EXTRACTED: Daily News Clips 9/2/22
PIPELINE NEWS
NO SACRIFICE ZONES: APPALACHIAN RESISTANCE COMES TO DC: THURS SEPT 8: MASS RESISTANCE TO MANCHIN’S DIRTY PIPELINE DEAL
Pipeline Safety Trust: Fact-Check: Summit Carbon Solutions Crawford County, Iowa Board of Supervisors Information Session
Norfolk Daily News: Groups say carbon companies won’t negotiate on land leases
WVIK: Proposed Iowa to Illinois CO-2 Pipeline
WAND: Farmers concerned about Navigator requesting eminent domain to build pipeline
Reuters: Canada Energy Regulator issues order after injury at Alberta pipeline site
Sidley Energy: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Completes Gas “Mega Rule”
WASHINGTON UPDATES
Bloomberg: Energy Permits Fight Puts Shutdown-Wary Democrats in Tough Spot
InsideEPA: EPA FAQ Offers First-Time Option For Denying Permits Under ‘Rights’ Law
The Hill: California gas-powered car ban could fuel GOP legal battle
Reuters: Feds implore court to review California fracking injunction
E&E News: Nearly $1B worth of methane lost on public tracts — report
STATE UPDATES
Center for Biological Diversity: California Lawmakers OK Climate Package With Buffer Zones, Carbon Capture
NOLA.com: Appeals court declares massive Gulf oil lease unlawful but allows drilling to continue
USA TODAY: Hawaii families sue US over tainted drinking water from jet fuel at Navy's Red Hill facility
Texas Observer: BIG LEAKS, LITTLE REGULATION
CBS News: Crews hope new measures will detect gas fumes earlier at U of M to prevent evacuations
EXTRACTION
Guardian: Carbon capture is not a solution to net zero emissions plans, report says
The Hill: Costs associated with carbon emissions three times federal estimate: study
Associated Press: Europe plan for floating gas terminals raises climate fears
CLIMATE FINANCE
Wall Street Journal: Blackstone, Carlyle Take Different Sides on Oil-and-Gas Investment
TODAY IN GREENWASHING
Huntingdon Daily News: Volunteers get grant to replace gear
OPINION
MuskokaRegion.com: Huntsville doesn’t need more gas, it needs new thinking
PIPELINE NEWS
NO SACRIFICE ZONES: APPALACHIAN RESISTANCE COMES TO DC: THURS SEPT 8: MASS RESISTANCE TO MANCHIN’S DIRTY PIPELINE DEAL
8/31/22
“On Thursday, September 8, 2022 the Stop MVP coalition and People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition will convene in Washington, D.C. for ‘No Sacrifice Zones: Appalachian Resistance Comes to DC,’ to stop the MVP, show massive public opposition to Manchin’s dirty deal, unite the Appalachian frontlines and show how all sacrifice zones are connected so all of our voices and stories can be heard. WHAT: No Sacrifice Zones: Appalachian Resistance Comes to DC - Lobby Day and Public Rally. WHEN & WHERE: Thursday, September 8, 2022, lobbying throughout the day, public rally at 5:00 PM ET at Robert A Taft Memorial Carillon (intersections New Jersey Ave and Constitution Ave)• 101 New Jersey Ave NW, Washington, DC 20510 US. WHO: The Stop MVP coalition and People vs. Fossil Fuels coalition. Community leaders on the frontlines of the fight for Appalachia’s just future, and other frontline and environmental justice leaders fighting alongside us. WHY: We are done being sacrifice zones, and we must stop this bill and MVP! We want to build community between intersectional Appalachian resistance organizations and have their voices heard! We must protect bedrock environmental laws and public input. We are in solidarity with all frontlines of the climate crisis. SPEAKERS: John Beard, Founder, Chairman, CEO of Port Arthur Community Action Network; Sharon Lavigne, Founder, Rise St. James; Roishetta Ozane, Organizer, SW Louisiana, SE Texas, Healthy Gulf; Russell Chisholm, Mountain Valley Watch Coordinator, Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights Coalition (POWHR); Crystal Cavalier-Keck, Co-Founder, Seven Directions of Service; Joye Braun, Wanbli Wiyan Ka’win, National Pipelines Campaign Organizer, Indigenous Environmental Network; Katherine Ferguson, Interim Executive Director, Community Organizer, Our Future West Virginia; Anthony Rogers-Wright, Director of Environmental Justice, NYLPI; Naadiya Hutchinson, Government Affairs Manager, WE ACT for Environmental Justice; Justin J. Pearson, President & Founder, Memphis Community Against Pollution (MCAP); James Hiatt, Southwest Louisiana Coordinator for the Louisiana Bucket Brigade; Jeremiah Joseph, community member from a mining-impacted community in California; Cheyenna Morgan, member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indian and a descendant of the Oglala Lakota Tribe; Brenda Jo McManama, Organizer, Indigenous Environmental Network.”
