Government
A federal proposal laying out new standards for a controversial natural-gas drilling practice called hydraulic fracturing likely won’t be issued until after the 2012 elections, an energy analyst said Thursday.
The practice is certain to be an election issue for lawmakers from states in which hydraulic fracturing is prevalent, but the timing of the standards would take that hot-button issue off the table.
Comment:
"This new process is a Godsend…BY Grandma" on 02/11/2011 at 20:52
The federal government must step in and start regulating fracking. Hydraulic fracturing should NOT be exempt from the Safe Water Drinking Act and Clean Water Act. This industry is killing people by contaminating aquifers across the nation. Fracking is shaping up to be the cause of the biggest environmental and public health disaster this country has ever witnessed. 2012 is too long to wait to start correcting this horrific wrong that has been committed against the people of the United States.
See: Toledo. Free Press. "Kasich says Marcellus Shale could be ‘godsend’ for Ohio." Toledo. Free Press. 2011-01-01.
See: U.S. Congress. Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. "Hearing Highlights Lack of Objectivity in Draft EPA Fracking Study--No Evidence of Drinking Water Contamination from Fracking, Witnesses Say". May 11, 2011
The official birthday of EPA is December 2, 1970. Like any other birth, EPA's needed progenitors, and a family tree stretching back for years. Surely no factor was more pivotal in the birth of EPA than decades of rampant and highly visible pollution. But pollution alone does not an agency make. Ideas are needed--better yet a whole world view--and many environmental ideas first crystallized in 1962.
That year saw the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, first in serial form in the New Yorker and then as a Houghton Mifflin best seller. This exhaustively researched, carefully reasoned, and beautifully written attack on the indiscriminate use of pesticides was not exactly light reading. Yet it attracted immediate attention and wound up causing a revolution in public opinion.
An inveterate bird-watcher, Carson derived her missionary zeal from her fear that fewer species of birds would be singing each spring unless pesticide poisoning was curtailed. The readers of her book, however, were less alarmed by the prospect of a "Silent Spring" than they were about people dying from any number of hidden poisons lurking in what had previously seemed a benign environment. It was not hard to wax hysterical after reading in Carson's book that "the common salad bowl may easily present a combination of organic phosphate insecticides" that could "interact" with lethal consequences to the unsuspecting salad muncher.
Silent Spring played in the history of environmentalism roughly the same role that Uncle Tom's Cabin played in the abolitionist movement. In fact, EPA today may be said without exaggeration to be the extended shadow of Rachel Carson. The influence of her book has brought together over 14,000 scientists, lawyers, managers, and other employees across the country to fight the good fight for "environmental protection..."
See: EPA History Web Page
See: The Origins of EPA
See: Carson, Rachel. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002. Print.
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
Americans depend on clean and abundant water. However, over the past decade, interpretations of Supreme Court rulings removed some critical waters from Federal protection, and caused confusion about which waters and wetlands are protected under the Clean Water Act. As a result, important waters now lack clear protection under the law, and businesses and regulators face uncertainty and delay. The Obama Administration is committed to protecting waters on which the health of people, the economy and ecosystems depend.
U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have developed draft guidance for determining whether a waterway, water body, or wetland is protected by the Clean Water Act. This guidance would replace previous guidance to reaffirm protection for critical waters. It also will provide clearer, more predictable guidelines for determining which water bodies are protected by the Clean Water Act. The draft guidance will be open for 60 days of public comment to allow all stakeholders to provide input and feedback before it is finalized.
The draft guidance will reaffirm protections for small streams that feed into larger streams, rivers, bays and coastal waters. It will also reaffirm protection for wetlands that filter pollution and help protect communities from flooding. Discharging pollution into protected waters (e.g., dumping sewage, contaminants, or industrial pollution) or filling protected waters and wetlands (e.g., building a housing development or a parking lot) require permits. This guidance will keep safe the streams and wetlands that affect the quality of the water used for drinking, swimming, fishing, farming, manufacturing, tourism and other activities essential to the American economy and quality of life. It also will provide regulatory clarity, predictability, consistency and transparency.
See: William Ringler sentenced to prison of Clean Water Act violation
See: Supreme Court Restricts Clean Water Act
How and Why Clean Water Protections Are Being Weakened
The Clean Water Act, as written in 1972, safeguards all of the "waters of the United States," through a number of programs. The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers regulations implementing the law have for decades reflected the intent of Congress to protect all of America's waters. These rules had been upheld by the vast majority of state and federal courts.
In 2001, however, a bare majority of the Supreme Court-in a case called Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers - ruled 5-4 that the presence of a habitat for migratory birds is not sufficient justification for protection of a water that does not flow year round or that is an "isolated" wetland under the Clean Water Act. The decision in Rapanos v. United States in 2006 created further confusion about which waters deserved protection under the Clean Water Act.
...The Clean Water Restoration Act of 2009(S 787) introduced by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-WI, would accomplish these important goals and has been endorsed by Clean Water Action."
Clean Water Action: A Brief History
Mission Statement
Clean Water Action is an organization of 1.2 million members working to empower people to take action to protect America's waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for all of us. For 36 years Clean Water Action has succeeded in winning some of the nation's most important environmental protections through grassroots organizing, expert policy research and political advocacy focused on holding elected officials accountable to the public.
Passage of the original 1972 Clean Water Act, with many of the law's most important parts drafted by Clean Water Action, has been followed by other major successes. They include enactment of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 and subsequent changes in 1996 that strengthened the law. Clean Water Action's successful defense in 1977 of the Clean Water Act's wetlands protection program was won by a single vote in the U.S. Senate.
Paul Schwartz, Clean Water Action National Policy Coordinator
202-895-0420 ext. 105
Take Action!
Clean Water Action: A Brief History
Mission Statement
Clean Water Action is an organization of 1.2 million members working to empower people to take action to protect America's waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for all of us. For 36 years Clean Water Action has succeeded in winning some of the nation's most important environmental protections through grassroots organizing, expert policy research and political advocacy focused on holding elected officials accountable to the public.
The incoming Republican chairs of the House of Representatives plan to send the United States back to the Stone Age with respect to climate policy. All of them opposed the climate legislation supported by President Barack Obama, and now oppose limits on global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. Several have accused climate scientists of doctoring data and suppressing dissent; the others merely claim climate policy is actually a conspiracy to destroy the American economy. Meet the climate zombies who will be in charge of developing all federal legislation for the next two years:
SENATE
HOUSE
See: Grist. Dec. 29, 2010. "Upton argues Obama plans to destroy America in the name of global warming."
