Pipelines Reborn: They're Back Thanks to Trump

The day after Donald J Trump fired the first salvos in his war against the EPA and others, he delivered on his promise to double down on fossil fuels with the approval of two pipelines. On Tuesday, January 24th, Trump signed Executive Orders that overturn the Obama administration's decision on the Keystone XL (KXL) and the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL). This authorizes TransCanada Pipelines to move forward with the 1,179-mile KXL and Energy Transfer Partners can also proceed with the 1,172-mile DAPL.

This is a blow for environmentalists and indigenous people who had fought hard to shut down the KXL and DAPL. Keystone was killed by President Barack Obama after years of protests and DAPL was stalled by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the face of massive protests by indigenous people led by the Standing Rock Sioux.

Trump also signed an EO that will eliminate environmental regulations associated with the permitting process.

There are massive environmental costs associated with pipelines. They inevitably spill (click here to see a partial summary of oil spills in 2016). Even more importantly, they contribute climate change causing greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to the atmosphere at a time when we cannot afford further increases (we are currently 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial norms and scientists conservatively estimate that we cannot afford to go beyond 2 degrees Celsius).

DAPL will ferry 570,000 barrels of dirty shale oil from North Dakota to the Gulf Coast. The pipeline imperils the drinking water of 17 million people. The emissions from this pipeline are equivalent to 30 coal plants. According to Oil Change International DAPL will create "101.4 million metric tons of CO2e per year. These emissions are equivalent to 29.5 typical U.S. coal plants or the average emissions of 21.4 million U.S. passenger vehicles."

Each day the KXL can transport 830,000 barrels of some of the dirtiest oil on Earth. The Friends of the Earth reports that the GHGs associated with this pipeline is equivalent to putting 5.6 million new cars on the roads.

The promised reopening of NAFTA will complicate the KXL which will ferry oil from Alberta's tar sands to Texas. Because it crosses a state boundary the permitting process is largely under state department control. However, there are questions as to the viability of the pipeline with oil prices seemingly stuck below $60 a barrel.

More protests and lawsuits can be expected to try to stop this administration from moving forward with pipelines that are harmful to this and future generations.

As explained Bill McKibben,

"This is not a done deal. The last time around, TransCanada was so confident they literally mowed the strip where they planned to build the pipeline before people power stopped them. People will mobilize again."

The DAPL protest has been called off with Sioux leaders looking to fight the decisions in the courts. It will also take time for the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a full environmental assessment as required by law. But this could be overcome if the Army issues and easement.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders summed up the situation as follows:

"Millions of people came together all over this country to stop the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines and say we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Today, President Trump ignored the voices of millions and put the short-term profits of the fossil fuel industry ahead of the future of our planet."

Related
Dakota Access Pipeline Halted by Government Despite Judges Ruling (Videos)
The Dakota Access and Protest that Kills Pipelines
TransCanada's Keystone is Spewing Crude Adding Fuel to Pipeline Protests
A Brief Review of the Keystone XL Saga
Why the Keystone XL Pipedream Must Die
Republicans Keep Pushing Keystone XL Pipeline
Reasons Why the Keystone XL is a Pipedream
Keystone XL will Emit 4 Times More Pollution than Originally Thought
Buying Support for the Keystone XL
Business Leaders, Scientists, Economists and Ordinary People Reject the Keystone XL
Comparison of the Keystone XL and Renewable Energy
How Come the Keystone XL is so Hard to Kill

Read More»

Partial Summary of Oil Spills in 2016

Fossil fuels are the primary cause of climate change, they are also prone to spills. Such spills are toxic and they have been a consistent part of the fossil fuel industry since its inception. As long as we extract and transport oil and gas spills are a statistical certainty.

In December, Wired reported that there are about 30,000 oil spills in US waters every year. In October, Hurricane Ivan caused dozens of leaks in undersea oil wells and pipelines in the Gulf of Mexico. Some of these spills will leak for decades. The Taylor Energy site will continue to leak between 84 and 1,470 gallons per day for the next hundred years. The oil slick from this spill stretches over eight square miles on an average day. Taylor Energy has gone bankrupt and they just walked away from the mess they created.