Pipeline Safety Trust: Fact-Check: Summit Carbon Solutions Crawford County, Iowa Board of Supervisors Information Session
Bill Caram, 9/1/22
“Recently, a contractor representing Summit Carbon Solutions (SCS) visited the Crawford County Board of Supervisors in Iowa to provide information about their proposed CO2 pipeline. Much of the discussion focused on eminent domain, but when the topic steered toward safety in Part 2 of 2, we noticed a few statements that warranted our comments,” the Pipeline Safety Trust reports. “The first statement I’d like to discuss is a big one and what spurred me to write this blog post. In response to a question about the Denbury CO2 failure in Satartia, Mississippi in which nearly 50 people went to the hospital, the SCS contractor stated that a contaminant in the pipeline, Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S), is what made people sick. The US Department of Transportation’s pipeline safety agency, PHMSA, produced an accident investigation report that directly contradicts this statement. 103 air monitoring readings were taken on site for Hydrogen Sulfide, indoor and outdoor, and 138 readings for Carbon Dioxide. There were 0 detections of H2S, whereas there were detections of up to 28,000 parts per million (ppm) of CO2, over five times the OSHA permissible exposure limit. Victims experienced symptoms consistent with that level of CO2 exposure… “We ask Summit Carbon Solutions to correct this misstatement and use more accurate information in the future… “The next statement that caught my eye was not from the contractor representing SCS, but from the Crawford County Emergency Management Coordinator. He stated that an evacuation for a spill would be at least 100 meters downwind and approximately a half-mile if the incident involved a fire. He also noted that CO2 is what people breathe out and is not like propane or natural gas… “Depending on topographic and weather conditions, a plume of released CO2 can travel long distances in dangerous concentrations from the pipeline – certainly, more than a half-mile. I am confused why the coordinator mentions increasing the evacuation area in the case of a fire. A fire is not a concern in the case of a CO2 pipeline failure. The concern is asphyxiation… “But because CO2 won’t ignite, it poses additional, unique risks in that the plume can remain at dangerous or even lethal concentrations for very long distances, depending on weather and terrain conditions. Emergency response needs to take this into account when determining evacuation areas, not whether or not there’s a fire, for there will almost never be a fire.”
Norfolk Daily News: Groups say carbon companies won’t negotiate on land leases
JERRY GUENTHER, 9/1/22
“Landowners opposed and others interested in learning more proposed carbon pipelines in Nebraska were treated to a supper and presentation Wednesday evening at Black Cow Fat Pig in Norfolk,” the Norfolk Daily News reports. “...Shelli Meyer of Dixon County was among those who attended Wednesday’s meeting. A crowd estimated at about 100 people attended. Meyer told the News it is worth noting that many insurance companies won’t insure the land for liability if a carbon pipeline is located on it. The agents don’t know how to deal with it and how to do a risk profile, she said. Meyer said she is a member of a family that has had a farm for nearly a century. When her father received a letter, it stated that the company would try to voluntarily get an easement, but the last part stated it might have to use eminent domain, she said. “The look on his face was just devastating,” Meyer told the News. Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska said the carbon pipelines are a public health concern. “When you look at all the solutions for climate change, this is the bottom for how much impact it will have and it is the most expensive,” Kleeb said. “It is the worst of both worlds.” Kleeb said she understands there are a lot of tax credits “and even more in the bill that President Biden just signed for the carbon reduction, and that’s the real reason companies are interested in building the pipelines.” “They don’t care about lowering our ethanol plants’ carbon scores,” she said. “Those plants’ carbon scores are already low. They don’t care about climate change. They care about making money and trading all these carbon credits.” “We’re absolutely opposed to the use of eminent domain for private gain,” Kleeb said. “(These companies) would be able to have a permanent easement across almost all of the state of Nebraska.”