US coal mining companies have scored some points in their fight against the Environmental Protection Agency’s tough stance on mountaintop mining. A federal judge has ruled (PDF) in a preliminary decision that the EPA may have overstepped its legal authority by imposing strict new environmental standards on mining permits (via New York Times). The move comes just one day after the agency vetoed a permit for what would have been the country's largest mountaintop coal mine in Appalachia, West Virginia (see Nature’s blog here).
See: Ken Ward Jr. "Breaking news: EPA vetoes Spruce Mine permit." Coal Tattoo. Jan. 13, 2011.
Apr 16, 2011
Today Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman, Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Edward J. Markey, and Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Ranking Member Diana DeGette released a new report that summarizes the types, volumes, and chemical contents of the hydraulic fracturing products used by the 14 leading oil and gas service companies.
The report contains the first comprehensive national inventory of chemicals used by hydraulic fracturing companies during the drilling process.
“Hydraulic fracturing has helped to expand natural gas production in the United States, but we must ensure that these new resources don’t come at the expense of public health,” said Rep. Waxman.
“This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens. I urge EPA and DOE to make certain that we have strong protections in place to prevent these chemicals from entering drinking water supplies.”
See: U.S. Congress. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Minority Staff (Henry Waxman, Edward Markey, Diana DeGette). "Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing". Washington, D.C. April 2011. (PDF)
Universal Well Services, for example, told the Committee that it “obtains hydraulic fracturing products from third-party manufacturers, and to the extent not publicly disclosed, product composition is proprietary to the respective vendor and not to the Company.”31
Complete Production Services noted that the company always uses fluids from third-party suppliers who provide an MSDS for each product. Complete confirmed that it is “not aware of any circumstances in which the vendors who provided the products have disclosed this proprietary information” to the company, further noting that “such information is highly proprietary for these vendors, and would not generally be disclosed to service providers” like Complete.32
Key Energy Services similarly stated that it “generally does not have access to the trade secret information as a purchaser of the chemical(s).”33
Trican also told the Committee that it has limited knowledge of “off the shelf” products purchased from a chemical distributor or manufacturer, noting that “Trican does not have any information in its possession about the components of such products beyond what the distributor of each product provided Trican in the MSDS sheet.”34
In these cases, it appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment.
VI. CONCLUSION
Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. Yet questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process.
It shows that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.
31. Letter from Reginald J. Brown to Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (Apr. 16, 2010).
32. Letter from Philip Perry to Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee Energy and Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (Aug. 6, 2010).
33. E-mail from Peter Spivack to Committee Staff (Aug. 5, 2010).
34. E-mail from Lee Blalack to Committee Staff (July 29, 2010).
by Ian Urbina:
Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats.
...“Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids,” said the report, which was written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.
...Some of the ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many of the ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.
...Ms. Degette, and Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, recently reintroduced the FRAC Act, a bill that would require chemical disclosure from all drilling companies, including a provision that companies release proprietary information to health professionals if it is needed for treatment. The FRAC Act would also create an online registry of chemicals on a well-by-well basis, but it would require drillers to disclose what they plan to use before they fracture a well, as well as a post-fracturing report.
See: Urbina, Ian. “Millions of Gallons of Hazardous Chemicals Injected Into Wells, Report Says.” The New York Times 16 Apr. 2011. Web. 17 Apr. 2011.
See also: Texas Oil and Gas Acciountability Project. The Dark Side of the Boom: How Natural Gas Drilling in Texas Threatens Public Health and Safety: Sen. Lon Burnam Joins Calling for ‘Urgent’ Reforms
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Flowback: How the Texas Natural Gas Boom Affects Health and Safety
TEXAS OIL & GAS ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 14, 2011
The Dark Side of the Boom: How Natural Gas Drilling in Texas Threatens Public Health and Safety: Sen. Lon Burnam Joins Calling for ‘Urgent’ Reforms
AUSTIN, TX, APRIL 14 – State, local and federal officials and regulatory agencies are failing to protect Texans from the health and safety risks of the natural gas boom, according to a report released today by the Texas Oil & Gas Accountability Project (OGAP).
Daniel T. Spadoni. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) Press Release. 4/30/2010. "DEP Orders Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. to Remove Hibbard Well Pad Reserve Pit in Susquehanna County: Company Ignored DEP’s Prior Written, Verbal Requests".
WILLIAMSPORT -- The Department of Environmental Protection today ordered Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. to close and remove an earthen pit in Susquehanna County that holds drilling fluids to determine whether it is contaminating nearby water resources.
The pit, known as a reserve pit, is located at the Hibbard well pad in Dimock Township. The company has 14 days to comply with the order.
DEP’s North-central Regional Director Robert Yowell said today’s more aggressive enforcement action was necessitated after the company ignored previous requests.
"DEP strongly advised Cabot to close and remove the reserve pit in an April 8 notice of violation letter and reiterated to Cabot’s senior management the same message a few short days ago," said Yowell. "However, Cabot has not remedied the situation and its inaction demonstrates an arrogant disregard for Pennsylvania’s oil and gas regulations and proper protection of our environment."
What the heck am I looking at?
We've created maps of political campaign contributions from companies in the oil & gas and coal industries to congressional representatives. These are relationship map of the contribution network. That means that unlike a physical map, where points are positioned at a geographic location, the icons for the companies and representatives are placed so that they are as close as possible to whomever they contribute to or receive contributions from.
Think of it like a social networking site in which companies and politicians have become 'friends' by giving money.
This site is a project of Oil Change International, developed by Greg Michalec and Skye Bender-deMoll and designed by Diligent Creative. Earlier versions of the site were named 'Follow the Oil Money' and 'Follow the Coal Money'.
EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan
Science Advisory Board Public Comments Letters from the Public. March 7, 2011. Posted to Web.
You can read all the form letters submitted from Texas, as well as my letter here:
| Public comment submitted to the SAB Staff Office | Public Comments submitted by Neil Zusman, Ithaca, NY-2-28-11. (PDF, 3 pp., 118,694 bytes) |
"The States have not shown that they can adequately regulate gas drilling, especially in more populated areas. Federal Regulations are clearly needed.
Time and time again, as noted by a Pew Research Group report, a wide variety of industries, in seat belts, lead paint, cigarettes and many others, have fought federal regulation only to have history prove that it never hurt their bottom line." (Neil Zusman, 2011-02-28).
See: Pew Environment Group (PEG) Factsheet: Industry Opposition to Government Regulation (PDF), October 14, 2010.
See: Letter from Thomas Curtis, AWW. Website below:
In summary, AWWA supports protecting of sources of drinking water under any and all circumstances, including hydraulic fracturing. We appreciate the agency’s consideration of our comments. If there are any questions about these comments, please direct them to Alan Roberson, AWWA, at (202) 326-6127.