Many spills are covered up by oil companies or under-reported (SkyTruth estimates that spills are at least 13 times bigger than the numbers on record). Those that are reported are often ignored. Spills up to 100,000 gallons are classified by the Coast Guard as "minor or moderate". It is important to understand that even small spills are deadly to marine life. They also represent a health risk for humans. Except in the most extreme and egregious cases, there are no penalties and therefore no incentives for the oil industry to clean up its act.

There are thousands of wells and 2.4 million miles of aging oil pipe infrastructure in the United States alone. In 2015 there were countless oil spills (click here to see a partial list of spills in North America) and in 2016 the sad legacy of fossil fuel industry spills continued. Here is a review of some of those spills in 2016.

On December 5, the Belle Fourche Pipeline pipeline spilled 176,000 gallons of crude oil into the into the Ash Coulee Creek in Billings County, North Dakota. This is about 150 miles from Cannon Ball, where protesters are camped out in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline (President-Elect Trump has said he supports the pipeline). To make matters worse the creek has frozen over making cleanup operations almost impossible. Water supplies from the creek have been turned off. The Belle Fourche Pipeline Co. is part of the family-owned True companies, which also operates Bridger Pipeline LLC. Like almost every other pipeline company they have a long rap-sheet of spills.

On October 21, there was a pipeline leak in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, involving Sunoco, the company that is behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. An 8 inch pipeline managed by the company leaked 55,000 gallons of gasoline into a major waterway, thereby contaminating the drinking water of some 6 million people in Lancaster County. The gasoline streamed into Wallis Run, a tributary of the Loyalsock Creek that eventually drains into the Susquehanna River, considered to be the third most endangered river in the United States by American Rivers, a non-governmental organization (NGO) dedicated to protecting and preserving rivers around the country. While all pipelines leak, Sunoco Logistics spills crude more often than any of its competitors, having experienced more than 200 leaks since 2010.

On October 9, a 1.2-billion-gallon cooling pond dam at Duke Energy's H.F. Lee plant breached killing millions of chickens at factory farms and contaminating local waterways. The leak in the 120-acre coal ash pond in Goldsboro, North Carolina occurred just minutes after Duke Energy issued a statement claiming that the "Ash basin and cooling pond dams across the state continue to operate safely."

On October 2, 95 metric tons of oil leaked into the North Sea from BP's Clair platform. The leak was 46 miles west of the Shetland Islands. There was no cleanup and a large oil slick was visible from the spill. From 2000 to 2011, there were 4,123 separate oil spills in the North Sea. Oil companies were fined for just seven of them. No single fine was greater than about $25,000.

On September 24, a fuel tanker in the Gulf of Mexico caught fire and burned for days. The tanker Burgos caught fire about seven nautical miles off the coast of the port city of Boca del Rio, Mexico. The tanker was carrying about 168,000 barrels of gasoline and diesel fuel. At the time of the incident, the Burgos was sailing from Coatzacoalcos in eastern Veracruz state to the Pemex terminal, Port Authority Director Juan Ignacio Fernandez said late Saturday.

On September 16, two states were forced to declare an emergency after a Colonial pipeline spilled more than 6,000 barrels or a quarter million gallons of gasoline in Shelby County, Alabama. Ironically the states of emergency declared in Alabama and Georgia were not associated with the environmental damage from the spill but due to concerns about fuel shortages. There was no cleanup because it was deemed unsafe for workers to be in the vicinity of the spill.

On September 7, an oil pipeline belonging to Summit leaked a million gallons of fluid containing crude oil into a creek that feeds the Missouri River on a native American reservation. The spill was the largest in Minnesota’s history was on Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation land approximately 15 miles north of Williston, North Dakota. The leak came from a saltwater collection line owned by Summit Midstream Partners LP. The spill flowed into Bear Den Bay, which leads into Lake Sakakawea, a source of drinking water on the reservation. The fluid flowed into the Missouri River and contaminated fresh water for residents in the surrounding areas.

