EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 12/17/21
PIPELINE NEWS
Mlive.com: Enbridge moves to send AG’s Line 5 lawsuit to federal court; critics decry effort as delay tactic
NWestIowa.com: Iowans pushing back on CO2 pipelines
MassLive.com: Eversource gas pipeline proposal brings out residents in Springfield as state reps hold listening session
E&E News: FERC cracks down on pipelines
Reuters: U.S. energy regulator proposes $40 mln civil penalty for Rover Pipeline
Gizmodo: The U.S. Has So Many Oil Pipelines, Half of Them Are Sitting Empty
NRDC: We still don't need any more oil or gas pipelines
NBC News: Repair to ruptured California oil pipeline to start Friday, leaked documents reveal
E&E News: Pipeline owner kept ‘in the dark’ on possible anchor strike
WASHINGTON UPDATES
E&E News: Carbon Capture Provisions in Reconciliation Bill Divide Environmentalists
Politico: PROGRESSIVES PUSH FOR CAPTURE THRESHOLD
E&E News: The cash behind carbon removal: Big Oil, tech and taxpayers
E&E News: Greens regroup as offshore drilling ban appears doomed
The Hill: Manchin-led committee proposing hike to federal drilling fees
Politico: MALONEY WANTS GAO CHECKS ON JUSTICE40
STATE UPDATES
Grist: How a debate over carbon capture derailed California’s landmark climate bill
NPR: The largest city in the U.S. bans natural gas in new buildings
Associated Press: Honolulu City Council urges Navy to shut down fuel tanks
EXTRACTION
CNBC: Goldman says oil could hit $100, demand might reach ‘new record high’ in the next two years
Power Magazine: More than 32 GW of New Gas-Fired Power Plants in U.S. Pipeline
The Narwhal: Why LNG Canada could be B.C.’s last kick at the liquefied natural gas can
Upstream Online: Cenovus Energy sells one of its Alberta oil sands positions for $626 million
S&P Global: New Alberta diluent recovery unit ramps up for crude-by-rail exports to US
CabinRadio.ca: First Nations, Métis skeptical of Athabasca River tailings plan
CLIMATE FINANCE
Press release: Stop the Money Pipeline coalition members respond to Goldman’s new climate targets
TheEnergyMix: Take ‘Concrete, Rapid Steps’ to Decarbonize, Investors Urge Big Five Canadian Banks
Daily Poster: Insuring — And Ensuring — The Apocalypse
OPINION
The Hill: Next-generation regulation: Powering our country without turning up the heat
Forbes: Granholm: Biden Administration Not A ‘Boogeyman’ For Oil Industry
Marcellus Drilling News: New York City Commits Energy Suicide – Mass Exodus Begins
PIPELINE NEWS
Mlive.com: Enbridge moves to send AG’s Line 5 lawsuit to federal court; critics decry effort as delay tactic
Sheri McWhirter, 12/16/21
“Enbridge this week filed to remove to federal court the Michigan attorney general’s lawsuit against the Canadian pipeline company over the Line 5 pipeline that runs through the Straits of Mackinac,” Mlive.com reports. “The company argues Attorney General Dana Nessel’s suit filed in 2019 should be heard by the same federal judge that recently maintained jurisdiction on the lawsuit the company filed against Gov. Gretchen Whitmer to keep 23 million gallons a day of crude oil and natural gas flowing through the controversial Line 5. Critics contend the move is a stalling tactic meant to undermine the state’s ability to regulate risks to its own natural resources… “We will address this flagrant attempt to undermine that process in court and remain fervently committed to our believe that the fate of Michigan’s greatest natural resources should be determined in a Michigan court,” Nessel said in a released statement… “Enbridge’s only legal tactic appears to be delay, and more delay. This latest desperate ploy is over a year too late and is designed to waste time, keeping the Great Lakes at risk while spending millions to mislead the public. Every delay tactic by Enbridge means the Great Lakes remain at urgent risk from the ticking time bomb that is Line 5,” Beth Wallace, Great Lakes Campaign Manager for the nonprofit National Wildlife Federation, told Mlive.
NWestIowa.com: Iowans pushing back on CO2 pipelines
Elijah Helton, 12/15/21
“Farmers were already wary of one new pipeline plowing through N’West Iowa, and now a second carbon-capture project is funneling its way through the system,” NWestIowa.com reports. “...The public meetings are meant to give landowners and other locals time to ask questions and learn about pending infrastructure projects, but the folks from Navigator were the ones who learned very quickly about Iowan’s resistance to their pipeline… “The Sierra Club is organizing the movement against the two pipelines. Jess Mazour is the conservation coordinator for the Iowa chapter. “If we let one in, it makes it easier for the second one,” Mazour told NWest. “There’s some long-term planning for this type of infrastructure, and Iowa is going to be crisscrossed a dozen more times.” She told NWest the Heartland Greenway and the Midwest Carbon Express — which is run by Summit Carbon Solutions of the Summit Agricultural Group — are offering a false solution for climate change… “The big-business stench — paired with Navigator’s out-of-state status — was something many detractors latched onto during its public meetings… “Property owners on the route of either pipeline would receive compensation for a portion of the crop value that would have been planted on the land. The basic package has a three-year payout of 100 percent then 80 percent then 60 percent reimbursement. Many farmers said that’s not enough money or time before the farm is back to pre-pipeline productivity. Some mentioned the aftermath they are still dealing with after the Dakota Access Pipeline dug through the region. Mazour told NWest the key to stopping the company’s plans is to get organized early and persist until it is canceled along with the Midwest Carbon Express. “We can be angry and we can complain, but if we don’t turn that into action, these pipelines will be built,” Mazour told NWest. “That means we have to get engaged because we’re not going to stop this on our own. No one person is going to stop this. We’ll stop these together.”