WVIK: Proposed Iowa to Illinois CO-2 Pipeline
Herb Trix, 9/1/22
“Public meetings were held this week in eastern Iowa for a proposed pipeline stretching from Cedar Rapids, Iowa to Decatur, Illinois,” WVIK reports. “Wolf Carbon Solutions would collect carbon dioxide from two ADM plants in Cedar Rapids and Clinton, and send it to central Illinois where it would be stored underground. Senior Vice President Nicholas Noppinger told WVIK this would reduce emissions of CO-2 from the production of ethanol - now it's just released into the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. "To help facilities, new and existing, to continue sustaining their business for the forseeable future in an environment that is promoting and pushing de-carbonization policy." “...Noppinger told WVIK his company has built thousands of miles of pipelines, and never used eminent domain. "Honestly, it's a lot easier to work with the landowner and find creative solutions to go through their property in a voluntary way versus condemnation."
WAND: Farmers concerned about Navigator requesting eminent domain to build pipeline
Alyssa Patrick, 9/1/22
“Farmers in Christian County are pleading with the Illinois Commerce Commission to not approve a proposal for a carbon dioxide pipeline to be built in central Illinois,” WAND reports. “They knocked at my door, presented us with a manila envelope and it was very foreign to me because I hadn't heard anything about what the project was," Edinburg farmer Jim Grieve told WAND News. "The pipeline itself actually would only be under quarter-mile from my home and it will criss-cross some family farms that have been in our family for over 100 years," Grieve explained. He told WAND he doesn't want his farmland disrputed, and worries about the long term impacts of injecting CO2 underground in Christian County… "As a farmer we have our concerns for our land and preserving it and maintaining it. Something like the aquifer- that affects everybody," Grieve added, "we can repair our field tiles, we can't repair an aquifer." These issues have prompted organizations like the Citizens Against Heartland Greenway Pipeline, Sangamon County, the Commonwealth of Edison, Nicor Gas Company and individual landowners to intervene before the Illinois Commerce Commission… "The land owners at the proposed sequestration site have widely rejected, and have so far have shown no indication to provide no rights to the pore space- making this a pipeline to nowhere," Joseph Murphy, an attorney representing Citiznes Against Heartland Greenway Pipeline, said in the hearing Thursday.”
Reuters: Canada Energy Regulator issues order after injury at Alberta pipeline site
9/1/22
“The Canada Energy Regulator (CER) on Thursday said it issued TC Energy’s NOVA Gas Transmission Ltd (NGTL) an "Inspection Officer Order" after an injury at NGTL's North Corridor Expansion Project worksite near Fairview, Alberta,” Reuters reports. "The Order requires the company to stop unloading pipe across the entire North Corridor Expansion Project and assess this procedure at all of their sites," the regulator said. The worker suffered a serious, non-fatal injury when unloading a truck at the Bear Canyon stockpile yard when a 36” pipe fell on them, it said.”
Sidley Energy: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration Completes Gas “Mega Rule”
8/31/22
“On August 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) published in the Federal Register a final rule entitled Pipeline Safety: Safety of Gas Transmission Pipelines: Repair Criterial, Integrity Management Improvements, Cathodic Protection, Management of Change, and Other Related Amendments (Final Rule),” Sidley Energy reports. “The Final Rule amends PHMSA’s natural gas pipeline safety regulations at 49 CFR part 192 to address the following topic areas: (1) clarification of integrity management (IM) requirements, (2) revisions to management of change processes, (3) updates to corrosion control requirements, (4) the provision of parameters for inspections following extreme weather events, (5) increasing requirements related to IM assessment methods, and (6) updating repair criteria for pipeline anomalies. Some regulatory definitions were modified too in response to these changes. The Final Rule marks the third and final installment of the so-called Gas Mega Rule that PHMSA first proposed in April 2016 (the Proposed Rule) in response to congressional action following a deadly 2010 gas transmission pipeline explosion in San Bruno, California. Specifically, in 2011, Congress enacted the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, which directed PHMSA to make a number of regulatory changes to improve pipeline safety to ensure that pipelines address that incident’s underlying causes. Subsequent legislation — in 2016, the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act, and in 2020, the PIPES Act of 2020 — placed additional pressure on PHMSA to finalize the Gas Mega Rule while enhancing the agency’s authority to regulate pipeline safety.”
