Monthly Archives: May 2013

climate change, energy policy, fossil fuels, Keystone XL, national ocean politics, natural resource management, tar sands

Los Angeles Times: A New Mexico county’s fracking ban is all about the water

Leave a comment

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fracking-ban-20130529,0,4631146.story

In acting to protect what’s important to them, the 5,000 residents of poor Mora County make it the nation’s first to ban hydraulic fracturing for oil.

By Julie Cart,
May 28, 2013, 7:36 p.m.
OCATE, N.M. – Sitting in the tidy living room of the home they built themselves, Sandra and Roger Alcon inventory what they see as the bounty of their lives: freedom, family, community, land, animals Š and water.

“We’ve lived off the land for five generations,” said Roger Alcon, 63, looking out on a northern New Mexico landscape of high mesas, ponderosa pines and black Angus cattle. “We have what we need. We’ve been very happy, living in peace.” Wells are the Alcons’ only source of water. The same is true for everyone else in Mora County, which is why last month this poor, conservative ranching region of energy-rich New Mexico became the first county in the nation to pass an ordinance banning hydraulic fracturing, the controversial oil and gas extraction technique known as “fracking” that has compromised water quantity and quality in communities around the country. “I don’t want to destroy our water,” Alcon said. “You can’t drink oil.”

In embracing the ban, landowners turned their back on potentially lucrative royalty payments from drilling on their property and joined in a groundswell of civic opposition to fracking that is rolling west from Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania in the gas-rich Marcellus shale formation. Pittsburgh became the first U.S. city to outlaw fracking in November 2010 after it came to light that an energy company held a lease to drill under a beloved city cemetery.

Since then, more than a dozen cities in the East have passed similar ordinances. The movement leapfrogged west last summer when the town of Las Vegas, N.M., took up the cause, calling for a halt to fracking until adequate regulations protecting public health are adopted. It has now reached California, where communities are considering similar bans. Culver City – home to the nation’s largest urban oil field – is drafting oil and gas regulations that call for a moratorium on fracking. Citizen groups in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara are preparing their own community rights ballot measures aimed at outlawing the procedure.

Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting a high-pressure mix of water, sand and chemicals deep underground to fracture rock formations, releasing oil and gas that is hard to reach with conventional drilling methods. A blizzard of applications to sink wells using fracking is spurring a nationwide energy rush sometimes called the “shale gale.”

Among the leading concerns of opponents is the absence of any federal law requiring companies to fully identify the chemicals in their fracking fluids. Such formulas are considered by the industry to be a trade secret. Community-based anti-fracking campaigns – citing public health issues – call for complete disclosure of injection fluids. Many New Mexico counties welcome oil and gas production, an industry that adds to the tax base and employment rolls. But in sparsely populated Mora County, where 67% of the 5,000 residents are Spanish-speaking, people cherish their culture and way of life.

Sandra Alcon said her neighbors don’t care about mineral rights or oil money. They are angry about the way energy companies’ “land men” treated them. Residents here are seen as easy marks for hustlers offering little compensation for oil and water rights, she said. “They know we have a lot of elderly and rural people; some don’t speak English,” she said. “They don’t know that some of us went to college and some of us have the Internet. “I may look stupid, but I’m not. I know what they are doing.” Mora County, using its authority to regulate commercial activity, specifically barred corporations from fracking. The ordinance also established that citizens have a right to a safe and clean environment.

County Commission Chairman John Olivas said the ordinance is not a referendum on oil and gas. Rather, he said, it “is all about water,” estimating that 95% of the county’s residents support the ban, although some argue that the jobs and income that accompany drilling would help the depressed area. Olivas, a hunting and fishing guide, said he grew up watching his parents work in the uranium mines of eastern New Mexico. When the mines played out, towns shriveled up. Chasing that boom-and-bust economy is not worth despoiling an environment that remains remarkably untouched and provides a sustainable living for most people here, he said.

