support frontline workers, the Fed announced on April 9, 2020 how it would spend the first $195 billion of the slush fund. A full $75 billion would go to buy corporate debt. But because the Fed can leverage money appropriated by Congress, the real size of this program is $750 billion. Considering that a majority of the money from the first stimulus [is] still unspent, there is plenty of room for this program to grow.<br></blockquote><p>FOE found that the fossil fuel giants ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Conoco "are together eligible for a maximum $19.4 billion in benefits, based on their credit ratings and outstanding long-term debt."</p>
<div id="0f3d4" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ffa4587779be08a5a8dff623feb89e8b"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1250456629532692481" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">NEW ANALYSIS: Trump’s admin just announced a $750 billion corporate slush fund -- money that will enrich oil execs… https://t.co/9fz8NWZzDv</div> — Friends of the Earth (@Friends of the Earth)<a href="https://twitter.com/foe_us/statuses/1250456629532692481">1586967067.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The Fed <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/03/24/blackrock-must-manage-climate-risk-it-takes-fed-debt-buyout-program" target="_blank">has hired</a> BlackRock, the world's largest asset manager, to administer part of its debt-buying efforts related to the pandemic. "As BlackRock begins purchasing 'high yield' exchange-traded funds (ETFs) to bolster corporate debt markets," FOE warns, "energy companies (predominantly oil and gas) stand to benefit disproportionately as the largest single issuer of junk bonds, at 11% of the entire U.S. market."</p>
<p>Other key takeaways from the report include:</p><ul><li>There are 12 fracking-focused oil and gas companies that could potentially qualify for the new program. Together, they may be eligible for over $24.1 billion in potential benefits.</li><li>Major fracking company Continental Resources, whose debt was recently downgraded to below investment grade by S&P, is potentially eligible for as much as $1.5 billion under new, weaker standards announced by the Federal Reserve.</li></ul>
<p>Echoing climate campaigners' <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/03/we-need-peoples-bailout-not-polluters-bailout-climate-groups-move-preempt-big-oil" target="_blank">comments</a> after President Donald Trump met with fossil fuel executives at the White House earlier this month, FOE senior policy analyst Lukas Ross <a href="https://foe.org/news/new-report-big-oils-money-pit-to-reap-stimulus-billions/" target="_blank">said</a> in a statement Wednesday that "oil company bailouts are simply throwing good money after bad."</p><p>"Congress and the Democrats must stop this endless stream of handouts to an industry that is exploiting a public health crisis for financial gain," Ross declared. "These potential payoffs to major campaign contributors are the least efficient way of re-starting the economy and will just serve to enrich oil executives."</p><p>"Oil companies are trying to punt the financial reckoning of their fracking debacle and Congress should not enable their addiction with public tax dollars," he added. "Instead of pumping money into an irresponsible industry that plays shell games with its debt, Congress should focus on providing direct support to workers and communities on the frontlines of coronavirus."</p><p>As the Trump administration has<a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/03/19/amid-climate-crisis-and-raging-pandemic-trump-blasted-morally-bankrupt-multibillion" target="_blank"> tried</a> to spend billions of taxpayers dollars to "fill up" the country's Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) and major banks are <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/10/critics-decry-massive-step-wrong-direction-big-banks-move-buy-fracking-industry" target="_blank">reportedly preparing</a> to take over fossil fuel assets with CARES Act funding, climate action advocates have <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/03/we-need-peoples-bailout-not-polluters-bailout-climate-groups-move-preempt-big-oil" target="_blank">charged</a> that "we need a people's bailout, not a polluters' bailout!"</p><p>Hundreds of community leaders, lawmakers, and groups—including FOE—have joined the demand for Congress to pursue a <a href="https://thepeoplesbailout.org/" target="_blank">people's bailout</a> guided by five key principles:</p>
<div id="90a82" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="d4dd414f6709a83588b90e27c5ce37cb"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1250127963166826497" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The response to one existential crisis must not fuel another. Let's not perpetuate the status quo of fossil fuel pr… https://t.co/VJPOCAFuxd</div> — Sierra Club (@Sierra Club)<a href="https://twitter.com/SierraClub/statuses/1250127963166826497">1586888707.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>The new FOE report includes some specific calls to action directed at Congress:</p><ul> <li>Prioritize direct aid to still neglected workers and communities on the frontlines of the crisis.</li><li>Engage in aggressive oversight to ensure BlackRock does not benefit unfairly from purchasing its own products or needlessly bolster fossil fuel assets.</li><li>Eliminate Secretary Mnuchin's authority to waive crucial protections banning companies receiving bailouts stock buybacks.</li><li>Make future stimulus aid conditional on new and binding protections for workers and the environment.</li><li>Make oil, gas, and coal companies ineligible for support from existing stimulus programs, unless it is conditioned on a phaseout of existing production and an iron-clad commitment to existing pension and environmental liabilities.</li></ul><p>"Much more work needs to be done, both to support workers and families in the face of COVID-19 and to prevent a runaway bailout of the fossil fuel industry," the report says. "Congress cannot afford to wait."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/15/amid-calls-peoples-bailout-feds-corporate-debt-buying-could-mean-billion-dollar-big" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Trump Bails Out Oil Industry, Not U.S. Families, as Coronavirus ... ›
- Trump Blasted for 'Morally Bankrupt' Multibillion-Dollar Big Oil ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
A large fracking operation with Mount Meeker and Longs Peak looming in the background on December 28, 2017 in Loveland, Colorado. Helen H. Richardson / The Denver Post / Getty Images
by Andrea Germanos
The Trump administration on Friday released a new land use plan for southwestern Colorado that community and conservation advocacy groups warn is a "dangerous" pathway towards increased fossil fuel extraction that makes no "climate, ecological, or economic sense."