Yours Sincerely,
Thomas W. Curtis Deputy Executive Director
See this hand-written letter by Pamela Curtis of Trumansburg, New York:
See: Federal Register: Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of a Public Meeting of the Science Advisory Board Panel for the Review of EPA's Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan. EPA Notice: 2/09/11.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office announces a public face-to-face meeting of the SAB Panel to conduct an independent review of EPA's Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan.
The meeting will be held on March 7, 2011 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and March 8, 2011 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Eastern Time).
The Panel meeting will be held at the Westin Alexandria Hotel located at 400 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Members of the public can submit comments for a federal advisory committee to consider as it develops advice for EPA. They should send their comments directly to the Designated Federal Officer for the relevant advisory committee.
Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation at this public meeting will be limited to five minutes per speaker. Interested parties should contact Mr. Edward Hanlon, DFO, in writing (preferably via e-mail), at the contact information noted above, by February 28, 2011 to be placed on the list of public speakers for the meeting.
Written Statements:
Written statements should be received in the SAB Staff Office by February 28, 2011 so that the information may be made available to the SAB Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan Review Panel for their consideration.
In its Fiscal Year 2010 budget report, the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriation Conference Committee identified the need for a focused study of this topic. EPA scientists, under this administration and at the direction of Congress, are undertaking a study of this practice to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and groundwater. EPA consulted with experts in the field through peer review, and technical workshops and engaged stakeholders in a dialogue about the study through facilitated public meetings.
EPA has submitted its draft study plan on hydraulic fracturing for review to the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB).
The overall purpose of the study is to understand the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources. The scope of the proposed research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced water and its ultimate treatment and disposal.
The SAB plans to review the draft plan March 7-8, 2011. Consistent with the operating procedures of the SAB, an opportunity will be provided for stakeholders and the public to provide comments to the SAB during their review. The Agency will revise the study plan in response to the SAB's comments and promptly begin the study. Initial research results are expected by the end of 2012 with a goal for a report in 2014.
See: Industry responds to public take on hydraulic fracturing | Fracking Resource Guide
See: EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan Review Panel
See: Lisa P. Jackson, EPA (lisapjackson) on Twitter
See: U.S. Congress. Committee on Space, Science, and Technology. "Hearing Highlights Lack of Objectivity in Draft EPA Fracking Study--No Evidence of Drinking Water Contamination from Fracking, Witnesses Say". May 11, 2011
There are now two websites for the House Energy and Commerce Committee- one for the Republicans and one for the Democrats. For citizens in the U.S., we are still living a Reaganesque "con", an obvious "tell" that Washington is more broken and redundant than ever.
In the David Mamet film, House of Games | Human Nature is a Sucker Bet (1987), Mike and his men [pulling a con job on Margaret] ...see that the jig is up, and nonchalantly pack up the con. Mike apologizes, saying it was “only business … nothing personal.” Margaret puts the pieces together. She spies on the con men--among whom is the "dead" cop/mark--and confirms that everything was a ruse to swindle her out of $80,000...
...Margaret pulls out her gun and dares Mike to beg for his life. He refuses and she shoots him repeatedly until he dies.
Much later, we see that Margaret has gone on with her life, a changed woman, now able to "forgive herself." She shows no sign of guilt or remorse for murdering Mike. She steals a gold lighter out of the purse of another woman in a restaurant and relishes the acquisition.
The energy business and its minions are fighting an undeclared war on the EPA, The Clean Water Act and public saftey. We are all being dragged into this con job. Their argument: the Clean Water Act does not directly address groundwater contamination. Groundwater protection provisions are included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Superfund act.
Sounds redundant to me... just give me a cool drink of water 'fore i diiie. (Neil Zusman, 2011-02-02.)
Angelou chose "Just Give Me a Cool Drink of Water 'fore I Diiie" as the book's title because of her interest in "unconscious innocence," which she says is "even lovelier than trying to remain innocent." The title is a reference to her belief that "we as individuals ... are still so innocent that we think if we asked our murderer just before he puts the final wrench upon the throat, 'Would you please give me a cool drink of water?' and he would do so."Angelou has said that, if she "didn't believe that, [she] wouldn't get up in the morning." (Angelou, Maya; Elliot, Jeffrey M. (1989), Conversations with Maya Angelou, University Press of Mississippi, ISBN 0-87805-361-1.)
Update February 2, 2011
See: Andrew Schenkel. "Fracking finger-pointing starts as drinking water violations roll in." Mother Nature Network. 2011-02-01.
A report linking the fracking industry to violations of the Safe Drinking water Act is putting the biggest names in the fracking industry on the defensive. Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a report on Monday (2011-01-31) that claims 12 companies in several states dumped more than 30 million gallons of diesel fuel as part of a scheme to extract natural gas from underground space.
See: Tom Zeller Jr. "Diesel Use in Gas Drilling Cited as Violation of Safe-Water Law." NYT. 2011-02-01.
No permits for diesel-based fracking have been sought or granted since the Safe Drinking Water Act was amended in 2005.
Lee Fuller, a vice president for government relations with the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said that was because the E.P.A. had never followed up by creating rules and procedures for obtaining such permits and submitting them for public comment.
The agency did quietly update its Web site last summer with language suggesting that fracking with diesel was, indeed, covered as part of the underground injection program, which would suggest that permits should have been obtained. But Mr. Fuller’s organization, along with the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, has gone to court to challenge the Web posting, arguing that it amounted to new rule-making that circumvented administrative requirements for notice and public commentary.
Thursday, February 18, 2010. "Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey today sent letters to eight oil and gas companies that use hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and natural gas from unconventional sources in the United States. The Committee is requesting information on the chemicals used in fracturing fluids and the potential impact of the practice on the environment and human health."
As Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the last Congress, Rep. Waxman requested and received information from the largest hydraulic fracturing companies - Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger - on the chemicals used in their fracturing fluids.
According to this data, two of these companies used diesel fuel in their fracturing fluids between 2005 and 2007, potentially violating a voluntary agreement with EPA to cease using diesel. Halliburton reported using more than 807,000 gallons of seven diesel-based fluids. BJ Services reported using 2,500 gallons of diesel-based fluids in several fracturing jobs. Halliburton and BJ Services also indicated that they used other chemicals - such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene - that could pose environmental risks in their fracturing fluids.