“We are one of the poorest counties in the nation, yes, but we are money-poor, we are not asset-poor,” Olivas said. “We’ve got land, we’ve got agriculture, we’ve got our heritage and we’ve got our culture.” The California community closest to adopting an anti-fracking ordinance is Culver City, which includes a portion of the 1,000-acre Inglewood Oil Field. More than 1 million people live within five miles of the field, where some 1,600 wells have been drilled since 1925.

The City Council is considering a fracking moratorium, even though only 10% of the field is within the city limits. The bulk of the wells are in unincorporated Los Angeles County. City officials and residents say they are concerned about air and water quality, as well as about earthquakes being triggered by drilling at 8,000 to 10,000 feet – the depths where the untapped oil is found.

Low-magnitude earthquakes have been associated with fracking, but Ed Memi, a spokesman for PXP, which operates in the Inglewood Field, called suggestions that high-pressure drilling causes earthquakes “hysterical accusations.”
“There is no evidence that hydraulic fracturing has caused felt seismic activity anywhere in California,” Memi said. “The practice of hydraulic fracturing has been subjected to dozens of studies in recent years, and the fundamental safety of the technology is well understood by scientists, engineers, regulators and other technical experts.”
But Meghan Sahli-Wells, Culver City’s vice mayor, said the city needs to see more study of fracking’s impact before it could be allowed.

“I grew up in L.A. All my life I’ve heard about air-quality problems, earthquakes and water issues,” Sahli-Wells said. “It just so happens that fracking really hits on the three major challenges of this area. Frankly, I’ve been waiting for people to wake up and say, ‘We are fracking on a fault line? Is this really in our interests?'”

If Culver City moves forward with a moratorium, it could take months to complete, she said.
Fracking is unregulated in California, and no accurate figures exist detailing how many of the state’s wells are completed using the technique.

A number of anti-fracking bills are pending before the state Assembly, and statewide regulations are being finalized by the state Department of Conservation.

Sahli-Wells endorses legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Holly Mitchell (D-Culver City) that calls for a moratorium on fracking in California until a comprehensive six-year study can be undertaken.
“Look before you leap” legislation is pending in other states.

On a recent day back in Mora County, Roger Alcon drove his ranch with his herding dog, Pepper, at his side. He said the region’s aquifer has been depleted by oil and gas operations in the region. He sees no reason to hasten the water decline.
Alcon pointed out the truck window toward the snowcapped Sangre de Cristo mountains.
“We have what we need,” he said. “To me, the fresh air and the land, and water. It’s better than money.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

climate change, energy policy, fossil fuels, natural resource management, Uncategorized

Time: The Unintended Consequences of Exporting Natural Gas

Leave a comment

The Unintended Consequences of Exporting Natural Gas

By Bryan Walsh
May 27, 20130

The best intentions during an election campaign have a habit twisting beyond recognition once a candidate is in power. I doubt when Barack Obama was teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago he thought that, once in the White House, his Administration would be responsible for one of the most chilling crackdowns on the freedom of the press in recent American history. And yet, after the revelation of the Department of Justice’s wide-ranging move to seize phone records of AP reporters and a deeply disturbing investigation of the Fox News reporter James Rosen-seriously, read this-Obama’s legacy has been permanently altered.

I also doubt that the candidate who in 2008 ran on a cap-and-trade plan and promised to make climate change a top priority thought that he would go down as the driller-in-chief. And yet-without taking anything away from Obama’s very real accomplishments in supporting renewable energy and efficiency-that’s exactly what’s happening. Domestic oil and natural gas production have boomed under Obama’s watch, and even though he was hardly the cause-most of the new fracking is happening on private land largely outside federal regulation-neither had Obama done much to stand in the way, at least according to his increasingly frustrated environmental allies. Greens want Obama to stop the proposed Keystone pipeline and halt the expansion of fracked oil and natural gas-but as Obama begins his second term in earnest, that seems unlikely.