WASHINGTON UPDATES
Bloomberg: Energy Permits Fight Puts Shutdown-Wary Democrats in Tough Spot
Kellie Lunney, 9/1/22
“Controversy over adding language to overhaul permitting of federal energy projects to must-pass spending legislation likely will take a back seat to keeping the government running after Sept. 30, people on and off Capitol Hill said,” Bloomberg reports. “No one wins in a government shutdown, Bill Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center and a former long-time Senate budget and appropriations aide to Republicans, told Blooberg… “Progressive Democrats and climate activists have been reeling from news of a side-deal that leadership brokered with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) earlier this summer in exchange for his vote on a tax, health, and climate law (Public Law 117-169). The deal, which complicates the last few months of the 117th Congress, involves holding a vote in the fall on measures that would streamline federal permitting for energy projects under the National Environmental Policy Act. That language would help expedite operation of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a natural gas project near completion in Manchin’s state. The permitting language could hitch a ride on a continuing resolution, forcing a tough vote for lawmakers of both parties who want a “clean” CR… “House Natural Resources Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) opposes the proposed permitting overhaul, and is ginning up support among his colleagues to ask House leadership to separate the two votes. If the permitting changes are included in a CR, Grijalva told Bloomberg he suspects that “most people would have to vote for it because they don’t want the responsibility of closing the government. I understand that.” Grijalva told Bloomberg if the votes aren’t separated, it “complicates” his vote, though he wouldn’t say what he’d do. “We’ll face that crucible down the road.” “...This backroom deal exaltation of Joe Manchin, as if he is his own branch of government, doesn’t work for most of us,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) told Bloomberg. “To ask members like me to either shut down the government or greenlight a huge fossil fuel project in West Virginia is patently unreasonable.”
InsideEPA: EPA FAQ Offers First-Time Option For Denying Permits Under ‘Rights’ Law
8/31/22
“EPA’s External Civil Rights Compliance Office (ECRCO) is providing details on how permit writers should assess cumulative impacts and, in what could be a first, the option of denying a permit under civil rights law, even if it meets all environmental requirements -- a significant step, according to some environmental justice (EJ) advocates though others say much more is still needed,” InsideEPA reports. “This is a “very big deal,” Richard Grow, a retired EPA official who worked on civil rights issues, told InsideEPA…”.
The Hill: California gas-powered car ban could fuel GOP legal battle
SHARON UDASIN AND RACHEL FRAZIN, 9/1/22
“California last week approved the country’s most ambitious electric vehicle targets, with the state’s Air Resources Board voting to ban the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035,” The Hill reports. “Now the question is whether Republican officials will be able to derail it in court. Deborah Sivas, an environmental law professor at Stanford Law School, told The Hill that automobile manufacturers are already poised to make the changes outlined in California’s Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which was approved last Thursday… “Who would be opposed to this?” she asked. “Well, there’s the ideological opposition.” The GOP counteroffensive could take various forms, but will likely include lawsuits arguing that California does not have authority to set its own standards, and efforts to further erode the federal Clean Air Act… “Further, a future Republican administration could revoke a previously issued waiver, as the Trump administration did for a waiver that was issued in 2013. Republicans are already expressing opposition to California’s rule, with U.S. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) calling it “bad and stupid.” “...In May, the Republican attorneys general of 17 states filed a lawsuit accusing EPA Administrator Michael Regan of violating the Constitution’s equal sovereignty doctrine by granting California the authority to set emissions restrictions that are stricter than the national limit… “Historically, it has been difficult to challenge agency decisions at the Supreme Court, but its recent rightward tilt complicates the issue, Sivas told The Hill… “Sivas highlighted a June decision where the Supreme Court restricted the agency’s power to oversee power plants. “They’ve not shown any inclination on these big policy type issues to defer to the agency,” she told The Hill. “So I think it’s a big question mark.”
Reuters: Feds implore court to review California fracking injunction
Clark Mindock, 9/1/22
“A federal appeals court panel jumped the gun when it blocked the U.S. government from issuing fracking permits off the coast of California, according to a request by the Biden administration for a new, full court hearing,” Reuters reports. “The Interior Department said in its request for a hearing by the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals filed Wednesday that the court's earlier three-judge panel got it wrong when it determined the government's environmental assessment amounted to final agency action and, thus, was open to court challenges… “Center for Biological Diversity attorney Kristen Monsell, who represents groups who sued over the environmental reviews, told Reuters the government’s argument that no approvals for fracking have been issued is “misleading” because a district court issued an injunction out of concern for fracking impacts on endangered species years ago.”