In July, a pipeline leak near Maidstone, Saskatchewan, spilled about 66,043 gallons or 1,572 barrels of diluted oil sands bitumen into the North Saskatchewan River, killing wildlife and compromising drinking water for nearby communities, including Prince Albert.

On June 21, an oil pipeline belonging to Crimson Pipeline LLC ruptured in Ventura County, California spilling an estimated 29,400 gallons of crude oil into an arroyo that flows through the city of Ventura to the ocean. Ironically the spill occurred just after President Obama signed the PIPES safety bill into law.

On June 2, An oil train derailment and explosion along the Columbia river in Oregon contaminated drinking water. At least 12 rail cars carrying Bakken oil operated by Union Pacific derailed and caught fire. The wreck occurred in the Columbia River Gorge near the community of Mosier in Oregon which is about 70 miles east of Portland. The derailment and subsequent fire forced the evacuation of local schools and nearby homes. The I-84 highway was also closed. The rail line runs adjacent to the Columbia river which is widely used for both recreation and commerce. Residents of the town of Mosier had to boil their water.

On May 20, 21,000 gallons or 500 barrels of oil spilled from the underground San Pablo Bay Pipeline near Tracy in San Joaquin County, California. Owned by San Pablo Bay Pipeline a subsidiary of Shell Oil.

On May 12, Shell's offshore Brutus platform spilled almost 88,000 gallons or 2,100 barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill endangered corals, dolphins, whales, tuna and whale sharks. The spill in Shell's Glider field created a 13 mile long by 2 mile wide oil slick in an area 97 miles south of Port Fourchon, Louisiana.

On February 3 and January 25 in the regions of Amazonas and Loreto, Peru at least 84,000 gallons or 2,000 barrels of oil were spilled into local waterways after two pipeline ruptures. The Marañon River, a principal tributary of the Amazon River was among the waterways that were contaminated. For indigenous people these spills polluted the waterways that are their lifeline, they provide food and water for crops and consumption. The spills are known to have killed fish, crocodiles, and plants.

There is no safe way of extracting and transporting fossil fuels. Repeated oil spills show the soulless self-interest of oil companies. Rather than repair or replace existing pipelines they invest in expansion.

As Greenpeace stated, "The long history of oil spills around the world has made one thing clear: the only way to prevent an oil spill is to keep oil in the ground."

Related
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tons in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The Costs of Offshore Drilling

Read More»

Liberal Dualism: Canadian Climate Leadership is at Odds with Ramping Up Fossil Fuels

The ruling federal Liberals have canceled one pipeline and approved two others. It is but the most recent example of Canada's one step forward two steps back approach to climate action.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the laudable goal of wanting to be a climate champion and an economic leader. However, this balancing act is completely undermined when you add increased fossil fuel production to the equation. Canada was criticized at COP22 for expanding its fossil fuel production and now they have compounded the problem by adding a couple of pipelines to the mix.

Contradictory climate and energy policies

Canadian government energy and environmental policy is a checkerboard of seemingly opposing policy positions. The government announced a carbon tax then followed that up with a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) project. To further illustrate the two faces of this government, they banned tanker traffic off the coast of northern BC while increasing traffic to the south. Most recently they rejected some pipelines while approving others.

Catherine McKenna, minister of environment and climate change has indicated that she is working towards a nation-wide coal phase-out by 2030 and the National Energy Board is being overhauled. The announcement most welcomed by environmentalists was the news that the government has rejected Enbridge's 1,177-kilometre Northern Gateway pipeline that would have carried oil from Bruderheim, Alta., to an export terminal in Kitimat, B.C..

However as with other recent federal announcements the victory was blunted by the approval of the $6.8-billion, 1,150-kilometre Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project that will ferry 890,000 barrels of oil from Alberta to Burnaby, B.C.

This pipeline along with the approval of Line 3 will ferry a million barrels of oil a day to global markets. According to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency the new capacity will generate up 26 megatonnes of emissions annually when fully operational.