Take natural gas. For some time gas companies have been pushing the federal government to make it easier to export natural gas in liquified form (LNG) to foreign countries. This is itself a huge turnaround-less than a decade ago, domestic production of natural gas was so low that facilities were being built in U.S. ports to import foreign natural gas. The shale gas revolution, made possible by fracking, changed all that. Now the U.S. literally has more natural gas than it knows what to do with, and the price of gas has tumbled to around $4 per million BTU.

That’s great for U.S. utilities, which have taken advantage of cheap natural gas to close out old, polluting coal plants, helping them comply with environmental regulations while reducing U.S. pollution and carbon emissions. It’s also been good for American manufacturers-especially those in the chemical industry-who can take advantage of cheaper power and raw materials. But the glut of gas-and natural gas, unlike oil, can’t easily be stored-hasn’t been so great for one sector: natural gas companies themselves, which have begun complaining that drilling has is costing them more than they can make selling their product.

Econ 101: if your supply outstrips your demand, the only way to raise prices is to reduce your supply-something gas companies can’t easily do because their contracts on wells often require them to keep drilling to maintain the lease-or increase the demand. And since the demand for natural gas in the U.S. seems to be more or less maxed out, the best way to do that is to ship the gas to other countries where the price of natural gas is much, much higher. Like Japan, which has virtually no natural gas resources of its own, and which pays some $17 per million BTU-or more than four times what we pay in the U.S.-to import liquified natural gas (LNG).

So the news on May 17 that the Department of Energy (DOE) had given a terminal near Freeport, Louisiana-one originally built to import gas-permission to export LNG was met with approval by natural gas companies, even as chemical companies worried about the effect on prices and environmentalists worried that more exports would mean more fracking. In a statement after DOE approved the export terminal, Deb Nardone of the Sierra Club’s Beyond Natural Gas campaign said:

Exporting LNG will lead to more drilling – and more drilling means more fracking, more air and water pollution, and more climate fueled weather disasters like last year’s record fires, droughts, and superstorms. In today’s conditional authorization, DOE acknowledges that it has not yet considered any of these impacts, but that environmental effects must be considered before DOE can grant final approval.

But while there are legitimate environmental concerns about more natural gas drilling, there’s an economic value to exporting a product that can sell for far more abroad than it can at home. Let’s let Joe Nocera of the New York Times, in a May 18 column entitled “Energy Exports Are Good!” explain why exporting natural gas would be good:

Exporting natural gas has enormous benefits for the United States. Exports create jobs that are every bit as good as manufacturing jobs. They help our trade deficit. They tie us closer to important allies like Japan, which desperately need the gas. According to Michael Levi, the author of an authoritative new book, “The Power Surge: Energy, Opportunity, and the Battle for America’s Future,” the prospect that America could export natural gas has even helped our European allies gain leverage with its primary supplier of fossil fuels, Russia.

Nonetheless, it’s hard to see how exporting natural gas will help the environment, at least at home. The price for natural gas has begun to rise-and partially in response, utilities have begun switching back to burning polluting coal. Since January, utilities have been burning less gas, and coal now provides about 40% of U.S. electricity. That’s still a much smaller share than coal demanded a few years ago, but it’s a sign that pricier natural gas-which is significantly cleaner-burning than coal-will likely mean more carbon emissions. Export more natural gas, and that’s just what you might get.

In environmental policy-in all policy-actions can have unintended consequences, and take you places you never expected. Just ask the driller in chief.

VIDEO: TIME Explains: U.S. Energy Independence

Bryan Walsh @bryanrwalsh
Bryan Walsh is a senior editor at TIME.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

energy policy, fossil fuels, Keystone XL, marine pollution, national ocean politics, natural resource management, sustainable energy

Mother Jones: Grassroots Greens Challenge Environmental Defense Fund on Fracking

Leave a comment

Grassroots Greens Challenge Environmental Defense Fund on Fracking


→ Climate Change, Corporations, Energy, Environment, Regulatory Affairs

—By Kate Sheppard
| Wed May. 22, 2013 1:49 PM PDT

fracking_6

Michael G McKinne/Shutterstock.com

A coalition of grassroots environmental groups—plus a few professors and celebrities—issued a public message to the Environmental Defense Fund on Wednesday: You don’t speak for us on fracking.