<p>Published officially Friday in the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/10/2020-07316/notice-of-availability-of-the-record-of-decision-for-the-uncompahgre-field-office-approved-resource" target="_blank">Federal Register</a>, the Bureau of Land Management's "Approved Resource Management Plan" for the Uncompahgre Field Office affects 675,800 acres of public lands and 971,220 acres of federal mineral estate and spans six counties. It gives a 20-year blueprint for how the land can be used for purposes such as oil and gas drilling as well as livestock grazing, and was issued by the Interior Department over objections raised in public comments.</p><p>The advocacy groups opposed to the plan <a href="https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-administration-plan-expands-fossil-fuel-extraction-across-southwestern-colorado-2020-04-09/" target="_blank">say</a> that expanding fracking in the region over the next decades will not only add fuel to the planetary climate crisis, but will also adversely impact local organic agriculture and endangered species.</p><p>"This plan, unconscionable as the connections between fossil fuel emissions and global climate change become clearer every day, has the potential to exponentially increase greenhouse gas pollution in the region over the next decade, when we need to be drastically reducing emissions," said Melissa Hornbein with the Western Environmental Law Center.</p>
<p>According to the groups,</p><blockquote>The plan would allow fracking on more than half of the 675,000 acres of public land and almost a million acres of federal minerals that it covers, and coal extraction on another 371,000 acres. The BLM's environmental impact analysis fails to tally direct and indirect climate pollution that would result from fossil fuel production.<br></blockquote><p>According to Natasha Léger, executive director of Citizens for a Healthy Community, the plan is "exactly the type of federal action that is responsible for accelerating climate and environmental degradation, which cannot be allowed to stand if we have any hope of protecting present and future generations, rare and irreplaceable ecosystems like the North Fork, and meeting Colorado's goals for a clean and renewable energy future."</p><p>The new plan sets up a clash between Colorado's new law calling for a halving of carbon emissions by 2030 and what the advocacy groups say could be a 2,300% increase over the next decade in climate pollution as a result of the BLM's proposal for increased oil and gas extraction.</p><p>"Ultimately," said Rebecca Fischer, climate and energy program attorney for WildEarth Guardians, "the Trump administration is testing Colorado's commitment to its new climate law, and its success depends on the state stepping up to defend bold climate action."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/04/10/trump-advances-climate-doom-massive-fracking-expansion-federal-lands-colorado" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>From Your Site Articles
- Fracking Fight Continues in Colorado - EcoWatch ›
- A Must Read Account of Fracking Colorado - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Crude oil extraction pump pulling crude oil up to the surface and pushing it into pipelines in the Permian Basin in West Texas on May 27, 2018. ©Studio One-One / Moment / Getty Images
ExxonMobil is a company capable of contradictions. It has been lobbying against government efforts to address climate change while running ads touting its own efforts to do so.