E&E News: Nearly $1B worth of methane lost on public tracts — report
Heather Richards, 8/31/22
“Oil and gas companies wasted nearly $1 billion worth of natural gas on public lands over the last decade, according to a report released yesterday by a nonprofit watchdog group,” E&E News reports. “Drillers burned off or vented $949 million worth of natural gas during production over the last 10 years. Royalties weren't paid on the majority of that, potentially depriving federal coffers of $76 million, the report by Taxpayers for Common Sense says. “These operators are wasting a valuable resource— with immediate costs to taxpayers and consumers, while at the same time burdening future generations with massive, cumulative cleanup costs of this highly potent greenhouse gas,” Autumn Hanna, the group's vice president, told E&E. The group is urging the Interior Department to reduce the waste by imposing stricter rules.”
STATE UPDATES
Center for Biological Diversity: California Lawmakers OK Climate Package With Buffer Zones, Carbon Capture
8/31/22
“The California legislature approved a suite of climate measures today, including historic health-and-safety setbacks that protect communities from oil and gas drilling, in its closing 2022 session… “Coming after years of hard-fought advocacy, the bill would create a 3,200-foot buffer zone between oil and gas sites and sensitive sites such as homes and schools. It was part of a climate package endorsed by the governor in recent weeks. The legislature also passed measures to set a target for 90% clean electricity by 2035 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. While these targets are steps in the right direction, California must ensure the vast majority of climate pollution reductions occur within the next decade. They must also require polluters to cut their emissions rather than relying on accounting gimmicks like carbon trading, or unproven carbon capture technologies. Also approved by lawmakers was a measure that expedites permits for carbon capture and storage, or CCS, projects, in exchange for some guardrails on the projects. CCS is an ineffective, unsafe and expensive technology that prolongs the polluting fossil fuel industry and puts communities at risk. California’s measure, for example, would allow under-regulated carbon dioxide pipelines to inject carbon waste at facilities near vulnerable communities. “It’s beyond frustrating to see the legislature fast-track a technology that has repeatedly failed and poses major risks, only to prolong the fossil fuel industry,” said Victoria Bogdan Tejeda, an attorney at the Center. “Streamlining permits for CCS projects the state has never had at scale is at best misguided and at worst dangerous. If California wants to rush climate action it should forget hazardous, unproven CCS and focus on the rapid phaseout of fossil fuels.”
NOLA.com: Appeals court declares massive Gulf oil lease unlawful but allows drilling to continue
TRISTAN BAURICK, 8/31/22
“A federal appeals court has ruled that former President Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully auctioned off large areas of the Gulf of Mexico to oil companies during two lease sales in 2018,” NOLA.com reports. “The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Tuesday that federal regulators failed to properly consider the environmental impacts of oil production on the lease areas, which cover about 150 million acres in the Gulf.The ruling doesn’t halt oil production in the contested areas, but it does send the lease sales back to the U.S. Interior Department for reconsideration and possible mitigation measures and limits on drilling. It’s unclear how long that process will take, giving the oil companies months or years to continue operating as they have since they acquired their leases. Nonetheless, environmental groups are claiming victory. “The federal government’s been allowing more leasing and more drilling without considering the risks from oil spills or to our climate,” Kristen Monsell, a litigation director for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of four environmental groups that challenged the auctions, told NOLA.com. “Now the Interior Department will have to go back to the drawing board and do a more robust analysis of the risks.” “...Katsas made clear that the decision shouldn’t immediately force oil companies to give up their leases or halt production. “They have paid millions of dollars to obtain their leases and have acted for some four years in reliance on them – including by investing substantial additional sums and by executing contracts with third parties,” he wrote. The decision follows a January ruling by the D.C. District Court that invalidated a large Gulf lease sale because it underestimated its climate impacts. Environmental groups tell NOLA.com the twin rulings will force federal regulators to rethink offshore oil and gas regulations, a move that will likely result in new rules limiting the industry in the Gulf. “
USA TODAY: Hawaii families sue US over tainted drinking water from jet fuel at Navy's Red Hill facility
Kathleen Wong, 8/31/22
“Four families filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the United States, alleging "negligence, trespass, nuisance, and medical malpractice resulting in physical and emotional injuries" caused by the jet fuel leaks that contaminated drinking water in Oahu,” USA TODAY reports. “The families are trying to hold the U.S. military accountable for tainting public drinking water with jet fuel from the Red Hill bulk fuel storage facility near Pearl Harbor. Austin, Texas -based Just Well Law and Honolulu-based Hosoda Law Group filed the lawsuit in the District of Hawaii on behalf of the Feindt, Freeman, Simic and Wyatt families. The lawsuit was filed under the Federal Torts Claims Act, which states that the U.S. "shall be liable for actual or compensatory damages." The families are looking for "accountability and the truth and change," Kristina Baehr, attorney for Just Well Law, told USA TODAY. She began filing tort claims for families this year. This case "signifies an opportunity for change because the government is not going to make change unless they are held accountable," she said. "They didn’t warn these families that their water was contaminated when they knew it was contaminated – that’s poisoning." Amanda Feindt, an active military member and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, called the filing "monumental." "There was no sense of urgency (by the military), no accountability for (the water contamination), no apology to parents for lying to us," she told USA TODAY. Feindt told USA TODAY her family can't afford testing and medical treatment caused by the contaminated water. "Our only option is to file a lawsuit," she told USA TODAY. "My thought is, if you're poisoned by the military, you're covered by the military for life."