The coalition of 67 groups released an open letter to EDF President Fred Krupp criticizing his organization for signing on as a “strategic partner” in the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit that bills itself as an “unprecedented, collaborative effort of environmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, energy companies and other stakeholders committed to safe, environmentally responsible shale resource development.” CSSD’s partners include Chevron, CONSOL Energy, and Shell. The partners have been working together on voluntary industry standards for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, a controversial process used to extract natural gas from shale rock.

The groups that signed the letter included national organizations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, as well as regional environmental outfits such as the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and Catskills Citizens for Clean Energy. Actors Mark Ruffalo and Debra Winger also signed the document. They wrote:

The very use of the word sustainable in the name is misleading, because there is nothing sustainable about shale oil or shale gas. These are fossil fuels, and their extraction and consumption will inevitably degrade our environment and contribute to climate change. Hydraulic fracturing, the method used to extract them, will permanently remove huge quantities of water from the hydrological cycle, pollute the air, contaminate drinking water, and release high levels of methane into the atmosphere. It should be eminently clear to everyone that an economy based on fossil fuels is unsustainable.

Gail Pressberg, a senior program director with the Civil Society Institute, criticized EDF for a “willingness to be coopted” by industry in a call with reporters about the letter. “For too long, nationally-oriented groups have tried to call the shots on fracking,” she said. “These local people can and should be allowed to speak for themselves.”

EDF’s Krupp responded with his own letter on Wednesday, defending the group’s participation in CSSD and its record of “fighting for tough regulations and strong enforcement” on natural gas extraction:

Let’s be clear about where EDF stands. It’s not our job to support fracking or to be boosters for industry. That is not what we do. In fact, we regularly clash with industry lobbyists who seek to gut legislation protecting the public, and we have intervened in court on behalf of local communities and their right to exercise traditional zoning powers. We have made it clear that there are places where fracking should never be permitted. But if fracking is going to take place anywhere in the U.S.—and clearly it is—then we need to do everything in our power to protect the people living nearby. That includes improving industry performance in every way possible. In our view, CSSD, a coalition that includes environmental organizations, philanthropic foundations, energy companies and other stakeholders, is one way to do that.

Make no mistake: CSSD is not and never will be a substitute for effective regulation. Stronger state and federal rules, along with strong enforcement, are absolutely necessary. However, voluntary efforts can build momentum toward regulatory frameworks.

I’ve covered the sparring between EDF and grassroots groups over gas before. At the heart of it is that many of the grassroots groups want there to be no fracking, period. EDF’s position is that fracking is “never going to be without impact, never going to be risk free,” as EDF Vice President Eric Pooley described it to me, “but we’re also mindful that it’s happening all over the country.” Voluntary standards, Pooley said, are not the ultimate goal—but they can help reduce impacts in communities that already have drilling, and lay the groundwork for actual regulations. “How could we not, in good consciousness, want to engage if we see an opportunity to reduce impacts in communities?” he said.

For what it’s worth, both enviros and industry folks have berated CSSD for being too accommodating of the other side.

climate change, energy policy, fossil fuels, Keystone XL, natural resource management, sustainable energy, tar sands

San Francisco Chronicle: Keystone pipeline foes set for protests

Leave a comment

I agree that we should all do what we can to express our opposition to this insanity. DV

http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Keystone-pipeline-foes-set-for-protests-4536853.phpKeystone protests

Michael Macor, The Chronicle
An El Sobrante man named Rick participates in civil disobedience training Saturday in Richmond.

By Joe Garofoli
May 22, 2013

Climate-change activists aren’t waiting to see what President Obama will decide on the most controversial environmental issue of his tenure – the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would carry petroleum extracted from the Canadian tar sands 1,700 miles across the U.S. to the Gulf of Mexico.