MassLive.com: Eversource gas pipeline proposal brings out residents in Springfield as state reps hold listening session
Douglas Hook, 12/15/21
“Springfield resident Naia Tenerowicz stated to Massachusetts Rep. Carlos Gonzalez that she and her peers’ futures are being sold off to corporations to the detriment of public health for future generations,” MassLive.com reports. “The 24-year old’s statement to the representative came during the meeting that was hosted by Gonzalez at the South End Citizen’s Council Tuesday over the proposed secondary gas pipeline proposed by Eversource for Springfield. Gonzalez was joined by his colleague Rep. Brian M. Ashe. City representatives also joined the meeting to hear the concerns, Springfield City Councilor Victor Davila, Councilors elect Maria Perez and Zaida Govan. Tenerowicz stated that resilience is what is needed for the future. “This is not going to be solved by more gas lines,” Tenerowicz said… “Several non-pipeline alternatives such as energy efficiency, demand response, electrification and geothermal were considered, but none can meet the immediate nature, cost-effectiveness or the reliability needs of this significant group of customers,” Eversource spokesperson Priscilla Ress told MassLive.”
E&E News: FERC cracks down on pipelines
By Miranda Willson, Mike Soraghan, 12/17/21
“The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission toughened its stance on alleged violations associated with natural gas pipelines yesterday, saying enforcement has been too lax in the past and that stricter policies may be needed,” E&E News reports. “We are being more aggressive and ensuring that those conditions are actually being enforced," FERC Chair Richard Glick told reporters after the agency’s open meeting yesterday. "Under previous leadership, the commission did not adequately enforce its conditions." Yesterday’s meeting showcased the sharp divisions among commissioners about the agency’s oversight of natural gas projects. In contrast to Glick’s get-tough rhetoric, Republican members of the panel warned that putting up obstacles to pipeline development can lead to problems, such as potential gas outages this winter in the Northeast… “Commissioner Allison Clements, a Democrat on the panel, said the agency’s moves "illustrate the profound challenges" facing natural gas projects and signal the need for broader policy changes. She and fellow Democrat Glick reiterated their support for changing how the agency assesses proposed new natural gas pipelines, a process outlined in its certificate policy statement… “Around the country, landowners have complained that pipeline companies damaged their properties during construction. In some cases, FERC’s approval of a pipeline granted eminent domain to the developers, but landowners have claimed the agency failed to enforce rules about land restoration… "I think FERC is making clear that it intends to enforce the terms of the certificates that it issues, and also that it is not going to take companies at their word that they complied, but will instead investigate and take seriously allegations of non-compliance," Carolyn Elefant, attorney for many of the landowners fighting with the company, told E&E.
Reuters: U.S. energy regulator proposes $40 mln civil penalty for Rover Pipeline
12/16/21
“The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Thursday ordered Energy Transfer Partners LP and its Rover Pipeline LLC unit to explain why the company should not pay a $40 million civil penalty for alleged violations during construction of a 711-mile-long (1,144-km) interstate natural gas pipeline in Ohio,” Reuters reports. “An investigation by FERC's Office of Enforcement concluded that Rover Pipeline included diesel fuel and other toxic substances and unapproved additives in drilling mud during its horizontal directional drilling (HDD) operation under the Tuscarawas River in Stark County, Ohio. In April 2017, shortly after Rover began its HDD operation, a large inadvertent release of 2 million gallons of drilling mud reached the surface and flowed into a nearby protected wetland, FERC said… “In a response to Reuters, Energy Transfer spokesperson Alexis Daniel, said the company "did not direct this action. In fact, Energy Transfer learned many months later, that a rogue employee of an independent subcontractor has admitted under oath to have committed this act on his own volition and then tried to hide it… “The pipeline, which was initially planned to be completed in November 2017, was long delayed because of drilling fluid spills and other violations that occurred during construction. Those incidents prompted state and federal regulators to issue orders to halt the work.”