Today Chairmen Waxman and Markey sent letters seeking additional information from Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger on these and related issues. The Chairmen requested similar information from five smaller fracturing companies that comprise a growing share of the market: Frac Tech Services, Superior Well Services, Universal Well Services, Sanjel Corporation, and Calfrac Well Services. In addition, the Chairmen sent a memo to Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment detailing the background on the issue, including EPA's recent work on hydraulic fracturing, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's investigative findings, and the need for additional oversight and investigation."
Documents included: Examining the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing, Feburary 18, 2010
Letter to Andrew Gould
Letter to Roger Willis
Letter to David J. Lesar
Letter to Douglas R. Ramsay
Letter to Darin MacDonald
Letter to J.W. Stewart
Letter to Dan Wilks
Letter to David E. Wallace
See: Sabrina Shankman. "Congress Launches Investigation Into Gas Drilling Practices." ProPublica. 2010-02-19.
See: Abrahm Lustgarten. "Clearing the Air on ProPublica’s Drilling Pollution Story." ProPublica. 2011-01-31
See: Candice O'Grady. "Newsweek Greenwashes the Oil Lobby for Real." FAIR. Feb. 2010.
See: Committee Democrats Release New Report Detailing Hydraulic Fracturing Products
See: House committee votes to deny climate change
See: Action Center | Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP America)
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), signed by President Bush on August 8, 2005, was the first omnibus energy legislation enacted in more than a decade. Spurred by rising energy prices and growing dependence on foreign oil, the new energy law was shaped by competing concerns about energy security, environmental quality, and economic growth.
The Energy Policy Act encourages production on federal lands through royalty reductions for marginal oil and gas wells on public lands and the outer continental shelf. Provisions are also included to increase access to federal lands by energy projects — such as drilling activities, electric transmission lines, and gas pipelines.
In addition, the law prevents the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating hydraulic fracturing to protect drinking water sources.
(For additional information, see CRS Report RL32873, Key Environmental Issues in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, coordinated by Brent D. Yacobucci, and CRS Report RL32262, Selected Legal and Policy Issues Related to Coalbed Methane Development, by Aaron M. Flynn.)
See: CRS Report RL33302.
A logistic distribution shaped production curve, as originally suggested by M. King Hubbert in 1956.
See the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), International Energy Outlook, for information on energy trends.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58) is a bill passed by the United States Congress on July 29, 2005, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The act, described by proponents as an attempt to combat growing energy problems, changed US energy policy by providing tax incentives and loan guarantees for energy production of various types.
Criticisms
The Washington Post contended that the spending bill is a broad collection of subsidies for United States energy companies; in particular, the nuclear and oil industries.
..."House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) also managed to insert at least $500 million in subsidies over a 10-year period -- with the option to double the amount -- for research into deep-water oil and gas drilling, a grant that many lawmakers expect to go to the Texas Energy Center in DeLay's home town of Sugar Land. The bill also includes royalty relief for deep-water drilling projects, a strategy that helped jump-start production in the Gulf during the 1990s..."
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton made the bill an issue in the 2008 Democratic Primary by criticizing Senator Barack Obama’s two votes supporting the bill, calling it the "Dick Cheney lobbyist energy bill."
This bill exempted fluids used in the natural gas extraction process of Hydraulic fracturing from protections under the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA. The proposed Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act would repeal these exemptions.
Please note that information taken from Wikipedia should be verified using other, more reliable sources. It is a good place to start research, but because anyone can edit Wikipedia, we do not recommend using it in research papers or to obtain highly reliable information.
Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan Review Panel
The Panel will review and provide independent expert advice on EPA’s draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan that will investigate the potential public health and environmental protection research issues that may be associated with hydraulic fracturing.
It will be led by David A. Dzombak, professor of environmental engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.
Legere, Laura. "Peer-review panel for EPA fracking study includes six Pa. scientists." The Scranton Times-Tribune. Jan. 18, 2011.
A panel of geologists, toxicologists, engineers and doctors that will peer-review a high-profile Environmental Protection Agency study of hydraulic fracturing will include six scientists from Pennsylvania, more than any other state.
The panel will review the techniques and analysis the EPA uses to draft a study of the potential environmental and health impacts of hydraulic fracturing - the process used in natural gas exploration of injecting a high-pressure mix of chemically treated water and sand underground to break apart a rock formation and release the gas.
...In a memo announcing the new panel, the EPA found "no conflicts of interest or appearances of a lack of impartiality for the members of this panel."
See: Natural Gas Drillers Protest Nomination of Fracking Critics for EPA Review Panel
See also: Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan
Determination Memo:
Posted 01/13/2011
Determination Memo for this Activity. (1/27/2011, PDF, 11 pp., 44,581 bytes)
Members:
| Dzombak, David A. | Chair | Carnegie Mellon University | Pittsburgh | PA |
| Alexeeff, George | California Environmental Protection Agency | Oakland | CA | |
| Ballestero, Tom | University of New Hampshire | Durham | NH | |
| Benjamin, Mark | University of Washington | Seattle | WA | |
| Boufadel, Michel | Temple University | Philadelphia | PA | |
| Boyer, Elizabeth | Pennsylvania State University | University Park | PA | |
| Burnett, David | Texas A&M University | College Station | TX | |
| Davis, Thomas L. | Colorado School of Mines | Golden | CO | |
| Dunn-Norman, Shari | Missouri University of Science and Technology | Rolla | MO | |
| Giesy, John P. | University of Saskatchewan | Saskatoon | Saskatchewan | |
| Griffiths, Jeffrey | Tufts University | Boston | MA | |
| Gschwend, Phillip | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Cambridge | MA | |
| Harris, Cynthia M. | Florida A&M University | Tallahassee | FL | |
| Kim, Nancy K. | Health Research, Inc. | Troy | NY | |
| Lee, Cindy M. | Clemson University | Anderson | SC | |
| Patten, Duncan | Montana State University | Bozeman | MT | |
| Randtke, Stephen | University of Kansas | Lawrence | KS | |
| Reible, Danny | University of Texas | Austin | TX | |
| Schreppel, Connie | Mohawk Valley Water Authority | Utica | NY | |
| Thyne, Geoffery | University of Wyoming | Laramie | WY | |
| VanBriesen, Jeanne | Carnegie Mellon University | Pittsburgh | PA | |
| Vidic, Radisav | University of Pittsburgh | Pittsburgh | PA |
GEMS: Great Environmental Moments in Science |
||
|
||
|
||
|
Executive Message:
...As an agency, we are ready to face scientific challenges in 2011 that range from mountain top mining to hydraulic fracturing to endocrine disruption and more. But the reason it’s so important to invest in the kind of new thinking, methods, and approaches that Administrator Jackson has called for, is to ensure our ability to take on those challenges we can’t foresee. Innovative thinking and sustainable approaches will be out best tools to confront new environmental challenges as they arise.