To call attention to the project and what they consider the government’s slow political response to climate change, tens of thousands of activists plan to get arrested in nonviolent civil disobedience across the nation in the coming weeks.

In small groups such as one that gathered in a Richmond storefront office last weekend, they’ve begun training for demonstrations aimed at key players in the Keystone decision.

They will begin at a Facebook shareholders meeting next month in Millbrae. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg started a political action committee that is supporting senators who favor the pipeline.
A larger protest will follow Aug. 3 in Richmond near the Chevron refinery.

“Things are getting worse,” said LaVerne Woodrow, a 51-year-old registered nurse who drove from Arroyo Seco (Monterey County) with her 26-year-old son to participate in the Richmond training Saturday.

Woodrow participated in various social justice marches when she was younger, but she has never been arrested at one before.

“I am a law-abiding citizen. Worst I ever had was a parking ticket,” Woodrow said. “But I live out in the country. I see the damage that’s being done to our environment.”

Promising action

More than 59,000 people have signed an online pledge to express their disgust and engage in what San Francisco-based pledge organizers Credo Action calls “serious, dignified, peaceful civil disobedience that could get you arrested.”

As the State Department analyzes the Keystone project before a final decision, expected this year, activists are corralling their energy into campaigns with names like “Summer Heat,” featuring street demonstrations the last two weeks of July, typically among the hottest days of the year.

Another group of environmental activists is plotting a campaign called “Fearless Summer” to protest various types of natural-resource extraction – from fracking to mountaintop removal to extract minerals.

Supporters of the Keystone pipeline say the project would bring much-needed jobs to the United States, where 11.7 million people are unemployed, according to the Labor Department. But while construction of the pipeline is estimated to create 42,100 temporary jobs, a State Department study projected it would add only 35 permanent jobs, mostly for pipeline inspection and maintenance.

Team in training

The four-hour Richmond tutorial was among the first of more than 1,000 training sessions that eventually will take place nationally, organizers say.

On Saturday, activists gathered in the Richmond storefront amid posters of past direct actions: “Against the Patriot Act,” “Wells Fargo: Reset Mortgages Now!” and “We are the port authority!” – from an Occupy demonstration at the Port of Oakland.

Many of the 15 people who attended the training had participated in civil disobedience before. Uniformly liberal, they needed few primers on climate change or why the pipeline was a bad idea, from their perspective.

“Why are we doing direct action?” instructor David Solnit, a longtime Bay Area activist who has protested internationally, asked the group sitting around a long, rectangular table.

“To piss off the powers that be,” volunteered one.
“To unite power behind us,” said another.

Handy tips

Solnit nodded, with a soft smile. Direct action protest not only “builds our power,” he said, but takes it from the 1 percent – the wealthiest of Americans.

Much of the afternoon was spent discussing and role-playing the mechanics of gumming up the gears of capitalism. Sprinkled throughout were practical tips on how to behave in the heat of nonviolent battle.

Start with the best way to sit together to block a building entrance.
Next to each other in a straight line? Bad idea. Security can pry away the weaker members, instructors said, as they demonstrated on such a chorus line.

Sitting in a circle? Better.

“But my back is kind of hurting sitting like this,” said one circle-sitter.

Handy tip: Sit back-to-back in concentric circles. Not only does it provide back support but it allows the activists to have a 360-degree view of the action. Plus, by putting the weaker members in the inner circle, it protects them from getting pried off.

When it comes to getting arrested, Solnit said, “the key thing to remember is, you always have choices.”

If you don’t want to be arrested, he said, leave when the cops tell you to disperse. “But when would be some times where you would want to be arrested?” he asked.
“To prolong the action,” said one man.

“To make a more dramatic statement,” said another.

Handy tip: Don’t wear contact lenses if you’re planning to get arrested. Pepper spray burns even more. Wear your prescription glasses instead.

