MVCAC March 2014

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1 participants
4 discussions

Observer-Reporter | Shale gas and the environment
by Duane 18 Mar '14

18 Mar '14

http://www.observer-reporter.com/article/20140317/NEWS01/140319372 Shale gas and the environment From an Article by Jeffery Fraser, Pittsburgh TODAY, Observer-Reporter, March 17, 2013 For years, the well pads, truck traffic and logos of energy companies large and small multiplied across counties like Washington and Greene as Southwestern Pennsylvania became a poster child for the rush to extract natural gas trapped in the Marcellus Shale. It was in such a climate the region recently assumed a new identity as a place where efforts to stake a middle ground in the polarized debate over drilling and environmental protection are seen as so advanced that they're drawing interest from regulators and elected officials from countries as far away as Kazakhstan. A group of energy companies, environmental nonprofits and foundations known as the Center for Sustainable Shale Development emerged from two years of closed-door negotiations last March to announce they'd agreed on voluntary standards that raise the bar on protecting the air and water in communities where drillers operate. And unlike industry best practices, they coupled the standards with a certification process that audits a driller's compliance. The idea is to promote state-of-the-art environmental practices throughout the Appalachian Basin shale play with the hope that drillers who earn certification will gain a competitive edge that will provide an incentive for others to follow suit. It's been applauded and criticized. Much of the attention has focused on the fact that a group of unlikely partners bridged the partisan divide to reach a consensus on environmental standards for shale gas drilling, rather than on what those standards specifically require certified drillers to do. CSSD partners have implied that the first set of environmental standards require certified drillers to raise their practices above the floor set by state and federal regulations. A Pittsburgh Today review of those standards and Pennsylvania law finds that to be generally true. Team of rivals The idea of finding a group of companies and environmental nonprofits willing to look for ways to reduce the environmental risks posed by shale drilling had been explored three years ago in Pittsburgh by the Heinz Endowments with little success. John Hanger had better luck. The former state Department of Environmental Protection secretary and one-time director of Pennsylvania's largest environmental nonprofit drew on his sense of who might be willing to take on such a task and recruited four major energy companies with shale gas operations and five local, state and national environmental nonprofits as partners in what is now CSSD. The partners include energy producers CONSOL Energy, EQT, Chevron and Shell. Two national environmental nonprofits, the Environmental Defense Fund and Clean Air Task Force, signed on with the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, and the Group Against Smog and Pollution, a Pittsburgh-based grassroots organization. The Heinz Endowments and William Penn Foundation are involved as philanthropic partners. And the advisory board includes former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and Alcoa Chairman and CEO Paul O'Neill and former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. Assembling a team hand-picked for their willingness to tolerate divergent points of view and rely on science and facts as guidance rather than dogma and rhetoric proved critical at a time when public debate over fracking was dominated by intransigent voices. “You had two strong polarities and neither were helpful. In fact, they were detrimental to finding the best outcomes for the Commonwealth and region,” says Andrew Place, director of energy and policy at EQT, who is serving as CSSD interim director. “Some on the industry side were the proverbial, 'drill baby drill; stay out of our way, we know what we are doing.' On the other side there was, 'these molecules should stay in the ground, fossil fuel is not the way to go;' 'it can't be done, the risks are too great.' None of us felt that was the way this debate should go.” Negotiations were fragile at times, particularly in the beginning. But with engineers and scientists at the table, the group was able to deal with drilling-related environmental issues as technical problems that needed to be solved. “The right people were in the room,” says Place. “Over time, what occurred was relationships were built and people put ideas forward that they would not have been interested in doing or have been willing to do if it had been a very public debate.” The result was a set of 15 standards for the industry that prescribed practices intended to better protect air and water quality. The partners agreed the standards would be open to improvement and that standards addressing other environmental concerns such as terrestrial issues and community impact would be added in coming years. They also agreed to a certification process requiring drillers who embrace the standards to submit to third-party audits to verify their compliance, not unlike that which the Green Building Council requires developers to pass in order to earn Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification for their buildings. For the companies involved, the standards were seen as a way to lower the risk of environmental mishaps, help secure a “social license” to develop the abundant shale gas play and assure an uncertain public, whose mixed views on drilling were documented last year in the Pittsburgh Regional Environment Survey conducted by Pittsburgh Today. The survey found that about 79 percent of residents across the Pittsburgh Metropolitan Statistical Area believe drilling offers significant or moderate economic opportunities to the region. At the same time, 59 percent see it as a significant or moderate threat to public health and the environment. Few, if any, environmental nonprofits consider current drilling regulations sufficient to protect the environment. And several that agreed to join CSSD reported that the decision was not without internal debate over the pros and cons. For some, reasons for choosing to sit at the table included the hope of avoiding the hard lessons of the past, such as those from coal mining, which left a legacy of tainted streams and other problems. “We want to make sure that this time we have some control of what happens and ride herd on the industry to make sure this is done to the best of everybody's ability,” says Davitt Woodwell, executive vice president of the Pennsylvania Environment Council' s Western Region. “Anyone who can't do it to the best of their ability, shouldn't be doing it.” And the reality of what's taking place in the hills and valleys of southwestern Pennsylvania added urgency to the idea of addressing the risks while waiting for slow-moving regulations to catch up. “Whether you support drilling, are absolutely opposed to drilling, or are somewhere in the middle, you have to acknowledge the industry is here, right now,” says Joe Osborne, the Group Against Smog and Pollution's legal director. “You can't ignore the impact it's having, regardless of how you think things ought to be in an ideal world.” Interest, praise and scorn CSSD drew worldwide attention almost immediately. In Paris, announcement of its standards created a buzz at the International Energy Agency meeting on unconventional natural gas last March. And throughout the year, CSSD officials hosted delegations of regulators, elected officials, journalists and others from Austria, Britain, China, Canada, France, Germany, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and