Texas Observer: BIG LEAKS, LITTLE REGULATION
SHEILA SERNA, 9/1/22
“In the span of less than an hour, the equivalent of a year’s worth of exhaust from 16,000 cars spewed into the air when a gas pipeline owned by Energy Transfer in Webb County sprung a massive leak back in March,” the Texas Observer reports. “This “ultraemitter” event made the news because of the extraordinary amount of methane released by the leak in such a short period of time. But these types of events are actually quite common, and while individual leaks rarely reach the magnitude of Energy Transfer’s, there are hundreds if not thousands of oil and gas facilities constantly leaking across Texas. A recent Associated Press investigation with researchers from Carbon Mapper, for example, identified more than 500 “superemitting” sites in the Permian Basin using infrared cameras to film methane escaping from flare stacks, pipeline compressors, and other parts of the gas production system… “Because of the way reporting rules are designed, many emissions events fly under TCEQ’s radar. The system incentivizes oil or gas facility owners and operators to minimize the appearance of any violations, leaving it up to them to report to the state when something goes wrong. Only rarely do TCEQ investigators consider reported leaks to be “excessive” under the state’s extremely lenient definition, calculated by dividing the total hours of the emissions event by the estimated operating hours per year—taking into account the length of the event and ignoring its severity. In the 2021 fiscal year, according to TCEQ’s annual enforcement report, 5,362 incidents were reported as “excess emissions events,” but the regulator issued findings in only 16 percent of those cases. Of those, it ordered corrective measures in only 19… “This policy of official ignorance comes from the top. A decade ago, at the height of oil and gas hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, regions like Midland in the Permian were overwhelmed with methane leak reports… “Essentially, we were told to sweep real problems under the rug and mislead the public about the type and quality of work TCEQ is supposed to do.”
CBS News: Crews hope new measures will detect gas fumes earlier at U of M to prevent evacuations
JONAH KAPLAN, 8/31/22
“A new electronic monitor and nearly a dozen new monitoring stations are among the measures the Metropolitan Council and the University of Minnesota are implementing to avoid any repeat of this summer's evacuations because of a gas scare,” CBS News reports. “The safety of the public, including University students, staff, faculty, and visitors, is our top priority," Met Council Chair Charlie Zelle told CBS. "Staff are working every day to safeguard against discharges like those that were deemed so serious as to evacuate parts of the campus and surrounding neighborhoods." "...It was a pretty wild experience of being there for that first (manhole) explosion and then having (evacuations) happen again," Bryan Van Dyke, owner of D.P. Dough on 15th and University Ave, told WCCO. "It is always a concern when you have manhole covers flipping up in the middle of the road. It's going to be a problem that kids are back and there's more traffic." Kate Hein, a recent graduate now working in U of M's Language Department, echoed that sentiment. "If you're in the middle of a test, like what do you do? Do you have to re-test? Do you have to reschedule everything?" she told CBS. "If you're running a lab or any sort of experiment in a lab building, sometimes it runs for a week or even a month and so any disruption can be really catastrophic and set a whole lab back." “...Though one company, Zahl Petroleum Maintenance Co., was cited for violating its discharge permit, the Met Council ruled out any connection to the summer incidents, and the investigation thus still continues.”