Calming down

Much of the afternoon’s conversation involved “de-escalation” – how to bring down the temperature of tense confrontations. There is an art in talking nose-to-nose with the employee of a company you’re blockading. Start with saying, “This is a peaceful protest.”

Handy tip: If they’re yelling at you, match the level of their voice initially, then start talking softer. “And then they’ll start talking softer,” Solnit said.

When the training session ended, Tania Pulido was ready to hit the barricades. The Richmond resident is 23, a soon-to-be-senior at UC Berkeley and a direct-action rookie. Still, she’s a little worried about what might happen if she were to be arrested.

“It’s a risk,” she said. “I’m a student with a lot of loans. You never know what the government could do with those loans if you get arrested.”

Joe Garofoli is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: jgarofoli@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @joegarofoli

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Keystone-pipeline-foes-set-for-protests-4536853.php#ixzz2U5asuj9T

_________

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2013/05/22/inside-a-civil-disobedience-training-session-video/

San Francisco Chronicle

Inside a civil disobedience training session (VIDEO)

In today’s Chronicle, we have a story about climate change activists training to engage in civil disobedience over the Keystone XL pipeline. They’re ready to roll on different protest campaigns with innocuous names like “Summer Heat” and “Fearless Summer,” but the message is clear:

Oh, it’s on.

Enviros are frustrated with the lack of political progress on halting climate change, and their anger is focused on the looming Keystone decision. A growing number of people – and not just the professional activist community – want to do something more than contact their member of Congress (who obviously aren’t listening) or post a quick rant on Facebook. That just ain’t enough, many tell me.

So let’s go to the barricades.

Naturally, this being the Bay Area, the trainings are ramping up here first. We checked out a training the other day in Richmond. Lot of role-playing. Lots. Down to some role-playing security officers wielding rolled-up foam “batons.”

Here’s the crew role-playing how they would blockade the entrance to a building. Let’s go to the video, courtesy of SFGate.com/San Francisco Chronicle’s Shaky Hand Productions:

In the next video is David Solnit – a longtime Bay Area activist who has demonstrated around the world – explaining the do’s and don’t’s of getting arrested.

Here’s a handy tip: Don’t ever touch a police officer, police dog or police horse in any way, instructors warned. One activist at the training hushed the crowd with a story about a fellow protester who pet a police horse during a demonstration. The protester, who was a horse lover, was charged with assaulting an officer.

Again, courtesy of San Francisco Chronicle/SFGate.com’s Shaky Hand Productions, is a peek at the training:

Special thanks to Richard Charter.

energy policy, fossil fuels, marine pollution, national ocean politics, natural resource management, ocean pollution, offshore oil, Uncategorized

Penn Energy: New Zealand Green Party fighting offshore oil drilling

Leave a comment

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2013/05/new-zealand-green-party-fighting-offshore-oil-drilling.html

May 20, 2013
By PennEnergy Editorial Staff

The Green Party in New Zealand is placing a bid on the government’s oil and gas exploration tender in an effort to stop offshore drilling expansions. According to Radio New Zealand, the government announced it opened three offshore areas of more than 72,900 square miles for oil and gas exploration permits.

The Green Party plans to submit a competing bid for the acreage in order to protect the area from deep sea drilling and offshore exploration. Radio New Zealand said the group is calling it the Kiwi Bid, and is encouraging individuals to join the cause to prevent the government from exploiting New Zealand’s environment.

Party co-leader Metiria Turei said the government will be given a choice from the Kiwi Bid – they can move forward with offshore oil drilling or accept the bid from New Zealanders who want to protect the beaches and ocean.

According to TVNZ, the government is accusing the Green Party of scaremongering because of their opposition to the drilling.

“The fact of the matter is we want to sensibly explore and develop our resources so that there are higher paying jobs for Kiwis,” said Energy and Resources Minister Simon Bridges.

Learn more about New Zealand’s gas markets in PennEnergy’s research area.

Special thanks to Richard Charter