Sincerely,
Paul T. Anastas
Assistant Administrator
U.S. EPA
Office of Research and Development
Between now and October 1st, the state legislature will debate a new tax on natural gas extraction. But because of a loophole in the state's campaign finance laws, legislators will likely cast their votes before disclosing recent donations. That means the gas industry and environmental groups can flood Harrisburg with contributions without anyone knowing where the money is going.
That's why "It's Our Money” and Common Cause have teamed up to create a place where lawmakers can report contributions in real time: Marcellus Shale Money Watch.
Pennsylvania's environmental destruction is not limited to gas drilling. See: Coalfield Justice Blog, "What Could Be Worse?
Here is what could be worse: all the concern about shale gas has made the public unaware of other continuing problems. Big coal continues to destroy houses and streams. No one is demanding that the long overdue Act 54-required study of longwall mining be released. Big coal is continuing to do as it will with coal ash. With budget cuts in DEP, longwall enforcement, which has never been adequate, will be even worse.
The Continental Center and KBR Tower (foreground) in downtown Houston.
Photo by Blair McFarlain.
The London lawyer accused by American authorities of helping KBR and its partners bribe Nigerian officials lost his battle against extradition yesterday.
The British High Court affirmed a decision to send Jeffrey Tesler, 62, a U.K. citizen, to Houston to answer criminal charges in federal court. He faces up to 55 years in prison and forfeiture of more than $132 million.
Tesler was indicted in February 2009. He was charged with one count of conspiracy to violate and ten counts of violating the FCPA. The DOJ alleges he was part of a decade-long scheme to bribe Nigerian government officials in exchange for contracts worth $6 billion to build liquefied natural gas facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria.
His co-defendant, Wojciech Chodan, KBR's former commercial vice president at a U.K. subsidiary, was extradited from Britain in December last year. He pleaded guilty in Houston federal court to conspiring to violate the FCPA.
Chodan's sentencing is scheduled for February 22, 2011. He faces up to five years in prison on the conspiracy charge. As part of his plea agreement, Chodan, 72, who's also a U.K. citizen, agreed to forfeit $726,885.
See: Barry Meier and Clifford Krauss. "Inquiry Puts Halliburton in a Familiar Hot Seat". NYT Business Day. October 28, 2010.
Last year, for example, Halliburton and KBR agreed to pay $579 million to settle charges brought by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with bribes that KBR had paid to top Nigerian officials over a decade. The companies still face criminal liability in Nigeria over the episode, which involved contracts to build a liquefied natural gas complex.
See: Snamprogetti, ENI In $365 Million Settlement
See: Fracking Resource Guide | Halliburton (updated)
Richard L. Cassin lived in the Middle East and Asia for 25 years. Before founding Cassin Law LLC, he was a senior partner in a major international law firm and managing partner of its Asia practice in Singapore, Hong Kong and Beijing.
He helps clients comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other U.S. laws, and regularly assists companies facing compliance issues.
Get Involved
If you think you might be affected by a proposed natural gas or hydroelectric project regulated by the Commission, you have certain rights. These rights range from being able to look at project correspondence to becoming an intervener and being able to appeal any FERC decisions in federal court.
The Commission's Citizen's Guides are a good place to start.
|
Should I Get Involved? Only you can ultimately answer this but we can help you think things through. Read More. |
How to Get Involved Take advantage of a suite of electronic services to easily get involved. Still prefer paper? That's fine too. Read more. |
The Process Natural gas and hydropower projects have distinct processes. This overview will help you to participate. Read More |
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is an independent agency that regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil.
Contains sections on how to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Enforcement, Legal Resources, Dispute Resoulution Service (DRS), etc.
Read the results.
Here's why they did the survey.
There are probably no more important reforms to government than the ones that came with the passing of the Federal Freedom of Information ("FOI") Act. The law recognized in no uncertain terms that if government is to be of the people, by the people and for the people, the decisions and actions of the government must be open for review by the people.
The states, for the most part, followed the federal government in adopting open records laws.
Unfortunately, state FOI laws have proven to be almost uniformly weak and easy to undermine. The weakness and haphazard construction of the state laws has resulted in an information gap that significantly effects the citizenry's ability to examine even the most fundamental actions of government.
| BGA survey of FOI laws |
In the course of numerous investigations, Better Government Association investigators have been refused in our requests to review state contracts and performance measures, denied everything from documentation of ambulance response times to the documents reviewed when making budgeting decisions, and ignored by officials in nearly every major office at one time or another. Our experience told us that the FOI laws simply do not work very well in Illinois.
As a result of our hands-on experience with Illinois' lack of responsiveness, the BGA decided to find out where we stood in relationship to other states. We found that no one had completed any sort of national analysis of FOI laws, and that Illinois' relative strengths and weaknesses could not be measured without creating a new instrument to study the problem and without an analysis of each state's statutory provisions for FOI.
I was looking for the original article and ran this search on Google Scholar.
Analysis conducted by the Better Government Association
Staff: Terrance A. Norton, James M. Newcomb & Jay E. Stewart
Interns: Erika Washington and David Hall
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Pennyslvania, Montana, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming all got a bit fat F.
OpenSecrets.org Launches 'Fueling Washington' Series Exploring Oil and Gas Industry's Political Influence
The Center for Responsive Politics today launches "Fueling Washington," a week-long series of reports exploring the oil and gas industry's evermore intimate relationship with the federal government and the people elected to make the nation's laws.
With a president promising comprehensive climate change legislation and a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the fossil fuels industry has dominated political discourse this year in ways it never before has.
And such debate comes at a time when the most interested of parties -- environmentalists, alternative energy producers, the oil and gas industry itself -- are pouring record amounts of money into national politics in an attempt to bend rules, regulations and politicians their way.
Using the tools of our "Fueling Washington" series, you can investigate the tide of influential cash from these deep-pocketed -- and sometimes not so deep-pocketed -- special interest groups. Below, we specifically highlight contributions and lobbying of three special interests with significant stakes in Congress' post-oil spill debates about climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, energy policy and jobs.
Celebrating our 25th anniversary in 2008, the Center for Responsive Politics is the nation's premier research group tracking money in U.S. politics and its effect on elections and public policy.
Nonpartisan, independent and nonprofit, the organization aims to create a more educated voter, an involved citizenry and a more transparent and responsive government.
David Easterling, NOAA Satellite and Information Services: National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. (2008). One of the most vigorously debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) data centers are central to answering some of the most pressing global change questions that remain unresolved. The National Climatic Data Center contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer.
Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers. The IPCC met in full session in 1990, 1995, 2001 and in 2007. They address issues such as the buildup of greenhouse gases, evidence, attribution, and prediction of climate change, impacts of climate change, and policy options.
See: Global Warming | The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
See: Tales from the Ice: Explaining Rapid Climate Change
See: Exxon Confronts Nuns, Calpers Over Global Warming Plans, Boskin
See: Climate Zombies Now Run The House
See: Beware The Green Dragon! | Right Wing Watch
See: Sixty Lame Minutes
Of the over 400 amendments offered on the House government-funding measure, the 2011 Continuing Resolution (H.R. 1), dozens are focused on climate change, energy policy, and environmental protection. The existing language in the budget bill is already designed to deny global warming, slash and burn public health and green jobs, but the amendments would take even more radical steps to reward polluters who are killing our children’s future. Republican amendments, if fully enacted, would:
– Eliminate the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the Special Envoy for Climate Change, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, the NOAA Climate Service, the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E, National Science Foundation K-12 funding
– Block US funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Global Environment Facility
– Suspend enforcement of fisheries laws and construction and conservation acquisition programs of the National Parks and Department of the Interior
– Block rules for cement plant pollution, coal ash, industrial boiler pollution, water quality, climate change pollution, climate change adaptation, energy-efficient lighting, mountaintop removal, atrazine, and water conservation.
"Most of these amendments are budget neutral, not lowering the deficit one cent. Several defund extremely effective jobs programs that cost only a few million dollars. The goal of these amendments is not fiscal responsibility or jobs creation, but polluter protection, even though the pollution is poisoning babies, causing the elderly to suffer, and destroying America’s natural bounty.
Max Shelby | Vincent Alabama said, find how your representative voted and give 'em hell!
These were revenue-neutral amendments, meaning they weren’t aimed at reducing the federal budget deficit, but were designed solely to prevent the EPA and other government agencies from updating and enforcing clean air and clean water laws. In short, it was Christmas for polluters.
Profile
Brad Johnson is a climate researcher-blogger at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. He blogs at the ThinkProgress Wonk Room on the climate crisis, energy policy and building a green economy.
See: A Life’s Value May Depend on the Agency, but It’s Rising
Joshua Tauberer is the “grandfather” of the open-data movement for the U.S. Congress and a “data crusader”.
GovTrack.us, launched in 2004, was the first website to apply the principles of open data and Web 2.0 to the U.S. Congress. It catalyzed the development of a community of like-minded developers and shaped the data-oriented open government movement that we see today.
See: Marshall Kirkpatrick. "Data Hacker Pageranks Members of the US Congress." ReadWriteWeb. Dec. 27, 2010.
See: Dirty Energy Money.
In a move that may derail a comprehensive climate change and energy bill in the Senate, one of the measure’s central architects, Senator Lindsey Graham, has issued an angry protest over what he says are Democratic plans to give priority to a debate over immigration policy.
Mr. Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in a sharply worded letter on Saturday that he would no longer participate in negotiations on the energy bill, throwing its already cloudy prospects deeper into doubt. He had been working for months with Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, on the a legislation, which they were scheduled to announce with considerable fanfare on Monday morning. That announcement has been indefinitely postponed.
In his letter to his two colleagues, Mr. Graham said that he was troubled by reports that the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the White House were planning to take up an immigration measure before the energy bill. Mr. Graham has worked with Democrats in the past on immigration matters and was expected to be an important bridge to Republicans on that issue, as well as on energy.
Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times
Senator Lindsey Graham, right, with Senators John Kerry and Joseph I. Lieberman at a news conference in November about proposed energy legislation. Mr. Graham sent his two colleagues a letter Saturday saying he would no longer participate in negotiations on the bill.
Today, Republicans in the House energy committee voted not once, not twice, but three times [all PDFs], against amendments recognizing that climate change is real, despite the broad scientific consensus that "climate change is happening and human beings are a major reason for it." They then unanimously voted [PDF] in favor of the Upton-Inhofe bill to repeal the EPA's scientific endangerment finding on greenhouse pollution.
The 31 Republicans and three Democrats who voted in favor of H.R. 910 have received a grand total of $343,750 from Koch Industries, an average of more than $10,000 each. Freshman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), Koch's special man in Congress, tips the scales at $79,500.
But today's vote is not the first time the Commitee From Koch went public on their science denial.
[Following is] a survey of the members of the committee, fueled by support from Koch Industries and other polluters, and their proclaimed opposition to climate science and climate scientists...
See for yourself. Chairman Upton, Rep. Barton, Rep. Waxman, et al. "Full Committee Markup on "H.R. 910" and "H.J. Res. 37" (Continued)". YouTube. (Running Time - 4:56:37).
See: Comments from Committe on Energy and Commerce Democrats:
Letter in Opposition from Scientists: "The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed5—all without diminishing economic growth."
Letter in Opposition from National Academy of Sciences: "We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts."
Letter in Opposition from Former Senior Military Officers: "America’s dependence on oil constitutes a clear and present danger to the security and welfare of the United States. As former senior military officers, we are concerned about Congressional efforts to undermine the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory authority that is critical to reducing our dependence on oil."
Letter in Opposition from Health and Medical Professionals: "Please fulfill the promise of clean, healthy air for all Americans to breathe. Support full implementation of the Clean Air Act and resist any efforts to weaken, delay or block progress toward a healthier future for all Americans."
Letter in Opposition from the American Public Health Association: "Cimate change is a public health issue and is one of the greatest threats to human health. Scientists from across the globe have stated in the strongest possible terms that the climate is changing and that human activity is to blame."
Letter in Opposition from Organizations: "This reckless legislation puts America’s health, prosperity, and national security at risk by gutting the Clean Air Act, overturning a decision of the Supreme Court, and dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to address life-threatening carbon dioxide and other pollution."
Letter in Opposition from Health Organizations: "This legislation would block the EPA from setting sensible safeguards to protect public health from the effects of air pollution."
Letter in Opposition from the American Lung Association: "A recent bipartisan survey... indicates the overwhelming view of voters: 69 percent think the EPA should update Clean Air Act standards with stricter limits on air pollution; 64 percent feel that Congress should not stop the EPA from updating carbon dioxide emission standards; 69 percent believe that EPA scientists, rather than Congress, should set pollution standards."
See: Broder, John M. 2011. House Panel Votes to Strip E.P.A. of Power to Regulate Greenhouse Gases. The New York Times, March 10, sec. Science / Environment.