Gizmodo: The U.S. Has So Many Oil Pipelines, Half of Them Are Sitting Empty
Molly Taft, 12/17/21
“If you’re in the market for an oil pipeline, you’re in luck — we’ve got a lot of extra ones right now. About half of the oil pipelines in the U.S. are sitting unused, energy research firm Wood Mackenzie said in figures shared with Reuters Thursday. The situation reflects a downturn in oil production that was kicked off by the pandemic,” Gizmodo reports. “...However, the fall in output as a result of covid-19, when demand was so low that oil prices briefly dipped into the negative, was so precipitous that the ratio of unused pipelines to oil output is really out of the ordinary right now. Part of this incredible drop-off is thanks to the oil boom that preceded the pandemic. Between 2017 and 2020, operators scrambled to build more pipelines as a sharp increase in oil production in Texas’ Permian Basin caused transport bottlenecks and threatened to overwhelm the existing infrastructure… “Another contributing factor to the pipeline building frenzy is the simple fact that Texas loves to encourage oil and gas production and puts very few guardrails in place… “Pipeline operators and those supporting the fossil fuel industry like to use language about how pipelines are necessary to serve the nation; the idea of pipelines having a “public interest,” Oil Change International's Lorne Stockman told Gizmodo, is often used in eminent domain cases where companies are trying to make a case for building pipelines on private land. Permitting agencies often parrot that language when allowing projects to move forward. Meanwhile, pipelines and other fossil fuel infrastructure have been “dubbed” critical, allowing conservative lawmakers to pass extreme policies to protect them from protesters. But the excess pipelines in the Permian right now show that a lot of American oil and gas infrastructure is built not out of some noble drive to serve the energy needs of a nation, but because fossil fuel companies are looking for the best bang for their buck.”
NRDC: We still don't need any more oil or gas pipelines
Amy Mall, 12/16/21
“A new report confirms what we've known for a while: the U.S. has more than enough pipelines,” according to NRDC. “Almost four years ago, my former NRDC colleague Montina Cole blogged that the U.S. already had more than double the gas pipeline capacity needed on an average day. Meaning more than half the pipeline space, on average, was not being utilized. In 2018, I blogged that gas company CEOs agreed. Even on some of the coldest days of winter, the U.S. has had enough gas capacity to meet consumer demand. Gas price spikes, sometimes blamed on pipeline capacity, are more typically due to inflexibility in the pipeline system that prevents a rapid response to changing conditions, such as pipeline owners being allowed to restrict gas flow on their pipelines. As a spokesman for gas company Range Resources said a few years back, "Historically, every play gets overbuilt." Turns out, overbuild is similar for oil pipelines… “Now a new report finds that, overall, only about half of all U.S. oil pipeline capacity is used. It's clear the U.S. doesn't need any more oil or gas pipelines, particularly when we are supposed to be getting off fossil fuels and prioritizing investment in clean energy. The harms to clean water, the climate, communities, Tribal rights, environmental justice, and private property rights should not be sacrificed for profit plays by oil and gas corporations, particularly when there is no legitimate domestic need for new pipelines.”
NBC News: Repair to ruptured California oil pipeline to start Friday, leaked documents reveal
David Douglas and Andrew Blankstein, 12/16/21
“The oil company accused of negligence this week for failing to properly respond to an October oil spill off the Southern California coast is set to begin permanent repair work, according to leaked documents reviewed by NBC News, but critics say approval of the work appears rushed,” NBC News reports. “As early as Friday morning, divers will descend about 160 feet below the surface to begin placing what documents describe as a “steel patch” over a cracked area of pipe that was temporarily repaired in the wake of the Oct. 1 spill. The patch is designed to allow the pipeline to be thoroughly cleaned and flushed before two large sections of pipe — totaling nearly 300 feet — are removed from the seafloor and ultimately replaced at a later date. The plan was circulated to state and federal regulators by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers no more than 48 hours before the work was set to begin and required agencies to notify the Corps within a day if they had comments on the work… “One critic points to the emergency repair process as an example of a cozy relationship between industry and regulators. Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director and senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, told NBC the repair plan should have gone through a permitting process that allowed for more agency and public oversight. She likened the permit notice to a “Christmas Gift” for Amplify Energy. “This looks like an instance where the Army Corps is essentially thinking of itself as customer service to the oil company to get the pipeline and platform going again, rather than providing the strict oversight to protect against water pollution,” Sakashita told NBC.
E&E News: Pipeline owner kept ‘in the dark’ on possible anchor strike
By Mike Soraghan, 12/17/21
“Two massive container ships were battered by gale-force winds and 17-foot waves off the Port of Los Angeles in the early morning hours of Jan. 25. Both vessels had their anchors dropped. But transponder data shows the two vessels still moved back and forth at least nine times across the path of an oil pipeline on the sea floor. In hindsight, it seems like a recipe for trouble. But no one appears to have looked at whether the huge anchors snagged the pipe. At least not until eight months later, when about 25,000 gallons of oil from a pipeline owned by Amplify Energy Corp. drifted onto Huntington Beach,” E&E News reports. “To many in California and beyond, the leak from the bent pipeline and fouling of the shoreline has been one more reason to get rid of offshore drilling. But oil industry leaders are asking why no one flagged the likelihood that the undersea pipeline had been struck… “If the ships or port officials had warned them in January about the possibility of an anchor strike, Amplify officials say they would have sent an underwater robot to inspect the line and see if it was damaged. "Unfortunately," company officials said in a statement to E&E News, "it appears Amplify was left in the dark." That complaint has taken on more salience now that prosecutors have accused the company of failing to properly respond to leak alarms from the pipeline system. A federal grand jury indicted the company on a misdemeanor charge Wednesday in connection with the spill.”
