Biblio
Photo by Alex Wong | Getty Images. See source here.
Amicus Curiae
Faith Based organizations offer information relevant to the Supreme Court deliberation on the matter of Connecticut vs. American Electric Power. 2011-03-18.
Amici curiae are fourteen faith-based organizations that are active participants in the ongoing attempt to respond to global climate change and have a strong interest in developing limits on greenhouse gases, which are the primary cause of global climate change.
Amici represent a broad spectrum of Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish communities. Although they differ on many matters of faith and policy, they are united in their concern about threats to the environment. They believe that human beings are stewards of God’s Creation and that humans have a moral obligation to prevent and mitigate harm to the planet, to our fellow humans, and to all of God’s creatures.
An amicus curiae (also spelled amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae) is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it. The information provided may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief (which is called an amicus brief when offered by an amicus curiae), a testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin and literally means "friend of the court".
See: Gas Drilling Discussion (Suggested Agenda for) : Biblical and Theological Considerations
...The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has vetoed the largest single mountaintop removal permit in West Virginia history.
The move is part of an Obama administration crackdown aimed at reducing the effects of mountaintop removal coal-mining on the environment and on coalfield communities in Appalachian — impacts that scientists are increasingly finding to be pervasive and irreversible.
The final EPA decision document is available here. EPA has also now posted some appendices to that document, including a response to comments.
EPA officials this morning were alerting West Virginia’s congressional delegation to their action, and undoubtedly preparing for a huge backlash from the mining industry and its friends among coalfield political leaders.
Comment (65 comments posted as of 1/14/11 1:04 P.M.) posted by rhmooney3. Jan. 13, 2011 at 1:33 P.M.
...I believe the mining industry, the entire business community and all the states want this to move through the federal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court...
P.S. As a result of this EPA action, mining companies have no choice than to play ball with the EPA — in making this decison the EPA has made a lot of other decisions yet to come.
W.Va. Senator Joe Manchin said:
Today’s EPA decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country’s history.
While the EPA decision hurts West Virginia today, it has negative ramifications for every state in our nation, and I strongly urge every Senator and every Member of Congress to voice their opposition.
Peter S. Silva, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water
EPA Press Release:
CONTACT:
Jalil Isa (News Media Only)
isa.jalil@epa.gov
202-564-3226
202-564-4355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 13, 2011
EPA Halts Disposal of Mining Waste to Appalachian Waters at Proposed Spruce Mine: Agency cites irreversible damage to clean water, environment in the region.
WASHINGTON – After extensive scientific study, a major public hearing in West Virginia and review of more than 50,000 public comments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today announced that it will use its authority under the Clean Water Act to halt the proposed disposal of mining waste in streams at the Mingo-Logan Coal Company’s Spruce No. 1 coal mine.
Background on Clean Water Act Section 404(c)
Clean Water Act Section 404(c) authorizes EPA to restrict or prohibit placing dredged or fill material in streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands and other waters if the agency determines that the activities would result in “unacceptable adverse effects” to the environment, water quality, or water supplies. This authority applies to proposed projects as well as projects previously permitted under the Clean Water Act although EPA is not considering such action for other previously permitted projects.
With today’s (Jan. 13, 2011) action, EPA has exercised its Section 404(c) authority only 13 times in its history of the CWA. EPA recognizes the importance of ensuring that its Section 404(c) actions are taken only where environmental impacts are truly unacceptable and will use this authority only where warranted by science and the law.
Ken Ward Jr. says:
Arch Coal hasn’t responded to my query yet, but the New York Times has these comments from a company spokeswoman:
John Broder. Jan. 13, 2011. NYT. "Agency Revokes Permit for Major Coal Mining Project".
“We remain shocked and dismayed at E.P.A.’s continued onslaught with respect to this validly issued permit,” said Kim Link, the company’s spokeswoman. “Absent court intervention, E.P.A.’s final determination to veto the Spruce permit blocks an additional $250 million investment and 250 well-paying American jobs.”
“Furthermore, we believe this decision will have a chilling effect on future U.S. investment,” she added, “because every business possessing or requiring a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will fear similar overreaching by the E.P.A. It’s a risk many businesses cannot afford to take.”