Tankers

The duality of this government is further revealed in its contradictory ocean tanker policies. The Canadian government is investing in a $1.5-billion ocean protection plan to improve responses to tanker and fuel spills in the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic oceans. But they are also increasing the need for such planning by expanding tanker traffic.

The government announced that it will ban crude oil tankers along B.C.'s North Coast, but further south the Kinder Morgan will increase tanker traffic from approximately five to 34 a month. A spill in this ecologically sensitive area will be devastating.

As reported by the Suzuki Foundation this pipeline will result in a seven fold Increase in tanker traffic and push the already fragile population of 80 resident orcas off of B.C.'s south coast to the brink of extinction. It will also Increase greenhouse gas emissions by more than 100 million tonnes each year and threaten the health of communities along B.C.'s coast. There have been some disastrous tanker oil spills and there is no reason to believe that this new tanker traffic will be any different.


Spills

The government announced that it has also approved Enbridge's 1,659-kilometre, $7.5-billion, Line 3 pipeline, that will ferry oil from a terminal near Hardisty, Alberta, through northern Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin. This is the largest pipeline project that Enbridge has ever built. The NEB signed off on a new Line 3 in April, but with 89 conditions The pipeline will double the amount of oil transported by the pipeline to 760,000 barrels a day. This will mean that Enbridge's mainline system will collectively carry three million barrels a day into the US. The existing line has leaked many times and rather than focus on maintenance Enbridge is focusing on expanding the pipeline's capacity.

As stated by the Suzuki Foundation, "Oil spills will happen and research proves there is no technology to effectively clean them up." We know that these pipelines will leak, such spills are a statistical certainty for all fossil fuel pipelines.

All you need to do is look at the litany of oil spill in Alberta to see just how common spills are. We have seen 25 massive oil spills (over 1000 tons) in the last decade.  In 2015 alone there were dozens of spills.  Transporting fossil fuels poses a very real danger to the public. The repeated spills reveal the fossil fuel industry's soulless disregard for public safety.

New regulations

To address the serious environmental risks associated with an inevitable spill the government has announced a long list of federal requirements that are designed to act as safeguards. While these efforts may minimize the risk of an incident and maximize preparedness when such a spill occurs, it will not prevent a spill nor can it completely clean them up.

The NEB has a list of 157 conditions that must be met and BC has its list of five preconditions. The premiere of BC recently said that the federal government is "very close" to fulfilling their preconditions. Alberta says it plans to cap greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the oil patch at 100 megatonnes a year.

Government's logic

Prime Minister Trudeau argued that pipelines have lower emissions profiles, are less dangerous and less expansive than rail transport in tanker cars. As reported by the CBC, Trudeau said

"The decision we took today is the one that is in the best interests of Canada...It is a major win for Canadian workers, for Canadian families and the Canadian economy, now and into the future."

The logic for supporting the pipelines comes down to jobs and revenue. According to Kinder Morgan 15,000 jobs will be created during construction, and a further 37,000 direct and indirect jobs will be added when the project is operational. The pipelines will generate $46.7 billion for all levels of government over the next 2 decades.

However many have criticized this logic in Patrick DeRochie, the director of Environmental Defence:

"The approvals raise grave doubts how these and additional pipelines, including Keystone XL and Energy East, can fit with Canada's commitment to the Paris climate agreement," And Media Placeholder added, "much bigger cuts in other emission sources must be made to compensate for more oil-based emissions."

The fight continues

Protests will continue and so will legal challenges. The Kinder Morgan project threatens a BC First Nation near the project's route, other First Nations, including 39 in BC and Alberta, have signed "mutual benefit agreements" with Kinder Morgan who also claims it has reached agreements with First Nations communities where the pipeline crosses a reserve. Nonetheless, with only one third of First Nations approving the pipeline other First Nations say they are ready for a long battle to stop the pipeline.

Mike Hudema, a campaigner for Greenpeace, said in a recent statement:

"Apparently Justin Trudeau's sunny ways mean dark days ahead for climate action and Indigenous reconciliation in Canada. With this announcement, Prime Minister Trudeau has broken his climate commitments, broken his commitments to Indigenous rights, and has declared war on B.C.,". Media placeholder added "If Prime Minister Trudeau wanted to bring Standing Rock-like protests to Canada, he succeeded."