WASHINGTON UPDATES
E&E News: Carbon Capture Provisions in Reconciliation Bill Divide Environmentalists
Benjamin Storrow, 12/16/21
“Carbon capture has long divided environmentalists. Now, that fissure is spilling into the debate over the $1.7 trillion reconciliation bill before Congress,” E&E News reports. “It concerns a provision governing 45Q, the tax incentive available to carbon capture and storage projects. In the House version of the bill, also known as the “Build Back Better Act,” a power plant equipped with carbon capture technology would need to catch 75 percent of emissions in order to qualify for the credit, which the bill would increase from a maximum of $50 per ton to $85. Groups like the Clean Air Task Force and the Great Plains Institute, which support carbon capture, say the requirement for catching such a large amount of emissions could hamper deployment of the technology and undermine President Biden’s climate goals. Opponents of carbon capture, like the Sierra Club, say the bolstered tax credit could offer a lifeline to coal plants. The debate is playing out amid fervent efforts by the White House and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to win over Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who holds a swing vote and could determine whether “Build Back Better” passes or fails.
Politico: PROGRESSIVES PUSH FOR CAPTURE THRESHOLD
Matthew Choi, 12/16/21
“The Congressional Progressive Caucus is fighting back calls from carbon capture backers to get rid of a minimum capture requirement for power plants to touch tax benefits under Democrats’ reconciliation package,” Politico reports. “The current clean energy tax provisions require power plants to capture at least 75 percent of carbon emissions in order to benefit from the full host of 45Q tax benefits in a bid to avoid using the credit to fund projects that don’t effectively mitigate emissions. The CPC released a statement Wednesday saying getting rid of the threshold would be a “handout to the biggest polluters” and “an insult to basic tax fairness.” But carbon capture backers retort having such a high threshold would discourage deployment and investment, particularly for natural gas plants. “We don’t have time to sit on or shelve some of our most effective ways to reduce emissions and to do it relatively quickly,” Ryan Fitzpatrick, director of Third Way’s Climate and Energy Program, told ME. Third Way joined a cohort of advocacy groups in a letter last week to Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Manchin urging the removal of the 75 percent threshold. The House already offered a concession to CCUS backers in getting rid of a similar threshold for non-generating industrial facilities, but backers of the minimum argue power generation has more readily available non-carbon emitting alternatives than sectors such as cement manufacturing.”
E&E News: The cash behind carbon removal: Big Oil, tech and taxpayers
By Corbin Hiar, 12/17/21
“After making his mark in the advertising world, Andrew Shebbeare wanted to help the rest of the globe,” E&E News reports. “...The audacious answer he eventually settled on: bankrolling startups working to reverse climate change. Shebbeare and the other United Kingdom-based founders of Counteract Partners Ltd. are part of a wave of investors betting on the world-saving potential of small, privately held carbon dioxide removal companies… “The startups are part of a burgeoning sector attracting billions of dollars from interests as varied as oil major Exxon Mobil Corp., movie star Leonardo DiCaprio and the U.S. government… “Creating many billions of tons of new carbon removal capacity would be a monumental challenge — one beset by huge commercial and social barriers, experts tell E&E… “Oil companies and other major emitters are also getting involved with mechanical carbon removal startups — a trend that has raised concerns among some experts. "I do look at the Big Oil money that comes into this space with some trepidation," Shebbeare, the Counteract co-founder, told E&E. "Not to say they didn’t have a right to participate, but it’s really important that the stewardship of the burgeoning economy ensures that it doesn’t get used to perpetuate activity that we should be slowing down or stopping." “...After decades of being largely ignored by U.S. policymakers, the carbon removal sector is set to receive a major infusion of taxpayer support. The bipartisan infrastructure bill President Biden signed into law last month provides $3.5 billion to create four regional direct air capture hubs with the capacity to capture and sequester at least 1 million tons of carbon annually… “For broader carbon capture efforts, the law provides $2.1 billion in low-interest loans to underwrite large carbon pipeline projects and $2.5 billion for the Department of Energy’s carbon storage program. Those pots of money could support carbon capture efforts at fossil fuel-fired facilities, which aim to prevent new emissions rather than remove carbon already in the atmosphere… “Shebbeare’s biggest concern is that carbon removal investments could be used as "a stalling tactic by emitters who aren’t taking the right steps to reduce emissions," he told E&E. That could lead to misspent resources, misdirected regulations and missed opportunities for the world to take decisive action on climate change.
E&E News: Greens regroup as offshore drilling ban appears doomed
By Emma Dumain, 12/17/21
“The Senate’s climate and social spending package could exclude permanent bans on offshore drilling in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico — and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is the reason,” E&E News reports. “It would be the latest major environmental priority Manchin has nixed from the Democrats’ reconciliation package. His opposition to the larger bill caused party leaders to delay its floor consideration until at least January. Multiple sources on Capitol Hill and within the environmental advocacy community told E&E News yesterday that Manchin, chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, opposed language from the House-passed reconciliation bill, H.R. 5376, that would have established the drilling prohibitions. That opposition resulted in the provision being stripped from the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s draft text currently being circulated among lobbyists and outside groups… “But proponents of the drilling ban weren’t shy yesterday in airing their frustration with their Democratic colleague, who is still negotiating a compromise over a watered-down methane fee… “The inordinate power one senator has to change legislation that affects the nation and world around climate change is disturbing to say the least,” House Natural Resources Chair Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who championed the drilling language on his side of the Capitol, told E&E. Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told E&E: “Maybe Joe Manchin missed the oil poisoning the Southern California coast this year. The rest of us know that continued exploitation of our oceans is a death knell for this and future generations.”