the European Union who traveled to Pittsburgh to learn about the standards and the process that led to them. Editorial writers from Pittsburgh to Dallas applauded the launch of CSSD. The Washington Post, for instance, described it as a “heartening breakthrough in the war over fracking.” On the other hand, several environmental nonprofits not invited to negotiate the standards criticized those who were, suggesting their involvement amounted to capitulation to an untrustworthy industry. The Sierra Club, the nation's largest grassroots environmental organization, took issue with the fact the standards don't carry the weight of law. “Voluntary certification is akin to slapping a Band-Aid on a gaping wound,” wrote Deb Nardone, director of its Beyond Natural Gas campaign. The nonprofit Public Accountability Initiative was more personal, documenting how several CSSD partners and board members have industry ties ranging from seats on corporate boards to investments in energy companies. In a report, the nonprofit described CSSD as a “greenwashing” campaign, implying that its standards are more of a marketing ploy than an attempt to advance environmental practices in shale gas drilling. The report, however, offered no evidence that the nonprofit had actually evaluated the merit of the CSSD standards. Tougher, for the most part Pittsburgh Today compared the 15 CSSD air and water standards to Pennsylvania and federal regulations that address environmental issues related to unconventional natural gas drilling. Both are rife with complexities. It is not uncommon, for example, for a single CSSD standard to have several parts that prescribe multiple practices, timetables and specifications. Each of the 15 standards was found to require CSSD-certified drillers to take some degree of protective action not prescribed by state or federal law. How significantly those practices rise above an operator's legal obligations varies across standards. Some CSSD standards are similar to existing regulations, save for a measure or two that can have environmental importance. One example is the standard for earthen impoundments that store water discharged during drilling that's fouled by chemical additives, brine and other contaminants. Like CSSD, Pennsylvania has design requirements that include double lining the impoundments. But unlike the state, CSSD also requires operators to remove hydrocarbons from the water before it is stored and to take steps to prevent wildlife from entering the impoundment. CSSD standards also prohibit discharging drilling wastewater into streams and rivers, allowing no exceptions. Zero discharge is generally promoted by Pennsylvania regulations. But under state law, public water treatment plants can, under certain circumstances, accept wastewater, which some have done, raising controversy and concern over public water supplies. Some similarities are also seen in CSSD standards and state regulations related to how drillers deal with the contaminated water discharged when a well is being drilled and afterward. Both call for drillers to identify strategies for reducing wastewater. But CSSD requires a recycling plan, and CSSD requires drillers to recycle at least 90 percent of their wastewater. Such practice reduces the amount of fresh water consumed in the hydrofracturing process, which is measured in the millions of gallons. State regulations don't require drillers to recycle their wastewater. Regulations tend to be moving targets, and recent changes have blunted the impact of one CSSD standard that was written earlier. That standard places limits on emissions from compressor engines used to push gas through pipelines after a well has gone into production. While those limits are more stringent than federal rules, Pennsylvania's revised regulations are, in some instances, more demanding. But several CSSD standards advance environmentally protective practices well beyond what is called for in state and federal regulations. One is the approach taken toward protecting groundwater. Before drilling, the CSSD standards require companies to establish an “area of review” that includes the vertical and horizontal legs of a well and to perform an analysis to characterize the geology below. That includes looking at whether the subsurface confining layers can prevent fracking fluids from migrating in unintended ways. It also includes identifying orphaned wells, faults or other vulnerabilities that might pose a problem. State regulations don't require drillers to perform such geological risk analyses. Operators who are CSSD-certified also must monitor streams, aquifers and other water sources within a 2,500-foot radius of the wellhead for at least one year after the well is drilled and show that the quality and chemistry of the water measured before drilling hasn't been adversely affected. State law doesn't require operators to take such steps to see if their wells impact local water sources. CSSD emissions standards for the diesel engines used in drilling and in the heavy trucks hauling fresh water and contaminated water are more restrictive than those which operators are legally required follow. Diesel engines are prolific sources of fine particles that contribute to smog, which is of growing concern in areas where drilling is concentrated. At least 95 percent of a CSSD-certified driller's truck fleet, for example, must meet the most stringent federal emissions regulations within three years. The standard applies to both new and existing trucks, including those bought before 2007, which could account for a large share of an operator's fleet. Federal law exempts those older trucks. And federal law prohibits Pennsylvania and other states from regulating them on their own. Moving forward Before leaving CSSD to begin his Pennsylvania gubernatorial campaign, Hanger expressed hope the standards would encourage more effective environmental practices within the industry, derail the argument that such higher standards cannot be met by the industry, and, through market pressures, require companies to earn certification in order to drill in the Appalachian Basin states. (Hanger has just recently dropped out of the primary race for governor. DGN) Whether that will come to pass remains to be seen. It took the better part of last year for CSSD to piece together its certification process, including protocols for selecting and training the auditors who'll monitor compliance. Their audits are expected to include both documentation review and field inspections. Sometime in 2014, the first companies to seek certification are expected to undergo compliance audits. Those presumably will be the four CSSD corporate partners: CONSOL, EQT, Shell and Chevron Appalachia. How many more will follow is unclear, as is the extent to which CSSD is supported within the shale gas industry. The region's largest shale gas trade group, the Marcellus Shale Coalition, hasn't endorsed CSSD, which is not mentioned on the group's website or on its list of the positive industry developments of 2013. And the group did not respond to interview requests to clarify its position on CSSD. But the notion that CSSD standards could create market demand for drillers to adopt its standards got an early and unexpected boost in September when Allegheny County added several of the standards to its request for proposals to extract gas under Deer Lakes Park. “I think it's doing the right thing,” says Allegheny County Chief Executive Rich Fitzgerald. “Everything is on a case-by-case basis. But we'd like to set a baseline where, if we can get some of these enhancements, it could be a template for doing it in other areas – not just public land, but private land as well.” Pittsburgh TODAY is an initiative of the Regional Indicator program hosted by the University Center for Social and Urban Research.

