General
News
Methane Detectives: Can A Wave Of New Technology Slash Natural Gas Leaks?
According to Yale Environment 360, “Driving along County Road 28 south of Platteville, the signs of Colorado’s oil and gas boom are everywhere you look. Storage tanks and wellheads
dot the horizon. Bundles of pipe sit by the roadside, waiting to become pipelines. Drilling rigs loom behind enormous brown temporary sound barriers, a stone’s throw from homes and businesses. This infrastructure is impossible to miss, but the methane that
leaks from it can be much harder to detect. That’s why Greg Rieker and a colleague are out here on a cold, sun-drenched morning in the middle of the Denver-Julesburg Basin – one of the nation’s fracking hotspots – fine-tuning their frequency comb laser. Standing
atop a small trailer housing the $150,000 device, Rieker gestures across a grassy expanse toward a well pad half a mile away. ‘We’ve used this system to pinpoint a leak to about a 5-square-meter area,’ he says. ‘It’s a question of, when leaks start, seeing
them and sizing them properly so we can alert an operator there’s a problem. There are 20,000 wells out there. This is a Colorado-grown solution, using Colorado technology.’ Rieker is a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder
and chief technology officer of LongPath Technologies, a startup that aims to provide oil and gas companies with a new method for detecting methane leaks from their operations. He is among a growing cadre of scientists and entrepreneurs working to develop
and deploy novel technologies to address the growing issue of methane leaks across the fossil fuel supply chain.” [Yale Environment 360,
10/31/19 (+)]
Environmental Groups Sue Trump Administration Over Drilling Plan.
According to The Hill, “Environmental groups on Wednesday filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plan to open up hundreds of thousands of acres of land in California
to oil and gas drilling. The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over the plan to open more than 700,000 acres of land to oil and gas lease sales. ‘Defendants failed to consider meaningful alternatives
to the plan amendment, failed to analyze and disclose the environmental impacts, and denied the public the opportunity to comment on its environmental analyses as the law requires,’ the lawsuit reads. It also says the plan opens the land up to ‘dangerous and
polluting techniques like steam injection and hydraulic fracturing.’ Neither the Department of Justice nor BLM immediately responded to The Hill’s request for comment. BLM spokeswoman Sarah Webster told Reuters in a statement that the suit was under agency
review. She said the administration’s decision ‘strikes a balance between resource conservation and energy development consistent with BLM’s mission for managing the lands for multiple use and sustained yield.’ The wire service previously reported that the
administration had announced approval for the plan earlier this month. ‘Oil and gas extraction is a dirty, dangerous business that poisons our water, kills wildlife and worsens the climate crisis,’ Clare Lakewood, senior Center for Biological Diversity attorney,
said in a statement.” [The Hill,
10/30/19 (=)]
Groups Sue BLM Over Calif. Fracking Plan.
According to E&E News, “Conservation groups are suing federal land managers over an amended plan to open up hundreds of thousands of acres in 11 California counties for oil and gas
development. Lawyers for the Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club are challenging the Bureau of Land Management over its Oct. 4 approval of a resource management plan amendment and environmental impact statement allowing for oil and gas leasing
on 725,500 acres of federal land and mineral estate in the Bay Area and Central Coast regions. In their complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the groups argued that BLM fell short of its responsibilities under
the Administrative Procedure Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Clare Lakewood, legal director of CBD’s Climate Law Institute, said four counties included in the plan — Monterey, San Benito, Alameda and Santa Cruz — had passed bans on hydraulic
fracturing and other types of oil and gas extraction. She called the federal government’s move to open these counties up to possible development an unusual step. ‘We haven’t seen this done,’ she said. ‘BLM typically respects local planning laws.’ Lakewood
said BLM’s proposed development on the 725,500 acres was much more than the agency had previously suggested in its draft plan. The current plan includes 91% of the agency’s planning area and nearly doubled the mineral estate that had been proposed in the agency’s
prior alternative.” [E&E News,
10/31/19 (=)]
House Votes To Limit Energy Development Near Grand Canyon, Chaco Canyon.
According to Politico, “House lawmakers passed public lands bills prohibiting new uranium mining near the Grand Canyon and blocking new mining in and around New Mexico’s Chaco Culture
National Historical Park. Passage of the Grand Canyon measure, H.R. 1373 (116), on a 236 to 185 vote delivers on a personal priority for Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva. The Arizona Democrat has been pushing to protect the area for the better part
of a decade from efforts to renew uranium mining in the area to help the struggling domestic uranium industry. And he’s fearful the Trump administration will use national security concerns as a pretense to open up the region again. ‘It’s the Grand Canyon,’
Grijalva told POLITICO in his Capitol Hill office. ‘We want to have this bill as a counterpoint. ... The thing you want to prevent is this administration from grandfathering in so many leases and permits.’ Lawmakers shot down three Republican amendments proposing
various ways to delay or stop the measure’s implementation. The Obama administration enacted a 20-year ban for uranium mining near the Grand Canyon in 2012. Grijalva urged former President Barack Obama to declare a national monument in the area, but the administration
opted against doing so in January 2017. There’s been a renewed push to boost the domestic uranium industry under President Donald Trump’s administration.” [Politico,
10/30/19 (=)]
Congressional Bid To Thwart Nord Stream 2 Pipeline Stalls.