The Hill: Manchin-led committee proposing hike to federal drilling fees
BY RACHEL FRAZIN AND ZACK BUDRYK, 12/15/21
“A key committee led by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is proposing an increase in the fees paid for oil and gas drilling on federally owned lands and waters,” The Hill reports. “The fee increase is one of several environmental provisions passed by House Democrats as part of the massive social spending and climate legislation now being considered by the Senate that appears likely to be retained by Manchin and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is considering its portion of the bill… “The Senate proposal also retains a House proposal to repeal drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, home to animals like grizzly bears and polar bears and land that is sacred to the Gwich’in people… “And it retains a House proposal that would allow offshore wind development in areas off the Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Florida coasts, rolling back Trump administration actions to bar development in those regions. The committee text also includes royalties on all methane extracted in mining on public lands and waters. However, language present in the House version that would have banned new offshore drilling along the East and West coasts and in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico did not appear in the committee text viewed by The Hill.”
Politico: MALONEY WANTS GAO CHECKS ON JUSTICE40
Matthew Choi, 12/16/21
“House Oversight Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) wants the Government Accountability Office to provide periodic public reports on the Biden administration’s initiative to allocate 40 percent of environmental benefits to vulnerable communities in order to ensure the pledge is executed effectively and fairly,” Politico reports. “Specifically, I request that GAO review the Justice40 framework and agencies’ implementation by individual agencies, with the goal of assessing the extent to which the initiative is succeeding in targeting federal investments to disadvantaged communities,” Maloney writes in a letter to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro. Maloney wants the updates released periodically through fiscal year 2026 as well as regular briefings with the committee… “ But some vulnerable communities are already saying accessing federal benefits to help right environmental wrongs is proving a Gordian knot of applications and authorizations that they don’t have the personnel to untie.”
STATE UPDATES
Grist: How a debate over carbon capture derailed California’s landmark climate bill
Emily Pontecorvo, 12/15/21
“In mid-September, beneath a smoky gray sky, California Governor Gavin Newsom stood at a podium in Sequoia National Park,” Grist reports. “...The story behind A.B. 1395 highlights one of the biggest areas of tension in the politics of climate change around the world right now: disagreement over the need for carbon capture and carbon removal. That landmark 2018 report, and many studies since, have concluded that both carbon capture and carbon removal will be needed to stabilize the climate. But a large contingent of the climate and environmental movement, including researchers, justice advocates, and policy experts, reject these solutions due to concerns about locking in dependence on fossil fuels, further burdening communities with pollution, and wasting time and resources on plans that may never pay off… “The bill contained one more constraint: Today, captured carbon dioxide is often sold to oil companies and pumped into old wells to coax more oil out of the ground. The bill would have prevented this from counting as a way to reduce emissions — requiring carbon capture operators instead to just bury the carbon underground for permanent storage. It put similar guardrails on direct air capture systems. Even though A.B. 1395 left the door open for some continued fossil fuel use by allowing for carbon capture, the state’s building trades unions, which represent fossil fuel workers, came out in full force to fight it. They sent newsletters to members telling them not to support the bill and called in to oppose it during legislative hearings, arguing that cutting emissions by 90 percent would put millions of jobs at risk.”
NPR: The largest city in the U.S. bans natural gas in new buildings
DEEPA SHIVARAM, 12/15/21
“In a vote Wednesday, New York's city council approved a ban on natural gas in newly constructed buildings, joining cities like San Jose and San Francisco that have made similar commitments to reduce emissions,” NPR reports. “Moving away from natural gas means that stoves and heat pumps will be powered by electricity instead, cutting down on carbon emissions. Nearly 40% of carbon emissions in the country — and more than half of New York City's emissions — come from buildings… “Massive pushback from the gas industry against natural gas bans hasn't stopped cities around the country from taking on the effort. At least 42 cities in California have acted to limit gas in new buildings, and Salt Lake City and Denver have also made plans to move toward electrification… “The efforts to ban natural gas in new buildings in New York City may have also jumpstarted legislation to expand the ban to the entire state.”
Associated Press: Honolulu City Council urges Navy to shut down fuel tanks
By AUDREY McAVOY, 12/16/21
“The Honolulu City Council on Wednesday unanimously passed a resolution calling on the Navy to immediately close a fuel storage facility blamed for contaminating tap water at military housing and threatening an aquifer used by both the military and Honolulu civilians,” the Associated Press reports. “The resolution urged “the immediate defueling, permanent removal, and relocation of the U.S. Navy Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility underground storage tanks.” “...The resolution comes after the Navy said last week it had detected petroleum in its Red Hill well that draws on this aquifer and supplies water to military housing, offices and elementary schools. The Navy received about 1,000 complaints from people saying their water smelled like fuel or chemicals or that they suffered from nausea, vomiting or other physical ailments… “Hawaii Gov. David Ige earlier this month ordered the Navy to empty the tanks but the Navy said it would challenge the order. Honolulu’s water utility has shut down a well that draws on the same aquifer as the Navy’s Red Hill well to make sure it doesn’t deliver petroleum-tainted water to its customers.”