1 0

A Chickadee Mating Zone Surges North - NYTimes.com
by Duane 18 Mar '14

18 Mar '14

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/a-chickadee-mating-zone-surges-no… A Chickadee Mating Zone Surges North New York Times, March 18, 2014 In a long, narrow strip of territory from Kansas to New Jersey, two closely related species of chickadees meet, mate and give birth to hybrid birds. Now scientists are reporting that this so-called hybrid zone is moving north at a rate that matches the warming trend in winter temperatures. “It has moved north by about seven miles in the last 10 years,” said Scott Taylor, an evolutionary biologist at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology at Cornell University. The northward movement of the strip “corresponds so closely to warming global temperatures,” Dr. Taylor said. “The fact that these little birds are experiencing this makes it really relatable.” (The species are the Carolina chickadee, from the South, and the black-capped chickadee, from the North.) The scientists, who reported their findings in the journal Current Biology, relied on blood samples drawn from chickadees in Pennsylvania from 2000 to 2002 and from 2010 to 2012, and on sightings of hybrid chickadees recorded in the citizen science database eBird. They found that hybrids were sighted in areas where the average low temperature in winter was 15 to 19 degrees Fahrenheit (minus-9 to minus-7 Celsius) — the same readings as a decade earlier, but in a zone seven miles north of the 2000-02 sightings. The adaptability of the chickadees is impressive, Dr. Taylor said, but less mobile organisms that cannot move as fast may be suffering. For these organisms — like small mammals, insects and plants — the warming temperatures could have serious implications that are not immediately apparent, he said. SINDYA N. BHANOO