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she would be "willing to go to jail" to stop the Kinder Morgan. More court challenges are also expected. As reported by the CBC, "There have already been 11 judicial reviews launched over the NEB review, and more court challenges are expected in the coming days."

Take away

The damage to our climate, our water, our land and our air far outweigh the jobs and revenues associated with pipeline projects.

The election of the Liberal party offered hope and signaled the dawn of a new day for climate action in Canada. The Liberals were a major improvement over the Conservatives on energy and environmental matters. The party's commitment to climate action was reiterated in a throne speech and in a mandate letter to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. Shortly after coming to power the Liberals reversed the policies of their Conservative predecessors and showed climate leadership at COP21. They also unmuzzled scientists. They have improved the nation's climate and energy policy and along with provincial leaders Canada is making significant progress on crafting a nationwide renewable energy policy.

The decision to move forward with the pipelines has disappointed may Liberal supporters as it breaks Trudeau's campaign promises. The Liberals appear to be oblivious to the fact that you cannot simultaneously claim to be a climate leader while increasing your production of fossil fuels.

Trudeau campaigned on a climate action platform and while he and his government have made some bold moves to combat climate change he has also significantly increased fossil fuel infrastructure.

Just as pipelines consistently spill, politicians consistently make promises they can't keep.

Related
The Energy East Pipeline is as Good as Dead
The Dakota Access and Protest that Kills Pipelines
Enbridge: If We Can't Build Pipelines we Will Buy Them
Two Down and Two to Go: Half of Canada's Proposed Tar Sands Pipelines Stymied

Read More»

Another Day Another Oil Spill This Time in Alabama (Video)

Although nobody seems to have noticed, between a quarter and a third of a million gallons of gasoline has leaked from a pipeline in the middle of September. The Colonial Pipeline Company reported the spill prompting the governors of Alabama and Georgia to declare states of emergency. The sad fact is that oil and gas spills have become so common that it is no longer construed as newsworthy.

The ecological impact of the spill appears to be secondary to concerns about the interruption of the supply. In Alabama the Pipeline spill triggered a supplier 'Red Alert' and Georgia Gov. Robert Bentley issued an executive order Thursday declaring a state of emergency in Alabama.
The gasoline spill occurred south of Birmingham in Shelby county and shut down a major pipeline connecting refineries in Houston with to New York Harbor. Fuel shortages are expected as a result of having to shut down the pipeline.

Colonial Pipeline, released the following information Thursday afternoon:

"Based on current projections and consultations with industry partners, parts of Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina will be the first markets to be impacted by any potential disruption in supply...Colonial has briefed officials in these states and will continue to provide timely information to the public so that employees and contractors began digging out the leaking pipeline."

The pipeline shut down is expected to cause a spike in gas prices. The failure to report the spill in the mainstream media is a disturbing trend that will make it easier for fossil fuel companies to get away with ecocide.




Related
Another Day Another Oil Spill This Time in Alabama (Video)
Repeated Spills Show the Soulless Self Interest of Fossil Fuel Companies
New Pipeline Safety Law Followed by Another Oil Spill
Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Videos)
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Read More»

New Pipeline Safety Law Followed by Another Oil Spill

Mere hours after President Obama signed the PIPES safety bill into law, a pipeline spilled thousands of gallons of oil. Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016 became law on June 22nd. Within hours of the signing an oil pipeline erupted in Ventura County, California. It was first noticed by a local rancher early Thursday morning.
The spill emanated from a ten inch underground pipeline owned by Colorado-based Crimson Pipeline LLC. It sent an estimated 29,400 gallons of crude oil down into an arroyo that flows through the city of Ventura and reaches the ocean near the Ventura Pier. The spill marks Crimson’s 11th such incident in the last ten years.