EXTRACTION
CNBC: Goldman says oil could hit $100, demand might reach ‘new record high’ in the next two years
Weizhen Tan, 12/17/21
“Goldman Sachs predicts a new high in oil demand in 2022, and again in 2023,” CNBC reports. “Damien Courvalin, the investment bank’s head of energy research, also said Friday that oil at $100 per barrel was a possibility. Oil demand was already at record levels before the latest omicron variant hit, and furthermore, demand for air travel should continue to recover, he said. “We’ve already had record high demand before this newest variant, and you’re adding higher jet demand and the global economy is still growing,” Courvalin said in an energy outlook briefing with reporters on Friday. “You see how we will average a new record high in demand in 2022, and again, in 2023.” Courvalin said he would not rule out the possibility of oil prices hitting $100, and there are “two paths” that could lead to that. The first is that costs go up as oil companies ramp up production. “There’s inflation, everywhere else in the economy, and eventually there’s inflation in oil services,” he said. The other possibility is if the supply of oil can’t meet the demand as global economies reopen from the pandemic. Courvalin said oil prices could go as high as $110 as demand destruction occurs to slow the market. That’s “quite conceivable,” he added.
Power Magazine: More than 32 GW of New Gas-Fired Power Plants in U.S. Pipeline
Darrell Proctor, 12/14/21
“Recent reports from groups analyzing U.S. power generation note how states near the nation’s largest shale plays are expected to bring significant new natural gas-fired generation online over the next few years, despite concerns about recent market volatility that sent gas prices to their highest levels in more than a decade,” Power Magazine reports. “With a long-term outlook favoring natural gas as U.S. coal stockpiles continue to dwindle, utilities are moving forward with plans to add gas-fired generation capacity through 2025, according to Colorado-based BTU Analytics, a FactSet Company. Andrew Bradford, Vice President Power for FactSet, told POWER on Dec. 14 his group “is tracking 32.3 GW of natural gas-fired power plants with in-service dates through 2025 that are in advanced stages of development.” Bradford said “14.2 GW have a status of under construction, 3.4 GW are at pre-construction, and 14.7 GW have a status of advanced permitting.” “...Though not as bullish as the BTU Analytics’ numbers, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its Monthly Electric Generator Inventory published in November said it expects 27.3 GW of new natural gas-fired generation capacity to enter operation from 2022 to 2025, a 6% increase above the current 489.1 GW of U.S. capacity as of August 2021. The agency said its data shows that most of the planned new gas-fired capacity will be built in the Appalachia region, which includes the Marcellus and Utica shale plays across West Virginia, Pennsylvania (Figure 1), and Ohio.”
The Narwhal: Why LNG Canada could be B.C.’s last kick at the liquefied natural gas can
Ainslie Cruickshank, 12/16/21
“Much has changed since LNG Canada made the decision in 2018 to proceed with its multibillion dollar natural gas project in British Columbia. Three years later, the project is caught up in a dispute about who will pay for billions of dollars in cost overruns that have threatened the commercial success of the joint venture and cast doubts about whether any other project of its kind will ever get the green light,” The Narwhal reports. “In fact, this project “could be the last liquefied natural gas project built in British Columbia,” according to a recent report by the U.S.-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). “These market and non-market shifts have severely tested LNG Canada’s long-term economic viability and could turn it into a financial albatross for its sponsors,” the report, published in November, said… “In the north, the pipeline LNG Canada hinges on — Coastal GasLink — is strongly opposed by the hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en Nation and their supporters. At the same time, there are major concerns about the greenhouse gas emissions that would stem from the project itself and an associated increase in natural gas production. In recent months, a simmering dispute between LNG Canada and Coastal GasLink has also come to light. LNG Canada director of corporate affairs Denita McKnight told The Canadian Press in November that some of the proposed cost increase and schedule delays by pipeline project operator TC Energy significantly exceed what LNG Canada signed up for when it decided to proceed with its facility in 2018.”
Upstream Online: Cenovus Energy sells one of its Alberta oil sands positions for $626 million
Mark Passwaters, 12/16/21
“Canada’s Cenovus Energy has reached an agreement with an unnamed buyer to sell its Tucker, Alberta, thermal asset for C$800 million ($626.1 million), the company announced Thursday. The transaction is scheduled to close in late January 2022,” Upstream Online reports. “Tucker is the location of one of Cenovus’ four producing oil sands positions in Alberta, but the company said the asset in question was better used to reduce net debt and increase shareholder returns… “This is yet another example of Cenovus seizing opportunities to generate incremental value for shareholders,” said Alex Pourbaix, Cenovus’s president and chief executive. “With Tucker and the other divestitures announced this year, we have delivered on our asset sales commitment for 2021, positioning the company well to focus on higher-return opportunities in the portfolio and continue increasing returns to shareholders.”