EXTRACTION
Guardian: Carbon capture is not a solution to net zero emissions plans, report says
Damien Gayle, 9/1/22
“Carbon capture and storage schemes, a key plank of many governments’ net zero plans, “is not a climate solution”, the author of a major new report on the technology has said,” the Guardian reports. “Researchers for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) found underperforming carbon capture projects considerably outnumbered successful ones by large margins. Of the 13 projects examined for the study – accounting for about 55% of the world’s current operational capacity – seven underperformed, two failed and one was mothballed, the report found. “Many international bodies and national government are relying on carbon capture in the fossil fuel sector to get to net zero, and it simply won’t work,” Bruce Robertson, the author of the IEEFA report, told the Guardian… “IEEFA’s report said that although carbon capture and storage is a 50-year-old technology, its results have been varied. Most CCS projects have since reused captured gas by pumping it into dwindling oil fields to help squeeze out the last drops, it pointed out. This “enhanced oil recovery” (EOS) accounts for about 73% of the CO2 captured globally each year, in recent years, according to the report. Roughly 28m tonnes out of the 39m tonnes captured globally, according to its estimates, is reinjected and sequestered in oil fields to push more oil out of the ground. “EOR itself leads to CO2 emissions both directly and indirectly,” the report said. “The direct impact is the emissions from the fuel used to compress and pump CO2 deep into the ground. The indirect impact is the emissions from burning the hydrocarbons that could now have come out without EOR.” “...According to the report, trapped CO2 will need monitoring for centuries to ensure it does not leak into the atmosphere – raising the risk of liability being handed over to the public, years after private interests have extracted their profits from the enterprise. The risk is that CCS technology will be used to extend the life of fossil fuel infrastructure long past the cut off point for maintaining atmospheric carbon at less than catastrophic levels, the report suggested.”
The Hill: Costs associated with carbon emissions three times federal estimate: study
ZACK BUDRYK, 9/1/22
“The social cost of carbon is significantly higher than the federal estimate, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Nature,” The Hill reports. “Researchers put the financial toll associated with projected future carbon emissions at $185 per ton of carbon pollution added to the atmosphere, more than three times the federal government’s figure of $51… “Our estimate, which draws on recent advances in the scientific and economic literature, shows that we are vastly underestimating the harm of each additional ton of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere,” co-author Richard G. Newell, president and CEO of the think tank Resources for the Future, told The Hill. “The implication is that the benefits of government policies and other actions that reduce global warming pollution are greater than has been assumed.” The current federal social cost of carbon estimate is itself the Obama-era estimate. Upon taking office in 2017, the Trump administration dismantled the working group that made the estimate and announced a dramatically smaller estimate of $1 to $7 a ton. The Biden administration has since restored the $51 estimate but has pledged to update the number… “A July 2021 study published in Nature Communications put the price even higher, at up to $258 per ton, by factoring in estimated excess deaths associated with increased emissions.”
Associated Press: Europe plan for floating gas terminals raises climate fears
CATHY BUSSEWITZ, 8/31/22
“As winter nears, European nations, desperate to replace the natural gas they once bought from Russia, have embraced a short-term fix: A series of roughly 20 floating terminals that would receive liquefied natural gas from other countries and convert it into heating fuel,” the Associated Press reports. “Yet the plan, with the first floating terminals set to deliver natural gas by year’s end, has raised alarms among scientists who fear the long-term consequences for the environment. They warn that these terminals would perpetuate Europe’s reliance on natural gas, which releases climate-warming methane and carbon dioxide when it’s produced, transported and burned. Some scientists say they worry that the floating terminals will end up becoming a long-term supplier of Europe’s vast energy needs that could last years, if not decades. Such a trend could set back emission-reduction efforts that experts say haven’t moved fast enough to slow the damage being done to the global environment. Much of the liquefied natural gas, or LNG, that Europe hopes to receive is expected to come from the United States… “Along the U.S. Gulf Coast, export terminals are expanding, and many residents there are alarmed about the rise in drilling for gas and the resulting loss of land as well as extreme weather changes associated with burning fossil fuels. “Building this immense LNG infrastructure will lock the world into continued reliance on fossil fuels and continued climate damage for decades to come,” John Sterman, a climate scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told Reuters… “Many environmental scientists argue that the money being earmarked for the ships — which cost about $500 million each to build, according to Rystad — would be better spent on rapidly adopting clean-energy or efficiency upgrades that could reduce energy consumption… “It’s totally obvious,” Sascha Müller-Kraenner, CEO of Environmental Action Germany, told Reuters, that “the provisions of the law were developed in close dialogue with the gas industry.” “...It is a little disheartening to see Europe, which has been the seat of so much energy and action and bold emissions targets, being home to this particular way with doubling down on fossil fuel infrastructure,” Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Brown University, told Reuters.