The law was drafted in response to a plethora of fossil fuel spills, especially California's Porter Ranch leak which spewed a staggering 97,000 tons of methane. The PIPES act increases safety provisions in the construction and operation of fossil fuels facilities. It also and gives the government expanded authority to act quickly in the event of a spill. This includes new emergency powers for the Secretary of Transportation.

Oil spills are common throughout North America, but they are especially prevalent in California. On May 19, 2015, a corroded Plains All American pipeline spewed 143,000 gallons of crude oil onto Refugio State Beach in Santa Barbara and at least 25,000 gallons poured into the ocean. The spill created a nine mile oil slick. Governor Jerry Brown called it an "environmental disaster" and declared a state of emergency.

Planes All American Pipeline have been been found guilt of a total of 175 safety and maintenance infractions. The Houston company has been indicted on 46 criminal counts and faces fines of around $3 million due to the Santa Barbara spill. 

In December, more than 8,800 gallons of oil leaked in Somis. In May of this year 21,000 Gallons of oil spilled from the underground San Pablo Bay Pipeline near Tracy in San Joaquin County. These spills and the many others in California take place against the backdrop of the epic Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969.

It is a statistical certainty that pipelines will spill. Just as birds fly, and fish swim, oil leaks. The only way to keep the oil from spilling is to stop it from flowing. 

Oil spills have become commonplace, but we cannot afford to be blase. The preponderance of leaks adds to concerns about the existential threat posed by the climate destroying properties of the commodities they transport.

In the past oil pipelines were the lifeblood of our industrial might, however we now know that they are harbingers of an apocalyptic future. These arteries of death, like the hydrocarbons they transport, must be phased out of our energy mix.

Related
Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Video)
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Shell Downplays Crude Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico
Oil Spill in Peru is a Life Threatening Emergency for Local Indigenous People (Video)
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Unstoppable Oil Leak at a Tar Sands Production Site in Alberta
Infographic: 13 Oil Spills in 30 Days
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Read More»

Oil Train Derails and Explodes in Oregon Adjacent to the Columbia River (Video)

An oil train derailment and explosion along the Columbia river in Oregon has once again highlighted the dangers of transporting oil by rail. Around noon on Friday June 2nd, 2016, at least 12 rail cars carrying Bakken oil operated by Union Pacific derailed and caught fire. The wreck occurred in the Columbia River Gorge near the community of Mosier in Oregon which is about about 70 miles east of Portland. The derailment and subsequent fire has forced the evacuation of local schools and nearby homes. The I-84 highway has also been closed to traffic. The fire burned overnight and plumes of black smoke were seen billowing from the scene.

The rail line runs adjacent to the Columbia river which is widely used for both recreation and commerce. Residents of the town of Mosier are being asked to boil their water.


"Moving oil by rail constantly puts our communities and environment at risk," said Jared Margolis, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity in Eugene, Oregon.

There have been a total of 26 oil trains that have derailed or caught fire in North America over the last ten years. Almost half of these accidents have involved Bakken crude.

In 2013 a derailment and explosion killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec and cost at least $1.2 billion. With growing frequency oil trains are moving through highly populated areas and near ecologically sensitive terrain like waterways.

Throughout North America there have been a number of serious oil train derailments and fires in 2015.

Related
Summary of Fossil Fuel Spills in 2015 (Videos) 
Montana Oil Train Derailment and Spill
New Oil Train Rules Do Not Go Far Enough
Fourth Oil Train Derailment in a Month and Twelfth for the Year
The End of Oil Trains?
Oil Train Derailments: How Many Wake-Up Calls do we Need?
Event - Worldwide Oil Train Week of Action
More Oil Being Shipped by Rail = More Risks
Curtailing the Transport of Oil by Pipe and Rail
Growing Opposition to Shipping Oil by Rail
Criminal Charges Leveled Against those Responsible for the Lac Megantic Disaster
The Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Stop Old Trains from Transporting Oil
Tables - Rail Traffic in North America
Graphs - Oil Shipped by Rail

Read More»

Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking

States and other smaller jurisdictions are saying no to fracking. More than 150 towns, cities, and counties across the U.S. have already adopted such policies. A number of US jurisdictions have passed laws forbidding fracking. Some have even mandated that up to one-third of their power must come from renewable sources by 2020.