<p>And while the oil giant has been responsible for massive methane releases, Exxon has now proposed a new <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">regulatory framework</a> for cutting emissions of this powerful greenhouse gas that it hopes regulators and industry will adopt. As Exxon put it, the goal is to achieve "<a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">cost-effective and reasonable methane-emission regulations</a>."</p>
<p class=""><em>Reposted with permission from <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/16/exxon-write-rules-regulating-methane-emissions">DeSmog</a>.</em></p>
<p>So, why is Exxon asking to be regulated?</p><p>The answer may be simply that Exxon is very good at public relations. As industry publication <a href="https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/121215-exxonmobil-urges-energy-industry-policymakers-to-embrace-methane-oversight" target="_blank">Natural Gas Intelligence reported</a>, this announcement "comes as energy operators face increasing pressure from lenders and shareholders to engage in decarbonization by following environmental, social, and governance standards."</p>
<div id="3031e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="A0CFO81584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1234997313581375490" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">ExxonMobil is proposing new rules to cut methane emissions. We think it makes sense for industries to work together… https://t.co/NnLNZ2yO5O</div> — ExxonMobil (@ExxonMobil)<a href="https://twitter.com/exxonmobil/statuses/1234997313581375490">1583281279.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Exxon's proposed regulations have three main objectives: finding and detecting leaks, minimizing the direct venting of methane as part of oil and gas operations, and record keeping and reporting.</p><p>Casey Norton, Exxon's Corporate Media Relations Manager, explained to DeSmog that Exxon's proposal was not expected to be adopted as-is by regulatory agencies. "This is a starting point for conversations with policy makers and other regulators," he said. "For example, New Mexico, Argentina, the EU, who are all considering new regulations for methane emissions."</p><p>Under President Trump, the federal government last year rolled back Obama-era rules for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/18/climate/trump-methane-rollback.html" target="_blank">for restricting these emissions during drilling</a> on public lands.</p><p>This isn't Exxon's first foray into voluntary regulations of methane. The corporation's natural gas subsidiary XTO started a <a href="https://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-expands-methane-emissions-reduction-program" target="_blank">voluntary methane emissions</a> program in 2017. In June 2018, XTO noted that the voluntary program, which was mostly about replacing leaking valves, had reduced <a href="https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180625005080/en/ExxonMobil%25E2%2580%2599s-XTO-Energy-Announces-Progress-Methane-Emissions" target="_blank">methane emissions by 7,200 metric tons since 2016</a>.</p>
<p>However, leaking valves are not the biggest source of methane emissions. In February 2018, four months before XTO was touting the success of its methane reduction program, the company experienced the second largest methane leak in U.S. history. A gas well it operated in Ohio suffered a blowout, releasing huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas.</p><p>Did XTO's voluntary program accurately report this? As The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/16/climate/methane-leak-satellite.html" target="_blank">New York Times reported</a>, "XTO Energy said it could not immediately determine how much gas had leaked."</p><p>But a group of scientists using satellite data eventually did pin down the amount released — 120 metric tons an hour for 20 days. That adds up to roughly 50,000 metric tons more released than the 7,200 metric tons in reductions XTO was claiming months later. That one leak was estimated to be more than the methane emissions of the total oil and gas industry of countries like Norway.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/future-exxon-permian-flaring-crisis-air-pollution" target="_blank">DeSmog reported</a>, XTO is also <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">flaring </a>the most natural gas of any company in the Permian oil field (natural gas is almost 90 percent methane). While flaring isn't as bad for the climate as directly venting the methane into the atmosphere, it is increasing the levels of carbon dioxide and toxic air pollutants and is another problem the industry is saying it will address even as the practice <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-11/permian-s-gas-burning-black-eye-is-30-worse-than-thought" target="_blank">continues on a large scale</a>.</p>
<p>And now the same company is recommending that the rest of the industry and regulators <a href="https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/newsroom/publications-and-reports/Mitigating-Methane-Emissions-from-the-Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Model-Regulatory-Framework.pdf" target="_blank">adopt their approach</a> to regulating methane emissions.</p><p>"It is not target-based, it is not volume-based," Exxon's Norton said. "Again, it's starting a conversation, saying these are things that you can look at."</p><p>Robert Howarth, <a href="https://ecologyandevolution.cornell.edu/robert-warren-howarth" target="_blank">a biogeochemist at Cornell University</a> whose work focuses on methane emmissions in the oil and gas industry, drew attention to areas of Exxon's framework he thought were lacking. For starters, he pointed out that the proposed framework does not mention emissions from "imperfect well casings and from abandoned wells," which Howarth says "can be significant." He also noted that the proposal does not describe "a methodology for characterizing any of these emissions; there are techniques for doing so, but there is not much demonstrated use of these techniques by industry."