See: Reeve, Elspeth. 2011. House Energy Panel Curbs Federal Power to Fight Climate Change - Politics - The Atlantic Wire. The Atlantic Wire. March 16.
See: EPA chief faces hostile House GOP
See: Smackdown: climate science vs. climate economics.
See: Climate Co-benefits and Child Mortality Wedges.
See: Snubbing Skeptics Threatens to Intensify Climate War,
See: Climate Zombies Now Run The House.
See: GOP Budget Amendments Would Destroy Health, Economy, Planet
See: EPA chief faces hostile House GOP
See: Energy & Commerce Committee Investigates Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing
For one of the more articulate conservative bloggers viewpoints on climate change and its' hermeneutics, read Alberta, Canada's Kevin Libin at ClimateRealists and The National Post.
See: Libin, Kevin. 2011. "Kevin Libin: Environmental activists hide behind a screen of U.S. money." National Post.
For an embarassing account of the dangers of environmentalism, see: Beware The Green Dragon! | Right Wing Watch.
Our country’s need for energy is a top priority and oil is among the energy sources that will help us meet this need. An oil pipeline, known as the Keystone XL Pipeline, has been proposed by TransCanada Corporation to deliver oil from its source in Canada through Nebraska to refineries in Oklahoma and Texas.
This pipeline has the potential to help our country meet our critical need for energy. However, I am concerned that the Federal review of the proposed pipeline has been inadequate, particularly in regard to the protection of the Ogallala Aquifer.
As your U.S. Senator, it is my duty to review federal actions that might impact resources critical to the State of Nebraska. I have repeatedly raised my concerns with federal regulators to urge the involvement of the correct agencies and experts in the permit review. We must ensure that regulatory actions related to this application safeguard the irreplaceable natural resource of the Ogallala Aquifer. During a Congressional hearing about pipeline safety, I asked numerous questions about the involvement of Federal pipeline experts in the review of this application. I also outlined my concerns about a potential lack of full Federal interagency coordination in a July 23, 2010 letter to the Department of State.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a proposed 1,980 mile-long project with the capacity to carry up to 900,000 barrels a day of dirty tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast -- with stops along the way in various other states.
See: Johanns Counters Latest Pipeline Claims. Nov. 4, 2010.
Sen. Mike Johanns today sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly addressing statements opposing the consideration of additional alternative routes for the Keystone XL pipeline proposed by TransCanada Corporation. Johanns also reiterated his request for a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
A copy of the letter can be found here.
Earthworks
The pipeline will provide a conduit for the dirty tar sands oil of northeastern Alberta to reach United States markets. Tar sands oil is the dirtiest kind of oil currently available on the market -- both because of its climate change impacts, and because of its local environmental impacts.
In Canada the pipeline will extend approximately 327 miles from Hardisty, Alberta southeast through Saskatchewan before entering the United States in Morgan, Montana, where it will continue on southeast for 836 miles through South Dakota and Nebraska.
In Steele City, Nebraska the pipeline will connect to the 296-mile long Keystone Pipeline before resuming in Cushing Oklahoma, where it will continue on to its final destination at existing terminals in Nederland, Texas.
Both Hinchey and Johanns have been rebuffed by the President and the State Department. Might this be telling us about the direction the Administration is taking in regards to its Energy Policy? (Neil Zusman, 2010-11-01.)
See: Johanns asks Clinton for additional review of pipeline
See: Aleysha Rascoe. "Senators raise concerns on oil sands pipeline". Reuters. Oct. 29, 2010. Reposted by John Donovan. Royal Dutch Shell plc.com. 2010-10-31.
See: N.Y. Democrat Fires Back at Obama Admin in Fight Over Shale Drilling
See: Baucus Urges Fast Approval Of Keystone XL Pipeline
See: New Tar Sands Oil Pipeline Will Lock U.S. into Dangerous Consequences
The energy industry’s money floods Congress and regulatory agencies.
Executive Summary
Long before BP’s Deepwater Horizon well began belching oil into the Gulf of Mexico, BP and the rest of the energy industry had turned loose a gusher of cash in Washington, saturating Congress and the federal government’s regulatory apparatus.
In the last decade alone, big energy has pumped more than $2.9 billion into electing and lobbying federal officials and candidates, according to campaign finance and lobbying disclosure reports.
That’s about $5.5 million for each of the 535 seats in the House and Senate.
As energy dollars flow freely in Washington, the development of alternative energy sources proceeds slowly, at best, and the nation’s reliance on energy produced overseas grows deeper. Meanwhile, at the industry’s urging, a 27-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling off the east coast has been allowed to expire and legislation to cap carbon emissions, pushing oil-gulping industries to find new energy sources and use petroleum more efficiently, has stalled in Congress.
See: Dirty Energy Money
See: Big Money Drives Up the Betting on the Marcellus Shale
See: Opponents to Fracking Disclosure Take Big Money From Industry
See: Fueling Washington
Lisa Jackson's Twitter feed is one of the ways the Environmental Protection Agency communicates with the public. She has 13,000 followers and follows Barack Obama, Greenversations, the official Blog of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, among others. I don’t know if she’s read many of the eco-blogs covered on this site, but she’s not following them on Twitter.
Public meetings have been the traditional way that the EPA has defensively communicated with the public in the past. Molly Ivins has written about Bob Spiegel's 1992 videotapes on the Edison Wetlands (New Jersey) in Bushwhacked.
I attended a meeting on hydraulic fracturing in Binghamton last year. The EPA seemed to do a great job. Judith Enck was a good listener. Bill Wolfe has a report on that meeting at WolfeNotes.com, "On the Threshold of a Fracking Nightmare".
Is our contact with EPA an outcome of a new transparency? How is it going?
Despite calls for transparency from Republicans (Sen. Johanns) and Democrats, (Rep. Hinchey); the Obama administration has signalled that the U.S. is intending to develop natural gas and promote Tar Sands development before environmental impact studies have been completed. There have been no social impact assessments (Freudenburg, 1986) on this development rush, just a lot of public gushing over the new Shalellionaires.
Despite the recent (1/11/11) announcement of a $7 million dollar EPA grant to fund cumulative human health risk assessment research, EPA science still emphasizes engineering over socioeconomic studies in both their selection of reviewers for the upcoming study of hydraulic fracturing and their communication with the public about toxic threats close to home.
Last year, a USGS (U.S. Geological Society) "fish" scientist was one of the co-authors of a study reported by Coal Tattoo:
West Virginians who live near streams polluted by coal mining are more likely to die of cancer, according to a first-of-its kind study published by researchers at West Virginia University and Virginia Tech.