Ken.
Ken Ward, Jr. is a staff reporter for the Charleston Gazette, who has been nationally recognized for his writing on the coal mining industry. He is Chair of the Society of Environmental Journalists First Amendment Task Force, founded in 2002 to "to address freedom-of-information, right-to-know, and other news gathering issues of concern to the pursuit of environmental journalism."
See: WATER: Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling E.P.A. | Mixplex
See: Lisa P. Jackson, EPA (lisapjackson) on Twitter | Mixplex
See: New WVU-Va Tech study links water quality and cancer deaths in West Virginia coalfields
See: Ecological integrity of streams related to human cancer mortality rates
by Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica - April 7, 2010.
Series: Buried Secrets: Gas Drilling's Environmental Threat.
A federal study of hydraulic fracturing set to begin this spring is expected to provide the most expansive look yet at how the natural gas drilling process can affect drinking water supplies, according to interviews with EPA officials and a set of documents outlining the scope of the project.
The research will take a substantial step beyond previous studies and focus on how a broad range of ancillary activity – not just the act of injecting fluids under pressure – may affect drinking water quality.
The oil and gas industry strongly opposes this new approach. The agency’s intended research "goes well beyond relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water," said Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America in comments (PDF) he submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.
See 22 page Powerpoint, Hydraulic Fracturing Applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act Science Advisory Board Discussion.(2010).
River Valley Resident. Posted on blog by Liz J. Bucar, Breathing is Political. Thoughtful soul-searching essay on Gas Drilling.
President Bush delivers his 2006 State of the Union address, where he famously stated that “America is addicted to oil.” AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Rebecca Lefton includes a timeline: 2001-2008 of the Bush Presidency's corrupt energy policy.
BP’s oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is without a doubt former Vice President Dick Cheney’s Katrina. President George W. Bush and Cheney consistently catered to Big Oil and other special interests to undercut renewable energy and energy efficiency initiatives that would set the United States on a more secure clean energy path.
Oil companies raked in record profits while benefitting from policies they wrote for themselves. These energy policies did nothing for our national security and left consumers to pay the price at the pump and on their energy bills, which rose more than $1,100 during the Bush administration.
See: The Bill From Bush’s Broken Energy System
Read also: The Prelude to Cheney's Katrina by Joshua Dorner
Photo: UC Santa Barbara Geography Department. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as seen from space by NASA's Terra satellite on May 24, 2010. The spill has yet to be contained and is the worst oil spill in US history.
View of the Macondo well leaking oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
The subject of gas drilling in the Marcellus may be looked at in its historical, legal and scientific contexts. The need to heal the ineffective and mistrustful relationship between environmentalists, the U.S. government and the international energy industry concerning the preservation of American air and water becomes more urgent by seeing images like these.
See: Kara Cusolito. The Nation. "The Next Drilling Disaster".
On Sunday, Sept. 26, a committee of the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council that is conducting an analysis of the causes of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill held a public meeting to hear from Mark Bly, group head of safety and operations for BP, and other company representatives about BP's recently released accident investigation report. Also on the agenda were executives from Halliburton and Shell Oil.
- Photos
- Webcast Audio Part 1 (Opening Remarks, BP Presentation)
- Webcast Audio Part 2 (Q&A with Committee and BP)
- Webcast Audio Part 3 (Halliburton Presentation and Q&A)
- Webcast Audio Part 4 (Shell Presentation and Q&A)
- Meeting Agenda
- Project Information
See: "More Questions About BP’s Limited Investigation Into Gulf Disaster".
See: Dave Cohen. Energy Bulletin. "Shale Gas Shenanigans."
See: National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
See: The Questions BP Didn’t Answer
See: Tracking the Oil Spill in the Gulf | Interactive Map
For more on the estimates, see these articles:
May 14: Size of Oil Spill Underestimated, Scientists Say
May 28: Estimates Suggest Spill Is Biggest in U.S. History
June 7: Rate of Oil Leak, Still Not Clear, Puts Doubt on BP
June 10: New Estimates Double Rate of Oil Leak
June 15: Panel Sharply Raises Estimate of Oil Spill
Aug. 2: Gulf Spill Is the Largest of Its Kind
See: Cain Burdeau. "Scientists Find Damage to Coral Near BP Well." AP. Coastal Care. Nov. 6, 2010.