</p><p>Finally — and this is the real danger with any sort of industry self-regulation — Howarth said there must be some type of independent oversight to assess actual emissions instead of relying on the industry to self-report. XTO's well blowout in Ohio is an excellent example of why this third-party verification is critical. Without oversight, the "system is ripe for abuse," according to Howarth.</p><p>Sharon Wilson of environmental advocacy group Earthworks <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/01/30/sharon-wilson-methane-leaks-permian-basin-oilfields" target="_blank">documents</a> the oil and gas industry's current widespread practices of <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/11/14/methane-sharon-wilson-earthworks-permian-basin-fracking" target="_blank">flaring and venting methane. </a>Sharing her concerns about Exxon's methane emissions proposal, she told DeSmog,"Exxon's recent announcement is too little too late when it comes to the climate crisis they've help cause and are still making worse. Reducing methane emissions by any percentage is not enough when Exxon continues to expand sources of the same climate pollution." </p><p>Wilson called for the company to support federal and state rules to cut methane.</p>
Trump Administration Reversed Existing Methane Regulations
<p>Methane emissions have become <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/08/14/fracking-shale-gas-drilling-methane-spike-howarth" target="_blank">a much bigger issue</a> in the last decade since the <span style="background-color: initial;">U.S.</span> boom in shale <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/oil-and-gas">oil and gas</a> produced by <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a>. Despite <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2016/07/21/investing/trump-energy-plan-obama-oil-boom/index.html" target="_blank">overseeing a huge rise in oil and gas production</a>, the Obama administration acknowledged the methane problem and <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/05/12/administration-takes-historic-action-reduce-methane-emission-oil-and-gas-sector" target="_blank">proposed and adopted new methane emissions regulations</a>, which the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/09/10/key-facts-trump-epa-plan-obama-methane-leaks-rule" target="_blank">Trump administration has since repealed</a>.</p><p>The Trump administration has staffed regulatory agencies with former industry executives and lobbyists who have been quite successful at rolling back environmental, health, and safety rules.</p><p>Last August former coal lobbyist and current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/andrew-wheeler" target="_blank">Andrew Wheeler</a> <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-proposes-updates-air-regulations-oil-and-gas-remove-redundant-requirements-and-1" target="_blank">explained the reasoning</a> for removing the Obama methane rules.</p><p>"EPA's proposal delivers on President Trump's executive order and removes unnecessary and duplicative regulatory burdens from the oil and gas industry," Wheeler said. "The Trump administration recognizes that methane is valuable, and the industry has an incentive to minimize leaks and maximize its use."</p><p>The problem with this free-market assumption is that Wheeler is wrong about the industry's financial incentive to limit methane emissions.</p><div id="8445e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="72W83E1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1113551571755982855" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The unreal natural gas prices in the #Permian get even more unreal:
Nat gas at the Waha hub (near El Paso) have ho… https://t.co/Zfj0XfXIJh</div> — Javier Blas (@Javier Blas)<a href="https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/statuses/1113551571755982855">1554326358.0</a></blockquote></div><p><a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2020/03/11/us-natural-gas-lng-export-chesapeake-financial-struggle" target="_blank">There is too much natural gas</a>, aka methane, flooding world energy markets right now. Current prices to buy it are lower than the costs to produce it. The methane currently produced in Texas' Permian Basin spent a good portion of last year at negative prices. There is no financial incentive for producers in the Permian to voluntarily cut methane emissions in the current market environment.</p><p>That is why Permian producers <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/01/29/fracking-industry-gas-flaring-problem" target="_blank">are flaring</a> (openly burning) it at record levels as well as directly releasing (venting) methane into the rapidly warming atmosphere. So much for letting the free market address the issue.</p>
Even the Remaining Regulations Are Controlled by Industry
<p>While the Trump administration has rolled back many regulations for the oil and gas industry, the regulatory system in the U.S. was already designed to protect industry profits — not the public or environment. When the federal government creates regulations, the process can be heavily influenced by industry lobbyists, and if they don't agree with the regulations, there are many ways they can get them revised to favor their companies.</p><p>While Exxon <a href="https://www.axios.com/exxon-epa-regulate-methane-emissions-oil-gas--0befdde6-e0fe-49db-a200-38299853b43d.html" target="_blank">did publicly say </a>in 2018 that it didn't support repealing the existing methane regulations, the company also wrote to the <span style="background-color: initial;">EPA</span> voicing support for certain aspects of the <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/american-petroleum-institute" target="_blank">American Petroleum Institute's</a> (<span style="background-color: initial;">API</span>) comments on the issue, and the <span style="background-color: initial;">API</span> <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/08/oil-gas-lobby-split-by-trump-rollback-of-methane-rules/" target="_blank">approved removing the regulations.</a> In that letter Exxon used the same language it is now using with its propsed regulations, saying any rules need to be "cost-effective" and "reasonable." But if the regulations are cost-effective, will they actually be effective in reducing methane emissions in a meaningful way?</p><img lazy-loadable="true" src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMjg4MDY3NS9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY0NjAyNjM1NH0._FkQjtD7IdxsBjyG4C48LKbFNnq5d0dj7n6kYoadYjw/img.png?width=980" id="ef457" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6a80e7ae5ddbf00618b6efbabd60441f" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Excerpt from Exxon letter to EPA about methane regulations. ExxonMobil