After a thorough investigation the state of New York State banned fracking at the start of 2015. Maryland has put a moratorium on the practice and Maryland county became the first in the state to ban fracking outright.

Counties and towns in California, Ohio, and Texas banned fracking. Texas may be the home of oil but the town of Denton voted to ban fracking.

Residents voted to ban fracking in counties and towns in California including Mendocino and San Benito. Santa Barbara failed get enough votes due largely to Chevron Corporation and Occidental Petroleum who spent $7.7 million to prevent the anti-fracking plebiscites in California from succeeding.

Fifty-seven percent of voters in San Benito voted against fracking in a referendum. In places like Mendocino the vote was not even close with 75 percent of voters opting to ban fracking and protect their water. Seventy-eight percent citizens of Athens, Ohio, voted to ban fracking.

Similar efforts are underway across the US. In March, a small town in Western Pennsylvania legalized civil disobedience to combat fracking.

Related
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

Read More»

The End of Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Providing handouts to the wealthiest corporations on earth does not make much sense, particularly when their activities are the leading driver of climate change. Ending fossil fuel subsidies is the most obvious next step in our efforts to tackle the climate crisis. In the wake of the Paris Climate Agreement forged at COP21, continuing fossil fuel subsidies is an oxymoron.

These subsidies take many forms including, tax breaks, cheap loans, price controls, purchase requirements, purchasing equipment, royalty breaks and direct spending. According to some reports there are over 800 ways that taxpayers support the fossil fuel industry.

According to the IMF, global energy subsidies amount to 5.3 trillion dollars, or $10 million a minute. This translates to 6.5 percent of global GDP, in 2015 alone. This is more than the entire health spending of all the world’s governments. The IMF suggests that removing fossil fuel subsidies could reduce greenhouse gas emission by 20 percent. Everybody from Prince Charles to the IMF have called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies.

Nicholas Stern, climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate change chief commented: “The IMF provides five trillion reasons for acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Protecting the poor and the vulnerable is crucial to the phasing down of these subsidies, but the multiple economic, social and environmental benefits are long and legion.”

The president of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, succinctly stated: “We need to get rid of fossil fuel subsidies now.”

Shelagh Whitley, a subsidies expert at the Overseas Development Institute, said: “governments around the world are propping up a century-old energy model. Compounding the issue, our research shows that many of the energy subsidies highlighted by the IMF go toward finding new reserves of oil, gas and coal, which we know must be left in the ground if we are to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change.”

The world's biggest providers of fossil fuel subsidies are China, ($2.3tn) US ($700bn), Russia ($335bn), India ($277bn) and Japan ($157bn), and the European Union ($330bn).

By making fossil fuels cheaper, subsidies increase the use of dirty energy resulting in more emissions. A new report shows how subsidies are increasing our emissions. According to the report's author Radek Stefansk from The School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary:

“The resultant 170-country, 30-year database finds that the financial and the environmental costs of such subsidies are enormous- and steadily increasing. The overwhelming majority of the world’s fossil fuel subsidies stem from China, the US, and the ex-USSR; as of 2010, this figure was $712 billion or nearly 80% of the total world value of subsidies. For its part, Canada has been subsidizing rather than taxing fossil fuels since 1998. By 2010, Canadian subsidies sat at $13 billion, or 1.4% of GDP. In that same year, the total direct and indirect financial costs of all such subsidies amounted to $1.82 trillion, or 3.8% of global GDP.”

Perhaps the most noteworthy statistic contained in the report show that in the absence of subsidies emissions would have been cut in half in 2010.

IMF

Numerous other studies including IMF research have come to similar conclusion as the Policy School study. The IMF called these subsidies "unsustainable"." The IMF described these subsidies as "perverse" saying "they are using public funds to create a problem the world has agreed to fix in Paris. And they leave us all to pay the societal costs that fossil-fuel pollution causes."

Ending the subsidies would also reduce the number of premature deaths from air pollution by half translating to about 1.6 million lives a year.