1 0

Climate Denier Steve Milloy Now a Director at Coal Giant Murray Energy, On CPAC Global Warming Panel Today | DeSmogBlog
by Duane 08 Mar '14

08 Mar '14

http://desmogblog.com/2014/03/06/climate-denier-steve-milloy-now-director-c… Note: Murray Energy late last year purchased five of the largest coal mines in WV from CONSOL Energy, namely the Robinson Run mine in Harrison Co., the Loveridge mine in Marion Co., the Blacksville II mine in Monongalia Co., the McElroy mine in Marshall Co., and the Ireland mine in Ohio Co. The primary owner is Robert Murray of the Cleveland area who has a long history of controversy regarding employee relations, unions, government regulations, and public relations. Now look at this: ........... "Climate Denier Steve Milloy Now a Director at Coal Giant Murray Energy, On CPAC Global Warming Panel Today" March 6, 2014 BRENDAN DEMELLE The Junkman has a new job, and yet again it involves defending fossil fuels and attacking science. Steve Milloy, who long ago dubbed himself "The Junkman," is listed as Director of External Policy & Strategy, Murray Energy Corporation, in a description of a global warming panel happening Thursday afternoon at the CPAC convention in Washington. That means he’s now deploying his anti-science, climate denialist PR spin for the largest privately-held coal producer in the U.S., Ohio-based Murray Energy Corp. Milloy apparently hasn’t bothered to update his online biography with this new title, and he didn’t respond to questions from DeSmogBlog about his exact start date. But it appears that he took the job with the coal company led by controversial conservative coal baron Robert Murray at some point last year. *Update: A Murray Energy spokesperson confirmed with DeSmog that Milloy began employment at the company on October 15, 2013.* Milloy appears on the roster of attendees at a White House meeting last Halloween, according to an Office of Management and Budget meeting log from Oct. 31, 2013. Milloy, appearing on behalf of Murray Energy Corp, was part of the coal industry coalition pushing back against efforts to improve mine safety rules protecting workers from respirable coal dust that can cause black lung disease, according to documents supplied at the meeting. Last September, Milloy wrote about Murray Energy briefly on his JunkScience.com blog without mentioning any ties to the company. Perhaps he hadn’t joined Murray yet, or didn’t see reason to declare his position? (*See update above*) The CPAC global warming panel taking place today in Washington features a cast of climate confusionists apparently seeking to permanently sink the GOP’s reputation on scientific matters. Alongside Milloy, the CPAC panel features Heartland Institute’s Joe Bast, CFACT’s Marc Morano, CEI’s Marlo Lewis and Frontiers of Freedom president George Landrith. With one exception — CEO of Abundant Power Group, Shannon Smith, a conservative who acknowledged in a recent tweet that “climate change is a reality” — the rest of the panel is stacked with a denier dream team of veteran apologists for tobacco companies, the Koch brothers, the chemical industry and dirty energy interests. Last year, climate denial was all the rage among most of CPAC’s young conservative attendees. So the right-wing audience will probably continue to buy the snake oil that all but Smith will be selling. AFTER TOBACCO AND TOXIC CHEMICALS, "CLEAN COAL" A NATURAL FIT FOR MILLOY? Steve Milloy’s new employer, Murray Energy, is a company with a clear position on climate change – 100% denial of science and reality. Here is what Murray Energy spokesperson, Gary Broadbent, told the National Journal last summer: "There is no relationship between the utilization of coal and climate change," company spokesman wrote to me in an e-mail. "Our members of Congress, and particularly the Obama administration, confuse scientific facts and evidence with their own beliefs." Robert Murray, the company’s founder and president, is clearly a climate denier who once referred to global warming as “global goofiness.” Bob Murray is also known for repeatedly lashing out with defamation lawsuits against journalists. His company Murray Energy is also a funder of the Heartland Institute, the Chicago-based right wing group known for its attacks on climate science and its outrageous Unabomber billboard. According to Heartland’s 2012 fundraising plan — an internal document published originally on DeSmogBlog in February 2012 —Murray Energy gave $100,000 to Heartland in 2010 and was expected to give $40,000 in 2012. WHO IS STEVE MILLOY? A BRIEF HISTORY Milloy, an infamous tobacco- and chemical industry-funded PR flack, was an author of the 1998 American Petroleum Institute “communications plan” to attack science and undermine international action on climate change. Written in conjunction with many right wing think tanks and fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and Southern Company, the industry’s goal was to launch "a national media relations program to inform the media about uncertainties in climate science." The 1998 API memo noted the “current reality” the industry faced: "Unless 'climate change' becomes a non-issue, meaning that the Kyoto proposal is defeated and there are no further initiatives to thwart the threat of climate change, there may be no moment when we can declare victory for our efforts." Three of the groups represented on the 2014 CPAC global warming panel were listed on the 1998 plan as possible channels to deploy the industry money to attack climate science, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute and Frontiers of Freedom: Potential funding sources and fund allocators (p. 8) - Potential funding sources were identified as American Petroleum Institute (API) and its members; Business Round Table (BRT) and its members, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and its members; Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and its members; and the National Mining Association (NMA) and its members. - Potential fund allocators were identified as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), Competitive Enterprise Institute, Frontiers of Freedom and the Marshall Institute. THANK YOU FOR SMOKING, AND POLLUTING Milloy has been a loud-mouthed attacker of climate science ever since, and proud of it. He told Popular Science in 2012: "There's really only about 25 of us doing this. A core group of skeptics. It's a ragtag bunch, very Continental Army. … I'm happy to be a denier." Like many other polluter operatives, Milloy has affiliations with a number of fossil-friendly think tanks in addition to his role at Murray Energy. He's listed as an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, senior policy fellow at the Energy and Environmental Law Institute, ‘expert’ at the Heartland Institute, the publisher and editor emeritus of JunkScience.com and president of the consulting firm Steven J. Milloy, Inc. He previously served as an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, director of Science Policy Studies at the National Environmental Policy Institute and more. He also formerly served as a blogger and occasional on-air commentator at FoxNews.com. Milloy has defended everything from cigarettes to Agent Orange to asbestos to PCBs and dioxins to … well, you get the idea. If you produce a deadly and dangerous product that needs defending, then Steve Milloy is your man. His business card might as well read "science denier for hire." Apparently, Murray Energy is the latest polluter to make the call to book the Junkman’s disinformation services.