<p><a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-safety-rules-on-oil-drilling-were-changed-some-staff-objected-those-notes-were-cut-11582731559" target="_blank">The Wall Street Journal</a> recently highlighted the influence that the oil and gas industry and its major U.S. trade group the American Petroleum Institute can have over regulations. After the deadly 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the federal government put into place new safeguards known as the "well control rule" in order to prevent another disaster during deepwater offshore drilling.</p><p>In 2019, the Trump administration revised the rule, <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/05/03/720008093/trump-administration-moves-to-roll-back-offshore-drilling-safety-regulations" target="_blank">weakening it</a>, even though, as the Journal reported, federal regulatory staff did not agree "that an industry-crafted protocol for managing well pressure was sufficient in all situations, the records show." The staff was ignored. (And the move is <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/suit-filed-over-well-control-rule-repeal" target="_blank">undergoing a legal challenge</a>.)</p><p>Industry crafted protocol. Just the thing Exxon is now proposing.</p><p>This type of industry control over the regulatory process was also brought to light after two Boeing 737 MAX planes crashed and killed 346 people. Boeing had fought to make sure that pilots weren't required to undergo expensive and lengthy training to navigate the new plane.</p><p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-737max/designed-by-clowns-boeing-employees-ridicule-737-max-regulators-in-internal-messages-idUSKBN1Z902N" target="_blank">Reuters reported </a>on internal communications at Boeing which revealed the airplane maker simply would not let simulator training be required by regulators:</p><p>"I want to stress the importance of holding firm that there will not be any type of simulator training required to transition from NG to MAX," Boeing's 737 chief technical pilot said in a March 2017 email.</p><p>"Boeing will not allow that to happen. We'll go face to face with any regulator who tries to make that a requirement."</p><p>Boeing got its way. And 346 people died.</p><div id="384c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="BGIMBL1584454354"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1236300589262405632" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Nearly a year after a second crash of a Boeing 737 MAX that led to its grounding, the full extent of the company’s… https://t.co/uUHyItbBrD</div> — The Daily Beast (@The Daily Beast)<a href="https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/statuses/1236300589262405632">1583592004.0</a></blockquote></div><p>For the past six years, I have reported on the failed regulatory process governing the moving of dangerous crude oil by rail (and even <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/07/09/bomb-trains-oil-rail-threat-book" target="_blank">wrote a book about it</a>). The only meaningful safety regulation that resulted from a multi-year process was requiring oil trains to have modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes.</p><p>As <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">I reported</a>, shortly after this regulation was enacted, Matthew Rose, CEO of the largest oil-by-rail company BNSF, told an industry conference that "the only thing we don't like about [the new regulation] is the electronic braking" and "this rule will have to be changed in the future." As per the wishes of Matthew Rose, <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/12/10/trump-admin-repeal-oil-train-safety-rule-electronically-controlled-pneumatic-brakes" target="_blank">that rule was repealed </a>despite the substantial evidence clearly showing this modern braking system greatly increases train safety. </p><p>A recent op-ed from an editor at the trade publication Railway Age referred to these oil trains as a "<a href="https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/double-trouble-in-saskatchewan/" target="_blank">clear and present danger</a>." Nevertheless, these trains hauling volatile oil through North American communities are still operating with braking systems engineered in the late 1800s.</p>
Exxon Touts 'Sound Science' Despite Its History
<p>Exxon's methane proposal states that any regulations should be based on "sound science." This statement is coming from a company whose scientists <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken" target="_blank">accurately predicted the impacts of burning fossil fuels</a> on the climate decades ago and yet has spent the time since then <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/09/03/study-finds-exxon-misled-public-withholding-climate-knowledge" target="_blank">misleading the public</a> about that science.</p><p>The current regulatory system in America does not protect the public interest. Letting Exxon take the lead in the place of regulators doesn't seem like it's going to help.</p><p>Megan Milliken Biven is a former federal analyst for the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency that regulates the oil industry's offshore activity. Milliken Biven explained to DeSmog what she saw as the root cause of the regulatory process's failure.<br><br>"Regulatory capture isn't really the problem," Milliken Biven said. "The system was designed to work for industry so regulatory capture isn't even required."</p>From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Six Democratic primary candidates participated in the ninth debate in Las Vegas Wednesday. Mario Tama / Getty Images
The climate crisis got its moment in the sun during the ninth Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas Wednesday.