See: Peter Hart. July 2010. "Still Drill, Baby—Despite Spill
Little rethinking of oil after Deepwater disaster." FAIR. (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
See New Book:
Institute of Medicine, Margaret A. Mccoy, and Judith A. Salerno. Assessing the Effects of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill on Human Health: A Summary of the June 2010 Workshop. National Academies Press, 2010.
In a speech in Buenos Aires last year, BP Chief Executive Tony Hayward called this "a quiet revolution...in the gas fields of North America."
New techniques like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are opening up new gas resources that could last the U.S. between 50 and 100 years, he said.
"One field where these techniques were pioneered--the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth in Texas--has almost single-handedly turned around the production of natural gas in the U.S.," Hayward said.
BP made its entry into U.S. shale gas in 2008 when it acquired 90,000 acres of the Arkoma Basin Woodford Shale play and 135,000 acres of the Fayetteville shale from Chesapeake Energy for $2.85 billion in cash.
BP's Tony Hayward tells World Economic Forum of 'game changer' technique to serve world's energy needs.
Excitement in the industry over "unconventional" gas supplies has led to a wave of investment in America which Tony Hayward, BP's chief executive, believes could eventually spread around the world.
BP inherited a major stake in shale operations when it took over Amoco 12 years ago, but has added to that by spending $1.75bn buying shale interests from rival Chesapeake Energy in the summer of 2008. Last November BP showed its determination to extend the use of the techniques when it signed a production-sharing agreement with the government of Indonesia to exploit new reserves in Kalimantan.
See: BP Deepwater Horizon Committee Hears From Oil Industry Executives
See: National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling
See: Before the Big Spill
After BP’s Texas City, Tex., refinery blew up in 2005, killing 15 workers, the company vowed to address the safety shortfalls that caused the blast.
The next year, when a badly maintained oil pipeline ruptured and spilled 200,000 gallons of crude oil over Alaska’s North Slope, the oil giant once again promised to clean up its act.
In 2007, when Tony Hayward took over as chief executive, BP settled a series of criminal charges, including some related to Texas City, and agreed to pay $370 million in fines. “Our operations failed to meet our own standards and the requirements of the law,” the company said then, pledging to improve its “risk management.”
Despite those repeated promises to reform, BP continues to lag other oil companies when it comes to safety, according to federal officials and industry analysts. Many problems still afflict its operations in Texas and Alaska, they say. Regulators are investigating a whistle-blower’s allegations of safety violations at the Atlantis, one of BP’s newest offshore drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Now BP is in the spotlight because of the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people and continues to spew oil into the ocean. It is too early to say what caused the explosion. Other companies were also involved, including Transocean, which owned and operated the drilling rig, and Halliburton, which had worked on the well a day before the explosion.
BP, based in London, has repeatedly asserted that Transocean was solely responsible for the accident.
See: BP to pay $15 million for Texas air pollution violations. Reuters. Sept. 30, 2010.
See: Cain Burdeau. "Scientists Find Damage to Coral Near BP Well." AP. Coastal Care. Nov. 6, 2010.
Texas based blogger "TXsharon".
"I'm a landowner and a mineral owner on top of the Barnett Shale.
If you want to know how I became known as TXsharon and why industry tries to discredit me by calling me a "left-wing lunatic with a socialists agenda," you can read about it here: How I became a "Far Left Radical with a socialist agenda," etc. And, yes, I'm a mineral owner.
In January 2010, I started working for Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project on a very part-time basis. I am likely the only person in Texas who gets paid for helping Texans who are negatively effected by oil and gas development. We hope to make my position full-time soon."
See: Cheney Helped Halliburton Hide Secrets About Dangerous Chemicals in YOUR Drinking Water. Tue Nov 25, 2008 at 08:36:40 AM CST.
See: "Doodygate".
See TxSharon's Diary on the Daily Kos.