S&P Global: New Alberta diluent recovery unit ramps up for crude-by-rail exports to US
Jordan Blum, 12/16/21
“A new diluent recovery unit in Alberta that is designed to process crude specifically for crude-by-rail exports to the Texas Gulf Coast is now ramped up and fully operational, USD Partners said,” S&P Global reports. “The recovery unit at the Hardisty Energy Terminal is now processing more than 50,000 b/d -- largely for anchor customer ConocoPhillips -- and shipping crude to the new Port Arthur Terminal in Texas, which can move heavy Canadian barrels to Texas and Louisiana refiners and export hubs, USD Partners said Dec. 16… “The goal is to eventually grow to 100,000 b/d and then consider additional expansions in both Alberta and Texas based on contractual demand. The USD-Gibson Energy joint venture included building both the diluent recovery unit and the Port Arthur hub. The diluent recovery unit is designed to remove the diluent from the Canadian bitumen. The resulting crude is called DRUbit, a proprietary heavy Canadian crude oil specifically designed for safer rail transport… “The process reduces crude-by-rail carbon emissions by about 20%, according to USD Partners, which is the publicly traded arm of US Development Group.”
CabinRadio.ca: First Nations, Métis skeptical of Athabasca River tailings plan
JENNA HAMILTON, 12/16/21
“Leaders of Indigenous communities downstream from oilsands developments say many of their questions about releasing treated tailings water into the Athabasca River have gone unanswered,” CabinRadio.ca reports. “The federal government is developing protocols for when treated tailings water can be released into the Athabasca River. A first draft is scheduled to be finished by 2024 and a final draft will be published in 2025. But the leaders of First Nation and Métis communities in Fort McKay and Fort Chipewyan, which are along the Athabasca River, tell CabinRadio consultation has been limited. “In order for us to accept any of this we have to see what they’re doing. We have to be working together at it. We want to be part of it. We already raised our concerns,” Chief Peter Powder of the Mikisew Cree First Nation near Fort Chipewyan, told CabinRadio. “We have to be 100-percent sure that it’s not going to be toxic. The decisions we make today are going to affect our future generations. When the mines close and industry leaves, our kids and their kids will live in the consequences of the decisions made today.” “...We strongly support the cleaning of tailings ponds, but we don’t want the clean-up of tailings ponds to mean that we are creating environmental impacts in the Athabasca River and downstream,” Bori Arrobo, director of sustainability at the Fort McKay First Nation, told CabinRadio. “We don’t want to swap one environmental liability with another one.”
CLIMATE FINANCE
Press release: Stop the Money Pipeline coalition members respond to Goldman’s new climate targets
JACKIE FIELDER, 12/16/21
“Today Goldman Sachs launched an updated climate report with targets that sidestep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and opt for reductions in carbon intensity. Despite today’s commitment and a commitment to net zero, the fact remains that Goldman Sachs has provided $100 billion in financing for the fossil fuel industry from 2016 to 2020. Their top five fossil fuel clients in 2020 were BP, Pacific Gas & Electric, EcoPetrol, Petrobras, and Cheniere Energy, according to the Banking on Climate Chaos 2021 report from Rainforest Action Network, BankTrack, Indigenous Environmental Network, Oil Change International, Reclaim Finance, and the Sierra Club. Goldman’s new policy is also well-short of what some other banks are doing to address the climate crisis… “This policy does nothing to address a reduction in absolute greenhouse gas emissions. Of particular concern to climate activists and advocates has been the financial sector’s universal embrace of net zero… “Moreover, net zero opens the door to carbon offsets that often require displacement and perpetuates colonization and human rights abuses especially upon Indigenous people in the Global South; carbon capture and sequestration; geoengineering; and other technological solutions that are unproven to work safely at scale… “Goldman Sachs has the same problem as many of its peers of mistaking carbon intensity targets for an acceptable substitute for a meaningful emissions reduction plan,” said Sierra Club Fossil-Free Finance Campaign Manager Ben Cushing. “Achieving the net-zero target Goldman and other banks have committed to means stopping support for fossil fuel expansion immediately. Anything less is just an attempt at good PR.”
TheEnergyMix: Take ‘Concrete, Rapid Steps’ to Decarbonize, Investors Urge Big Five Canadian Banks
Mitchell Beer, 12/17/21
“Aligning climate targets with a 1.5°C future, aiming to at least halve absolute emissions by 2030, and issuing annual reports on the climate impacts of investments are among the best practices put forward for Canada’s five biggest banks in a report issued yesterday by Investors for Paris Compliance,” TheEnergyMix reports. “...The report shows the country’s five biggest banks—RBC, TD, Scotiabank, BMO, and CIBC—with a lot of ground to cover to put substance behind their promises. They “all rank among the top 25 fossil fuel lenders in the world, collectively lending well over half a trillion dollars to fossil fuels since the Paris agreement was signed, including hundreds of billions into fossil fuel expansion,” the release states. “Part of the duty of Canada’s banks is to manage risk, yet their activities are driving up investor risk by enabling massive Scope 3 emissions,” the 22-page report adds. “These activities clash with the emerging nature of fiduciary duty in a world facing a climate crisis. If banks are to act in the interests of their beneficiaries, then they should act in ways that reduce risk rather than increase it,” at a time when climate impacts are “material to investors and are set to become even more so.” “...To make that shift in strategy work, “major banks and pension funds need a crash course on the concept of carbon lock-in,” he told TheEnergyMix. “Technologies like [carbon capture and storage] may well be appropriate for sectors like steel and cement, but only address 20 to 30% of emissions in oil and gas given most emissions result when the end product is burned. The $50 billion that the oil sands companies are asking for by way of further public subsidies for CCS is a dead end that just locks in production and emissions,” so it’s “better to invest that money in actual transition.”