<p>The six qualifying candidates discussed the issue for a full 16 minutes, <a href="https://grist.org/politics/climate-was-public-enemy-no-2-after-mike-bloomberg-at-nevadas-democratic-debate/" target="_blank">Grist reported</a>. The debate also marked the first time that a climate journalist was numbered among the moderators: Telemundo climate correspondent Vanessa Huac, who has covered environmental issues for more than 20 years.</p><p>"People in the United States and all over our planet are realizing that climate change is one of the most important issues of our times," <a href="https://news.wbfo.org/post/first-time-climate-journalist-will-moderate-presidential-debate" target="_blank">Huac told NPR Tuesday ahead of the debate</a>. "So, this is a great opportunity to really raise this issue and raise important questions to the candidates to see what are the plans, what are the proposals, how are they planning to face this existential crisis that we're facing."</p><p>This sense of public urgency around the issue is reflected in the pool of Nevadans who are likely to participate in the Democratic caucus Saturday. Eighty-six percent of them rated climate and the environment as very important or the most important issue of 2020, according to a <a href="https://www.lcv.org/" target="_blank">League of Conservation Voters</a> and <a href="https://nevadaconservationleague.org/" target="_blank">Nevada Conservation League</a> <a href="https://www.lcv.org/article/new-nevada-poll-climate-change-defining-issue-caucusgoers-especially-latinos/" target="_blank">poll released last week</a>. The poll also found that the issue came second to health care for most voters when deciding who to vote for. But for Latinx voters, who make up 20 percent of the Nevada voting block, climate was even more important than health care and immigration, <a href="https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18022020/nevada-caucus-climate-change-among-latino-voters-vanessa-hauc" target="_blank">InsideClimate News reported</a>.</p>
<div id="b1051" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="81EU2R1582207511"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230327285603012608" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">As we kick off climate talk in the #DemDebate, remember 86% of likely caucus-goers in Nevada think climate & the en… https://t.co/1RMNH0DvHK</div> — LCV – League of Conservation Voters (@LCV – League of Conservation Voters)<a href="https://twitter.com/LCVoters/statuses/1230327285603012608">1582167857.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>So how did the candidates address voters' concerns?</p><h3>Climate Solutions</h3><p>Wednesday's climate discussion was kicked off by Jon Ralston of the Nevada Independent, who pointed out that Reno and Las Vegas were among the fastest-warming cities in the country. He then directed his first question at former Vice President Joe Biden.</p><p>"What specific policies would you implement that would keep Las Vegas and Reno livable, but also not hurt those economies?" he asked, according to an <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/full-transcript-ninth-democratic-debate-las-vegas-n1139546" target="_blank">NBC debate transcript</a>.</p><p>Biden first focused on technical solutions, saying he would invest $47 billion in renewable energy and battery technology. He also said he would reverse President Donald Trump's environmental rollbacks and install 500,000 new electric vehicle charging stations in every highway his administration built or repaired.</p><p>"And I would invest in rail, in rail. Rail can take hundreds of thousands, millions of cars off the road if we have high-speed rail," Biden said.</p>
<div id="e4c0f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="2S6UK51582207511"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230333813726814210" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">While calling climate change the existential threat facing humanity, @JoeBiden calls for greater investments in gre… https://t.co/AGBQMGwTiW</div> — LCV – League of Conservation Voters (@LCV – League of Conservation Voters)<a href="https://twitter.com/LCVoters/statuses/1230333813726814210">1582169414.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p><br>Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, touted his success shuttering 304 of 530 <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal" target="_self">coal</a> plants in the U.S. as part of his<a href="https://beyondcoal.bloomberg.org/" target="_blank"> Beyond Coal</a> campaign with the <a href="https://www.sierraclub.org/" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>. He also said he would rejoin the <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement" target="_self">Paris agreement</a>.</p><p>Senator <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/elizabeth-warren" target="_self">Elizabeth Warren</a> (D-Mass.) repeated her argument that addressing climate change requires addressing corruption in government.</p><p>"The first thing I want to do in Washington is pass my anti-corruption bill so that we can start making the changes we need to make on climate," she said. "And the second is the filibuster. If you're not willing to roll back the filibuster, then you're giving the fossil fuel industry a veto overall of the work that we need to do."</p>
<h3>Fracking</h3><p>One major point of disagreement between the candidates was on whether or not to ban <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/" target="_self">fracking</a>.</p><p>Both Sen. Amy Klobuchar, (D-Minn.) and Bloomberg argued that <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/natural-gas" target="_self">natural gas</a> is a "transitional fuel" between dirtier fuels like coal and renewable energy. Klobuchar said she would review every natural gas permit on a case-by-case basis and only approve them if they were safe. Bloomberg also said it was important to make sure natural gas extraction was done properly to not release excess methane. But he said it was not possible to abandon the fuel.</p><p>"We want to go to all renewables. But that's still many years from now," Bloomberg said.</p><p>Sen. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/bernie-sanders" target="_self">Bernie Sanders</a> (I-Vt.), on the other hand, has called for a fracking ban within the next five years, and addressed concerns that such a ban would hurt jobs. Sanders said the moment was too urgent not to act, and that the Green New Deal he supports would create as many as 20 million well-paying jobs.</p><p>"This is a moral issue, my friends. We have to take the responsibility of making sure that the planet we leave our children and grandchildren is a planet that is healthy and habitable," he said. "That is more important than the profits of the fossil fuel industry."</p>