See Barnett Shale: Aerial View and Cattle Drink Drilling Waste
Black Warrior Riverkeeper's mission is to protect and restore the Black Warrior River and its tributaries. The Black River Watershed in Alabama provides water to over a million people.
We are a citizen-based nonprofit organization dedicated to improving water quality, habitat, recreation, and public health throughout our patrol area, the Black Warrior River watershed. This vital river basin is home to over a million people and is entirely contained within Alabama.
There are over four thousand coalbed methane wells in the Black Warrior River watershed. Tens of thousands of acres are leased to this practice, creating a massive network of roads and well pads. The extraction of coalbed methane involves a process known as hydraulic fracturing.
See: Affirming Gasland.
See: Max Shelby. Dec. 19, 2010. Black Warrior Riverkeeper Newsletter--Sheperd's Bend Coal Mine Fight Continues. Vincent Alabama Confidential.
BJ is one of the large companies being investigated by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee to see if the gas extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a hazard to groundwater drinking supplies.
The Houston Chronicle reported that Texas Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White, 2010, may have had a conflict of interest during his term as mayor of Houston. Bill White earned more than $2.6 million serving on the board of a gas well servicing company that now is part of a congressional investigation into possible groundwater contamination.
White, who made cleaning Houston's polluted air a hallmark of his tenure as Houston's mayor, has been on the board of BJ Services Co. since 2003, the year he was elected, earning more than $627,000.
White also received almost $830,000 in stock and another $245,000 in stock options. He will receive an additional $180,000 in stock and a retirement payout of $783,000 if the firm's merger with Baker Hughes is approved by shareholders Friday.
See: 03/31/2010--Baker Hughes and BJ Services Stockholders Approve Merger
From the web site: "BJ Services has earned a reputation for providing reliable fracturing services for virtually every major shale oil and gas operator. Since 1981, our skilled engineers and crews have successfully designed and pumped more than 21,500 shale frac treatments around the world. We know that every shale formation is different and we offer the most advanced fracturing technologies–the right fluids, proppants and equipment–needed to “crack the code” for optimum frac designs and operations."
Democracy Now! caught up with McKibben at the Cancún Climate Conference in Mexico. We asked for his reaction to the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks showing how the U.S. manipulated last year’s climate talks in Cancún.
Some of the new data [Wikileaks] coming out today makes it clear that everyone’s suspicion that the U.S. was both bullying and buying countries into endorsing their do-little position on climate were even sort of worse than we had realized...
...They [The U.S. Congress] think because they can change the tax code, they can change the laws of nature...
...this U.N. process, has been going on forever, and it’s getting nowhere, and it’s not going to get anywhere substantive, until we have some power from the outside to push it.
"It’s just like a family reunion aboard the Titanic, you know?" And that’s sort of what it feels like. We can’t keep doing this. Until we can build some power outside of these arenas to actually push these guys, you know, this is—in the end, it’s not about how well people are communicating or how great the policy papers are. It’s on who has the power. And at the moment, that power rests in the hands of the fossil fuel industry and their allies in governments around the world.
And until we build some independent outside movement power to push back, then we’re never going to get—we’re going to get scraps from the table, at the very best.
See: Damian Carrington. "WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord." The Guardian.co.uk. 2010-12-03.
See: Ian Traynor. "WikiLeaks cables: Cancún climate talks doomed to fail, says EU president." The Guardian.co.uk. 2010-12-03.
Silhouetted against the sky at dusk, excess steam, along with non-scrubbed pollutants, spew from the smokestacks at Westar Energy's Jeffrey Energy Center coal-fired power plant near St. Marys, Kan. Credit: AP Photo/Charlie Riedel.
In the name of job creation and clean energy, the Obama administration has doled out billions of dollars in stimulus money to some of the nation’s biggest polluters and granted them sweeping exemptions from the most basic form of environmental oversight, a Center for Public Integrity investigation has found.
The administration has awarded more than 179,000 “categorical exclusions” to stimulus projects funded by federal agencies, freeing those projects from review under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Coal-burning utilities like Westar Energy and Duke Energy, chemical manufacturer DuPont, and ethanol maker Didion Milling are among the firms with histories of serious environmental violations that have won blanket NEPA exemptions...