Hitt, Nathaniel P., and Michael Hendryx. “Ecological Integrity of Streams Related to Human Cancer Mortality Rates.” EcoHealth 7, no. 1 (March 2010): 91-104.
Both the EPA and the USGS have many scientists doing research that cross over their specific areas of responsibility. The list of media contacts found below leaves me wondering how I would react if I were a West Virginian stream dweller. What about the stream by the school? What about our animals? Who can I call?
I have not found a Hydraulic Fracturing media representative as of 1/11/11. Hydraulic Fracturing deserves a subject area and its own media representative from this Federal Agency. (Neil Zusman, 2011-01-11.)
See: "Seven Priorities for EPA’s Future", a Memorandum from Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator to all EPA Employees. (Jan. 12, 2010).
Air Quality
Chemical Risk Management
Children's Health
Climate Change
Drinking Water
Drinking Water Security
Emergency Response
Endocrine Disruptors
Enforcement
Enforcement Advisory
Environmental Education
Environmental Information
Environmental Justice
Federal advisory committees
FOIAs (Freedom of Information Acts)
Fuels
Ground Water
Hazardous Waste
Health Risk Assessments
Homeland Security
Radiation
Recycling
Solid Waste
Superfund
Toxics
Tribal Issues
Underground Storage Tanks
Wastes
Wastewater
Water
Watersheds
Wetlands
Yucca Mountain
Ms. Jackson maintains a blog and this Twitter feed and is the person responsible for the Office of the Administrator. Press releases may be received by email automatically here:
News Releases issued by the Office of the Administrator
Get News by Email
Media Contacts
Find contacts for specific topics in the table on the Media Contacts link above or call the general phone line: 202-564-4355.
See: EPA in the Crosshairs | Mixplex
Freudenburg, William R. “Social Impact Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology 12 (January 1, 1986): 451-478. (subscription required).
Reading the minutes of this meeting held on April 28, 2009 led me to many of the significant documents used in the production of my Fracking Guide. Since this meeting a year ago, many other city and county legislatures in New York have adopted similar resoultions. (Neil Zusman, 2010-04-29.)
Resolution by The City of New York Manhattan Community Board No. 3.
Item No. 3 of minutes. Page 4 of 9.
3. Resolution regarding drilling in Marcellus Shale and impact on NYS water supply VOTE: WHEREAS, On July 23, 2008 Governor David Patterson signed A10526/S08169 into law, a bill setting certain technical requirements pertaining to well spacing which will facilitate the use of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas recovery in an under ground geological formation known as the Marcellus Shale...
WHEREAS, serious deficiencies in a review of the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water supplies conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been raised, including the alleged removal of key passages in that document by officials from the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney, as reported on October 14, 2004 by the Los Angeles Times, and the characterization of the report as "scientifically unsound" by an internal EPA whistleblower...
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Manhattan Community Board #3 unequivocally urges the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to prohibit the use of hydraulic fracturing in the New York State and especially within the City watershed..."
A leading congressional critic of shale drilling is scolding the Obama administration for failing to try to slow drilling in the Northeast's Marcellus Shale.
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) fired off a letter (pdf) yesterday to the commander of the North Atlantic Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, Brig. Gen. Peter "Duke" DeLuca. DeLuca represents the federal government on the little-known but powerful Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC), and he rebuffed Hinchey's request that he use his vote to block gas drilling there until a lengthy study is completed.
See: Keystone XL Pipeline - Issues
Both Hinchey and Johanns have been rebuffed by the President and the State Department. Might this be telling us about the direction the Administration is taking in regards to its Energy Policy? nz
See: Obama Admin Rejects Timeout for Natural Gas Drilling in N.Y., Pa.
See: What President Obama should have said about natural gas.
See: In Pa., Rove tells Marcellus shale drillers: Expect 'sensible regulation'
On May 22, 2010 President Obama established the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling through Executive Order 13543 issued on May 21, 2010.
Presentation of the findings and recommendations in the National Oil Spill Commission’s final report on the causes of BP’s Gulf rig blowout and prevention of future disasters will be held 11am EST, Tues., Jan 11, 2011 at the The National Press Club: 529 14 St., NW, Washington DC.
Viewing: Credentialed press only. Public viewing available via live stream at www.OilSpillCommission.gov.
See: The Ceres Principles | Mixplex
See: Before the Big Spill | Mixplex
See: BP Deepwater Horizon Committee Hears From Oil Industry Executives | Mixplex
Kurt Repanshek. November 5, 2008. National Parks Traveller.
These and other slices of the public lands landscape deserve some form of protection for visitors today and tomorrow to enjoy. And yet, the outgoing Bush administration is determined to open them to drilling rigs with all their associated access roads, noise, air, and, potentially, water pollution.
How much is too much? When the oil and gas industry in Utah has nearly 3,500 drilling permits in hand, but which have not been acted upon, why is the Bush administration selling them more, particularly in sensitive areas around national parks and monuments?
Conservation groups such as the National Parks Conservation Association, The Wilderness Society, and the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance warned that the BLM was poised to announce on Election Day that it was ready to sell hundreds of oil and gas drilling leases in the above-cited places as well on lands surrounding Dinosaur National Monument, Arches National Park, and Canyonlands National Park.
But when Election Day arrived, BLM officials merely announced they were opening 360,000 acres to oil and gas work without specifying exactly where those leases would fall.
See: Environment News Service (ENS). Bush-Era Oil and Gas Leases Near Utah Parks Canceled. 2/4/2009.
See: Deseret News. Geoff Liesik and Mary Bernard. "Judge says drilling lease lawsuit too late". Salt Lake City. 9/2/2010.
See:Earthworks: 4/1/2010 "Obama's gifts to extractive industries continue with defense of Bush mining policy".
See: Student Disrupts Government Auction of 150,000 Acres Of Wilderness For Oil & Gas Drilling.
The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Website: U.S. National Energy Policy Key Issues & Mandates, Secure & Reliable Energy Supplies.
See: Energy Policy Act of 2005.
"How much of our fossil energy will come from domestic rather than imported sources?
Can we realize the benefits of fossil energy while meeting environmental goals and controlling global climate change?
Can our energy infrastructure reliably deliver energy to the marketplace in the future?
Recent focus on U.S. energy price, availability, and security has resulted in publication of a number of studies and proposals for legislative action. Click here to read more about this issue."
New York City Department of Environmental Protection. 12/23/2009. Impact Assessment of Natural Gas Production in the New York City Water Supply Watershed. 24 pages.
See: Bruce Stutz. Mar. 25, 2010. "A Contoversial Drilling Practice Hits Roadblock in New York." Yale University. Environment360