<div id="eb565" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9M13JK1582207511"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230337328205488128" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"We are fighting for the future of this planet," said @BernieSanders. "And the #GreenNewDeal, which I support by th… https://t.co/kTosBHGPCM</div> — LCV – League of Conservation Voters (@LCV – League of Conservation Voters)<a href="https://twitter.com/LCVoters/statuses/1230337328205488128">1582170252.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>Also on the issue of jobs, Warren was challenged on her plan to ban mining and drilling on public lands, which is an important industry in Nevada. Public lands are also potential sources of minerals like lithium and copper necessary for renewable energy technology.</p><p>Warren said she would make an exception for minerals that are needed to transition away from fossil fuels.</p><p>"If we need to make exceptions because there are specific minerals that we've got to have access to, then we locate those and we do it not in a way that just is about the profits of giant industries, but in a way that is sustainable for the environment," she said.</p>
<h3>China</h3><p>Another point of disagreement was how to respond to <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/china" target="_self">China</a>, which is currently the world's No. 1 emitter of greenhouse gases.</p><p>Bloomberg argued that it was important not to "go to war" with China on emissions but rather to negotiate.</p><p>"What you have to do is convince the Chinese that it is in their interest, as well. Their people are going to die just as our people are going to die. And we'll work together," he said.</p><p>But Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg argued for the need for "hard tools" to ensure emissions fell worldwide.</p><p>"I'm a little skeptical of the idea that convincing is going to do the trick when it comes to working with China," he said. "America has repeatedly overestimated our ability to shape Chinese ambitions."</p>
<h3>Environmental Justice</h3><p>Both Biden and Warren, unprompted, raised the issue of environmental justice.</p><p>"[M]inority communities are the communities that are being most badly hurt by the way in which we deal with climate change," Biden said while answering a question about his plans to hold fossil fuel executives accountable for their pollution. "They are the ones that become the victims. That's where the asthma is, that's where the groundwater supply has been polluted. That's where, in fact, people, in fact, do not have the opportunity to be able to get away from everything from asbestos in the walls of our schools."</p><p>Warren later spoke up to "make sure that the question of environmental justice gets more than a glancing blow in this debate."</p>
<div id="55a80" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="COU72T1582207511"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1230333782579871748" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">.@ewarren was the first candidate on the stage to bring up the impact of racist environmental policies on communiti… https://t.co/YPTK6WgYiI</div> — Indivisible Guide (@Indivisible Guide)<a href="https://twitter.com/IndivisibleTeam/statuses/1230333782579871748">1582169406.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p>She touted her $1 trillion dollar plan to repair the environmental damage that had already been done to communities of color.</p><p>"We have to own up to our responsibility," she said. "We cannot simply talk about climate change in big, global terms. We need to talk about it in terms of rescuing the communities that have been damaged."</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
- Sprawl, climate crisis combine to hit disadvantaged communities the ... ›
- The hellish future of Las Vegas in the climate crisis: 'A place where ... ›
- How the Climate Crisis is Impacting Nevada | Climate Reality ›
- Climate Crisis In Nevada: What's Being Done? | Nevada Public Radio ›
- For Many Nevada Latino Voters, Action on Climate Change is Key ... ›
Read More
Show Less
Sanders Introduces Bills to Ban Fracking, Require National Cleanup Effort of Drinking Water
31 January
Politics
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to guests during a campaign stop at Berg Middle School on Jan. 11 Newton, Iowa. Scott Olson / Getty Images
While Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been in Washington this week for the impeachment trial, he has put forth two bills to help the environment.
<p>On Tuesday, he pushed forward a bill to ban hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480777-sanders-introduces-bill-to-ban-hydraulic-fracking" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>. The <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3247/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Sanders%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2" target="_blank">bill</a>, titled "A bill to ban the practice of hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes," will go to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for review. </p>
<p>While the text of the bill is not yet available, Sen. Jeff Merkley from Oregon is a co-sponsor of the bill. On Thursday, Sanders <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1222960113910210561" target="_blank">tweeted</a> that he also worked on the bill with Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Darren Soto (D-Fla.), as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480777-sanders-introduces-bill-to-ban-hydraulic-fracking" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p><p>"I don't mind if <a href="https://twitter.com/MarkRuffalo" target="_blank">@MarkRuffalo</a> spoils his own movies. But please, don't ruin the surprise of our new legislation with Rep. <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC" target="_blank">@AOC</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/SenJeffMerkley" target="_blank">@SenJeffMerkley</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/RepDarrenSoto" target="_blank">@RepDarrenSoto</a>. I don't want the dirty fracking industry CEOs to know what hit them," wrote Sanders in his <a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1222960113910210561" target="_blank">tweet</a>, which embedded a video of the actor and activist, Mark Ruffalo, touting a potential federal ban on fracking.</p>