...Documents obtained by the Center show the administration has devised a speedy review process that relies on voluntary disclosures by companies to determine whether stimulus projects pose environmental harm. Corporate polluters often omitted mention of health, safety, and environmental violations from their applications.
Related Stories:
NEPA Exemptions: The Dirty Dozen List
Wisconsin Firm Receives Energy Grant Despite Chronic Pollution Problems
See: Pollution in Your Community | Scorecard
See: A Life’s Value May Depend on the Agency, but It’s Rising
See: Climate Co-benefits and Child Mortality Wedges
See: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Hydraulic Fracturing Study (2010-2012)
Hundreds of millions of dollars in grants from major oil companies may have compromised the ethics of energy research at such institutions as UC Berkeley, UC Davis, Stanford and Cornell.
Cornell is considering leasing some of its land holdings to natural gas drillers. SUNY Binghamton signed a $1.4 million dollar gas lease in 2008.
See: Editorial - A Decision Above Reproach | The Cornell Daily Sun.
See: Lee Fuller. "HF 101: As Cornell Begins Study of Shale Gas Exploration, Energy In Depth Offers Itself Up as Resource for Ad Hoc Panel". Energy in Depth.
Read the full report here:
According to the 212-page study, released by the Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank, such companies as BP, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have funded more than $800 million in potentially compromised research with few protections for academic independence.
For example, since 2002, Stanford has received $225 million from a consortium led by ExxonMobil to study technology to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The company operates refineries, oil drilling facilities, tankers and gas stations, making it a major emitter of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases globally.
As part of the Stanford contract, the industry controls all four voting seats on the research alliance's governing body, and peer review of faculty research proposals is done "at the discretion of industry sponsors," the report says.
...this report represents the first time independent analysts have systematically examined a set of written university-industry agreements within a specific research area—in this case, the energy R&D sector—to evaluate how well they balance the goals of the corporate sponsors to produce commercial research that advances business profits with the missions of American universities to perform high-quality, disinterested academic research that advances public knowledge for the betterment of society.
See: GCEP Director Sally M. Benson responds to Center for American Progress report: More
See: DemocracyNow!: Big Oil Goes to College: BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell Fund & Influence Research at Major Universities
See: DemocracyNow! Transcript on truth-out.org.
See: Helene Cooper and John M. Broder. "BP’s Ties to Agency Are Long and Complex". May 26, 2010. NYT.
Hopefully, this NYT “mention” will draw some much-needed media attention to the actual contents of my own report, which examines university-industry alliances to finance energy research on campus, and raises questions about whether the current structure of these alliances adequately protects the universities’ academic mission and their ability to carry out independent, high-quality, reliable, public-good research. This article today does not address these issues at all. But, helpfully, Cooper and Broder in their NYT story did note that BP, in a May 24th press release, has pledged $500 million for “Independent Research into Impact of Spill on Marine Environment,” with the first grants going to the University of Louisiana. It looks like the iron is hot to look more deeply at university-industry research partnerships of this kind. – Jennifer
Media reports indicate the University of California system may be on the verge of signing a contract to create the proposed Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI) with BP. It is obviously a matter of urgent priority for the health of the planet to promote research and innovation related to alternative energy, and it is imperative that public research institutions direct major new resources to such endeavors. It is not at all obvious, however, that public institutions should do this in collaboration with giant oil companies that are contributing massively to climate change.
At minimum, such collaborations require intense scrutiny and informed debate. The prospect of giant carbon polluters directing research related to and gaining control of key energy technologies is very troubling -- especially when the research is conducted at, and the technologies are developed in collaboration with, public institutions. In this regard, the details of the UC-BP research agreement are of great importance. They will specify how research priorities are to be established, and how the fruits of the research collaborationare to be managed and controlled.
See: LSU News. June 15, 2010. "LSU Receives $5 Million From BP to Fund Spill-Related Research Grant to support studies in everything from human and environmental impact to engineering solutions".
The funds will come from BP’s $500 million Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, or GRI, which will support universities in the Gulf area in research on the fate and effects of oil, dispersed oil and dispersants.