Daily Poster: Insuring — And Ensuring — The Apocalypse
SAM MELLINS, 12/16/21
“The most famous drivers of the climate crisis are well known: Fossil fuel companies, Wall Street, science deniers, and the super rich, to name a few. But for decades, another climate villain has lurked in the shadows: The insurance industry that is knowingly ensuring an ecological disaster,” the Daily Poster reports. “Without insurance, new coal fired power plants wouldn’t get built. Without insurance, oil refineries wouldn’t refine,” Douglas Heller, insurance expert at the research and advocacy group Consumer Federation of America, told the Poster. “That doesn’t mean that the insurance industry is solely responsible for fossil fuels. But it’s a part of the equation.” The problem is not just that insurance companies offer coverage to fossil fuel projects, but they also use millions of people’s premiums to invest in — and provide capital to — the fossil fuel industry’s expansion. State insurance commissioners have the power to expose and curtail these activities. But because the fossil fuel industry has pumped tens of millions of dollars into state politics, most states other than California have refused to do so. Meanwhile, the Republican stronghold of North Dakota — one of America’s largest producers of coal — is now exploring providing government-supported insurance to the fossil fuel industry. But now there’s some good news: Insurance regulators and legislators in New York and Connecticut, both of which are key states for the insurance industry, have taken steps to fight back — suggesting a new front could be emerging in the war on global polluters.”
OPINION
The Hill: Next-generation regulation: Powering our country without turning up the heat
Jennifer Danis is a senior fellow at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and of counsel to Morningside Heights Legal Services at Columbia Law School and represented New Jersey Conservation Foundation as lead attorney in the PennEast litigation, 12/16/21
“Wouldn’t it be great if there were one governmental body responsible for keeping our lights on, our homes heated and industry humming along in a way that doesn’t preclude our kids from having a habitable planet?” Jennifer Danis writes for The Hill. “...It might look a lot like the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). And its mandate might look a lot like this: approve only that fossil fuel infrastructure required by the public convenience and necessity and deny infrastructure failing this fulsome legal test. But FERC has not lived up to this charge, in part because private fossil fuel companies participating in commission proceedings are well-funded and staffed, the public often lacks requisite tools, money and expertise to engage. Enter stage left, self-dealing fossil gas projects epitomizing how far the commission strayed from conducting a robust public need analysis… “Two recent projects, PennEast and Spire, share many similarities. Both had no identifiable new load growth or documented capacity constraints. Both were predicated on pipelines selling capacity to affiliated shippers, to the ratepayers’ detriment. Both required massive land condemnations and cataloged myriad environmental harms from their construction and operation… “By learning from projects like PennEast and Spire, the commission can prevent wasted resources, both private and public, from being spent on projects that will not come to the table once the commission has stated clearly what kinds of data and analyses it will require applicants to produce in support of their project proposals. Doing so will ease the burden on both industry and public interest advocates alike, and help our country become a model for responsible energy development.”
Forbes: Granholm: Biden Administration Not A ‘Boogeyman’ For Oil Industry
David Blackmon, 12/16/21
“I’ve been in and around the oil and gas business for 45 years now, since the summer of 1976 when I worked as a welder’s helper on a pipeline crew as a summer job between college semesters. Throughout that time, I’ve watched as politicians of both parties - some Republicans, but mainly Democrats - have done their best to use oil companies as a convenient boogeyman for political purposes,” David Blackmon writes for Forbes. “...Seeking I suppose to convey some reassurance to those present that the Biden Administration, despite its focused assault on the domestic industry since its first hours in office, is not the enemy, Granholm probably took things a bridge too far when she accused industry representatives of treating the administration as - guess what? - a “boogeyman.” “...She works for a President who, in the course of announcing that release, also directed the SEC to investigate oil marketers for phantom allegations of “price fixing,” a tired and much-used canard that has never turned up anything of substance. Her boss in the White House also continues to push a “Build Back Better” bill that is loaded up with new taxes and fees on the industry that many believe would inevitably lead to higher energy prices than consumers are already having to bear. All of that, and so much more, but it is the industry that is somehow turning the administration into a boogeyman? That is a bold narrative right there… “Now, how about putting those endless efforts to portray Big Oil as a boogeyman to rest as well? If Granholm really wants to work together with the industry on future-facing solutions, that would be a great first step.”
Marcellus Drilling News: New York City Commits Energy Suicide – Mass Exodus Begins
12/16/21
“Yesterday MDN told you that New York City was pointing the gun of economic suicide at its own head, ready to pull the trigger by outlawing the use of natural gas in all new buildings throughout the city,” Marcellus Drilling News writes. “They did it–they pulled the trigger on banning new buildings (businesses, homes, etc.) from connecting to natural gas. You can expect one day historians will look back and mark this as the turning point when NYC began a quick descent into economic collapse. Let the mass exodus from NYC begin. (Pssst–if you live there, get out while you still can.)”