<div id="083c1" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="RYWLQK1580502995"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1222960113910210561" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">I don't mind if @MarkRuffalo spoils his own movies. But please, don't ruin the surprise of our new legislation with… https://t.co/NY5iOCdOzL</div> — Bernie Sanders (@Bernie Sanders)<a href="https://twitter.com/SenSanders/statuses/1222960113910210561">1580411387.0</a></blockquote></div><p>The bill drew support from several environmental activist organizations.<br></p><p>"Senator Sanders' bill names the problem and provides the only solution," Natalie Mebane, Associate Director of Policy at <a href="http://link.cvip.io/f/a/lI7Ag8jf6aY5chtEI04rzg~~/AAJ4uAA~/RgRgFVhxP0RPaHR0cHM6Ly9jcm0uMzUwLm9yZy9zaXRlcy9hbGwvbW9kdWxlcy9jaXZpY3JtL2V4dGVybi91cmwucGhwP3U9MTE4NTgmcWlkPTgxMjU0NlcDc3BjQgoAAPEkNF5Ln7SPUhRqb25AY29tbW9uZHJlYW1zLm9yZ1gEAAAAAw~~" target="_blank">350.org</a>, <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/01/31/350-action-applauds-sanders-fracking-ban-bill?cd-origin=rss">said in a statement</a><a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2020/01/31/350-action-applauds-sanders-fracking-ban-bill?cd-origin=rss" target="_blank"></a>. "In order to avoid the worst of the climate crisis, we must rapidly transition off of fossil fuels, and end fracking and the dangerous pipelines that come with it."</p>
<p>The ban on <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/fracking" rel="noopener noreferrer">fracking</a> that Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren advocate has democrats concerned that such a policy could push Pennsylvania, a crucial swing state, to President <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/donald-trump" rel="noopener noreferrer">Donald Trump</a> in November. </p>
<p>"In Pennsylvania, you're talking hundreds of thousands of related jobs that would be — they would be unemployed overnight," said John Fetterman, Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/us/politics/pennsylvania-democrats-fracking.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The New York Times</a>. "Pennsylvania is a margin play. And an outright ban on fracking isn't a margin play." </p>
<p>Sanders not only introduced a ban on fracking. On Wednesday, he, along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Ma), <a href="https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/pfas-summary?id=B3C238FF-B9D4-4557-9DE9-D15CFEEFBA8D&download=1&inline=file" target="_blank">introduced The Preventing Future American Sickness (PFAS) Act</a>, which takes aim at 'forever chemicals' polluting waterways, as <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480571-sanders-introduces-bill-to-clean-up-of-toxic-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">The Hill reported</a>.</p>
<p>As <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/forever-chemicals-drinking-water-2644897405.html?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2" target="_self">EcoWatch reported</a>, a recent study from the Environmental Working Group found that toxic forever chemicals, or PFAS, are far more prevalent in drinking water than previously thought.</p>
<div id="efd2e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="UM2I2X1580502995"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1221522447901560833" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">"Our children are unwittingly poisoned" Environmental Working Group study: US #water samples have 'forever chemical… https://t.co/oePPZBRGyV</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/1221522447901560833">1580068621.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"As hundreds of communities across the country are dealing with toxic PFAS contamination in their drinking water," Sanders says in a statement put out by <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/sanders-unveils-bill-combat-corporate-polluters-and-protect-drinking-water" target="_blank">Food and Water Watch</a>, "it is unconscionable that huge corporations like DuPont have, for decades, concealed evidence of how dangerous these compounds are in order to keep profiting at the expense of human health. Congress must pass this legislation to put an end to corporate stonewalling and criminal behavior and tackle this public health crisis. It is not a radical idea to demand that when people in the world's richest country turn on their taps, the water they drink is free of toxic chemicals."</p><p>The legislation would ban the chemicals from food packaging and ban the incineration of PFAS firefighting foam. It would also direct the Environmental Protection Agency to designate PFAS as hazardous under both the Clean Air and and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act — commonly called CERCLA or Superfund, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>.</p>
<p>Labeling the chemicals as hazardous substances would force manufacturers to foot the bill for cleaning them up, <a href="https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/480571-sanders-introduces-bill-to-clean-up-of-toxic-forever-chemicals" target="_blank">according to The Hill</a>.</p><p>"Every American—regardless of the color of their skin, their zip code, or their income—has the right to be free from exposure to a slew of carcinogens and hazardous chemicals," said Merkley, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>. "But millions of people are ingesting dangerous PFAS chemicals against their will through the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. Congress needs to come together to put the health of our communities above the wish lists of American's biggest polluters, and that means establishing and enforcing chemical standards that protect Americans from PFAS substances."</p><p>Both bills face an uncertain future in a Republican-controlled senate. Even if they did get through the Senate, Trump has said he would veto them, as <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/29/sanders-takes-aim-corporate-polluters-bill-clean-toxic-forever-chemicals-drinking" target="_blank">Common Dreams reported</a>.</p>
From Your Site Articles
- New Film 'Dark Waters' Shines Light on Chemical Pollution History ... ›
- Toxic 'Forever Chemicals' Detected in California Drinking Water ... ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less