1 0

2014 NETL Carbon Dioxide Capture Technology Meeting
by Duane 08 Mar '14

08 Mar '14

Dear Colleague: You are cordially invited to attend the U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory's 2014 CO2 Capture Technology Meeting on July 29 - August 1, 2014 at the Sheraton Station Square Hotel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The 2014 CO2 Capture Technology Meeting will provide a public forum to present carbon dioxide (CO2) capture technology development status and accomplishments made under NETL's Carbon Capture Program. Accomplishments from NETL's Advanced Combustion Systems Program will also be highlighted. This year's meeting will include projects from three primary technology areas (post-combustion, pre-combustion, and advanced combustion systems) and various stages of development (lab-scale, bench-scale, and small pilot-scale). Presentations of solvent, sorbent, membrane, oxy-combustion, and chemical looping combustion technologies, as well as systems studies and modeling, will be included. The meeting will have open registration so that in addition to researchers, participants may include employees of other government agencies, electric utilities, research organizations, business, and regulatory agencies at the Federal, State and Local levels. The Sheraton Station Square Hotel is currently holding a block of rooms for this meeting until Tuesday, June 24, 2014 at the government rate of $125.00 plus tax. For further information regarding the hotel, transportation/directions, and registration visit our website at: http://netl.doe.gov/events/co2-capture-technology-meeting For further information regarding the program content please contact David A. Lang at: U.S. Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory P.O. Box 10940 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236 Phone: (412) 386-4881 E-mail: David.Lang(a)netl.doe.gov For questions regarding conference logistics, please contact Karen Lockhart at: NETL Event Management P.O. Box 10940 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15236 Telephone: (412) 386-4763 Fax: (412) 386-6486 E-mail: karen.lockhart(a)contr.netl.doe.gov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535, www.FrackCheckWV.net

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC March 2014