According to Politico, “Congress is running out of time in its effort to halt construction of the North Stream 2 pipeline that would carry Russian natural gas to Germany, with bills
that would impose sanctions on companies involved in the pipeline’s construction floundering, lawmakers and analysts said Wednesday. Earlier on Wednesday, Denmark granted a permit to backers of the project, enabling the line to traverse its portion of the
Balctic Sea. That removed the biggest administrative hurdle for Nord Stream 2, which has been opposed by the European Commission and several Central and Eastern European counties, though its completion is expected to slip into next year or beyond. The project
has been opposed by the Trump administration, as well as critics on the Hill who have warned that the pipeline, with an annual capacity of 3.9 trillion cubic feet, will help Russia solidify a stranglehold on European energy security. A bill, S. 1441 (116)
led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), is languishing in the Senate after advancing through the Foreign Relations Committee on a 20 to 2 bipartisan vote. A similar bill, H.R. 3206 (116), filed in the House by Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) has been stuck in committee
since the end of June. The inaction comes despite confidence expressed by Energy Secretary Rick Perry in May that Congress would pass the sanctions. ‘We’re obviously running out of time,’ Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a senior member of the Foreign Relations
Committee, told POLITICO. ‘I’d like to pass Sen. Cruz’s bill, which we passed out of Senate Foreign Relations.” [Politico,
10/30/19 (=)]
New Mexico, Hill Republicans Pan EPA Oil & Gas Methane Rule Rollback.
According to Inside EPA, “EPA is facing strong criticism of its proposal to rescind direct methane limits for oil and gas operations from New Mexico, the country’s third-largest oil
producer that is home to part of the Permian basin, as well as two congressional Republicans including one House member who has been a die-hard supporter of President Donald Trump. In Oct. 24 comments on EPA’s proposed rule to drop Obama-era methane requirements
from its new source performance standards (NSPS) for the sector, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary James Kenney lays out a host of reasons why EPA’s Aug. 29 proposal is unlawful, charging that it violates a Clinton-era executive order on federalism
and would boost ozone and other criteria emissions in the state, requiring expensive new pollution controls and harming public health. ‘The State of New Mexico strongly opposes [EPA’s] proposed revisions to the [NSPS], which currently regulate volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and methane emissions from new, reconstructed, and modified sources in the oil and natural gas industry,’ the letter says. ‘The process used to propose the rule is in contradiction to Executive Order 13132 and preempts state law while imposing
significant burdens upon state environmental agencies,’ Kenney adds. ‘If finalized, the proposed revisions will significantly degrade air quality and adversely impact public health throughout the U.S., including the State of New Mexico.” [Inside EPA,
10/30/19 (=)]
Judge Skeptical Of EPA Effort To Lift Looming Landfill Methane Deadline.
According to Inside EPA, “A federal district judge appears skeptical of EPA’s request to lift a looming deadline for issuance of a direct federal plan for most of the country to implement
Obama-era rules to cut methane emissions from landfills, with the agency arguing the deadline is moot because it has finalized a separate rule extending its deadline to issue the federal plan. At an Oct. 24 hearing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California in State of California, et al. v. EPA, Judge Haywood Gilliam appeared unlikely to grant EPA’s request to amend his original order, issued in May, that imposes a Nov. 6 deadline on the agency to complete a federal plan, one source following the
case says. However, he is likely to rule quickly, giving the agency time to seek a stay of the May order pending appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the source adds. At issue is EPA’s Aug. 26 request asking the court to lift the Nov.
6 deadline for it to impose a federal plan on states that failed to submit state compliance strategies for the 2016 rule. Those deadlines were set by Gilliam in the case after he rejected EPA’s effort early this year to dismiss the case as moot because the
agency was pursuing a new rulemaking to extend a series of deadlines under the rule well into the future.” [Inside EPA,
10/30/19 (=)]
Environmentalists Contest EPA Cost Tally In Battery Storage BACT Suit.
According to Inside EPA, “Seeking a first-time decision requiring use of battery storage as best available control technology (BACT), environmentalists are charging that EPA is improperly
relying on cost estimates to defend its decision not to consider requiring such storage to lower pollution from a natural gas-fired power plant in California. ‘EPA goes on to ask the Court to uphold the denial of a battery system as BACT based on cost, which
should be considered in step 4 of a BACT analysis,’ states an Oct. 17 reply brief filed by four environmental groups with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), et al. v. EPA. ‘The Court should reject this request
because the [Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)] explicitly decided to not rely on costs in rejecting a battery system.’ The filing responds to EPA’s Sept. 26 brief detailing the agency’s justification for rejecting battery storage as BACT in permitting the
combined cycle natural gas power plant under the Clean Air Act. ‘Batteries have never been used in lieu of [natural gas-fired] duct burners,’ the agency’s brief states. ‘And Petitioners offered scant evidence to support their untested batteries-as-BACT proposal.’”
[Inside EPA,
10/30/19 (=)]
Chad Ellwood
Climate Action Campaign
202.448.2877 ext. 119