CLIMATE FINANCE
Wall Street Journal: Blackstone, Carlyle Take Different Sides on Oil-and-Gas Investment
Miriam Gottfried, 9/1/22
“Profits from oil-and-gas production have surged as crude prices hover at elevated levels, but volatile returns and a fraught political climate have created a divide among the biggest private-equity firms about whether investing in the sector is worth the headache,” the Wall Street Journal reports. “Many public pension funds and endowments that invest in private-equity funds have put pressure on their managers to stop backing producers of fossil fuels and invest more in cleaner sources of energy. The energy market’s boom-and-bust cycles also have translated into poor investment returns over the long term. That has caused some of the biggest buyout firms to dial back their investment in the sector. Blackstone Inc. has said neither of its energy businesses will make new investments in oil-and-gas exploration and production. Apollo Global Management Inc. forswore new fossil-fuel investments in the $25 billion buyout fund it is in the process of raising. KKR & Co. hasn’t drawn a line in the sand... “All three firms will still invest in pipelines and other infrastructure to transport or store traditional forms of energy—and some are investing in repositioning those assets for cleaner uses—but they are increasingly putting their money behind faster-growing renewable sources. Investment in the sector has fallen since private-equity firms have chilled on it… “Not every firm is rushing away from buying heavy carbon emitters: Executives at Carlyle Group Inc. and Brookfield Asset Management Inc., two other big private-equity firms, argue that private-equity firms should use their capital and know-how to transform traditional energy producers, whose products are still crucial to the global economy, into more climate-friendly businesses… “The risks to that approach abound. It can be difficult to get debt financing for companies that produce fossil fuels because banks are wary of lending to them now. The limited pool of willing buyers—not just among investment firms, but among other oil-and-gas companies, which are consumed with their own energy-transition efforts—means there also are significant hurdles to exiting from such investments. Bankers and private-equity managers say it is nearly impossible to take a fossil-fuel producer public these days. To have any hope of selling an oil or gas asset at a profit, a firm has to have a plan to make it greener.”
TODAY IN GREENWASHING
Huntingdon Daily News: Volunteers get grant to replace gear
ADAM WATSON, 9/1/22
“The Marklesburg Volunteer Fire Co. Wednesday formally accepted a grant in the amount of $10,000 from Energy Transfer, which aided in the purchase of turnout gear to enhance the department’s emergency response capabilities,” the Huntingdon Daily News reports. “Energy Transfer is one of the largest and most diversified energy logistics companies in the country, with approximately 3,000 miles of pipeline infrastructure and gathering systems in the state. “This grant from Energy Transfer will allow us to replace old and obsolete gear to not only comply with national standards, but to better protect our volunteer firefighters. This special gear is more lightweight and form-fitting than older gear, which will benefit our members with better comfort, movement and protection,” Marklesburg fire chief Marlin Hunsicker told the News… “The First Responder Fund is just one of the ways Energy Transfer supports first responders in the communities where we operate, and this grant for Marklesburg is a great example. We are thrilled to provide this grant to allow more members to benefit from this innovative gear, keeping them safer as they protect our community,” Chris Koop, lead specialist, public affairs at Energy Transfer, told the News.
OPINION
MuskokaRegion.com: Huntsville doesn’t need more gas, it needs new thinking
Angela Bischoff, Director, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, 9/2/22
“In the face of an accelerating climate crisis, is expanding gas service a good idea?” Angela Bischoff writes for MuskokaRegion.com. “Enbridge thinks so, but it gets paid for every meter of pipe it puts in the ground. And at first glance, homeowners stuck with costly fuel oil and propane for heating may think so too. But there is a much better answer: electric heat pumps. Instead of hooking homes into climate-wrecking gas, we can convert them to super-efficient cold-weather air-source heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling… “So, why would we spend millions of dollars laying new pipelines (paid for, in part, by every gas consumer in Ontario) when we have a much better alternative? It’s like expanding use of kerosene lighting as electrical poles are strung down your street for the first time. As for the renewable gas that Enbridge likes to talk about, it is all just empty vapour… “We have less than a decade left to make major reductions in our greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the very worst of storms, droughts, floods and diseases amped up by runaway climate change. That makes expanding the use of fossil gas (methane) at this point a bad choice, especially when we have a much better choice thanks to the availability of heat pump technology (both air source and ground source). Huntsville doesn’t need more gas. It needs new thinking.”