In 2014, IMF leader Christine Lagarde said reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and pricing carbon pollution should be priorities for governments around the world.

“We are subsidizing the very behaviour that is destroying our planet, and on an enormous scale. Both direct subsidies and the loss of tax revenue from fossil fuels ate up almost $2 trillion in 2011—this is about the same as the total GDP of countries like Italy or Russia,” Lagarde said.

G7

In 2009 the G7 (composed of UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union) announced that it would end fossil fuel subsidies but no timelines were given. At a recent meeting of the G7 in Japan, the world's wealthiest economies have agreed to end fossil fuel subsidies in the next decade.

“Given the fact that energy production and use account for around two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, we recognise the crucial role that the energy sector has to play in combating climate change,” said the leaders’ declaration, issued at the end their summit in Japan.

G20

In 2009, G20 countries promised to phase out "inefficient" fossil fuel subsidies. According to a report titled "Empty Promises: G20 subsidies to oil, gas and coal production," G20 countries are spending $452 billion US a year in direct subsidies to their respective fossil fuel industries. The study's co-author Alex Doukas, who is senior campaigner with Oil Change International, said,

"We're subsidizing companies to search for new fossil fuel reserves at time when we know that three-quarters of the proven reserves have to stay in the ground if we hope to avoid the worst impacts of climate change...So paying companies to find more fossil fuels is folly."

The report was produced jointly by Oil Change International, an advocacy group focused on moving the world away from fossil fuels, and the Overseas Development Institute, the U.K.'s leading independent think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues.

US

Despite numerous attempts to remove these subsidies in the US Congress (primarily the Republicans) have thwarted these efforts. The fossil fuel industry owns the Republican party who have consistently shown their loyalty to an industry that is rife with corruption and subterfuge. Internationally, the leaders from over 50 countries have made public commitments to phase out fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium term.” However there has not been much concrete action to date.

Canada

Canada's total federal and provincial support for the petroleum industry was close to $2.7 billion US ($3.6 billion Cdn at current exchange rates) in the 2013-14 fiscal year, with federal subsidies accounting for roughly $1.6 billion. In his election platform, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged his government would end fossil fuel subsidies.

COP21

During the COP21 conference at the end of 2015, the UNFCCC released a statement which read: “An unprecedented coalition of close to 40 governments, hundreds of businesses and influential international organisations has called today for accelerated action to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, a move that would help bridge the gap to keep global temperature rise below 2°C.”

John Key, the New Zealand Prime Minister, presented the Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Communiqué to Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Key said:

“Fossil fuel subsidy reform is the missing piece of the climate change puzzle. It’s estimated that more than a third of global carbon emissions, between 1980 and 2010, were driven by fossil fuel subsidies.

Figueres said in accepting the Communiqué: “These subsidies contribute to the inefficient use of fossil fuels, undermine the development of energy efficient technologies, act as a drag on clean, green energy deployment and in many developing countries do little to assist the poorest of the poor in the first place...low oil prices are a good opportunity to really get going on this issue.”

Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden, said: “History will prove fossil fuel to be a dead end. Sweden will be amongst the first fossil free welfare nations of the world. And eliminating fossil fuel subsidies is an important step on this path.”

Hakima El Haite, Environment Minister of Morocco, candidate for the presidency of COP22, said: “Not only do fossil fuel subsidies put a strain on government coffers but they also don’t help the poorest of society.”

Solutions

The end of fossil fuel subsidies is coming and there are ways that we can expedite this transition. As reviewed by Price of Oil here are four major ways we can address the problem of subsidies:

• Increased transparency – governments must stop hiding the handouts they give to fossil fuel companies!
• Support for the poor and vulnerable – we need to be sure that poor countries and communities are supported to ensure access to energy while removing these subsidies.
• Global coordination – without a way for the world to coordinate on this effort, countries will continue to drag their heels.
• Phase-out Deadline – we all know that unless you have a deadline, you’re apt to procrastinate. It’s time to set one for fossil fuel subsidy elimination!

Related
Curbing Fossil Fuels - Carbon Pricing and an End to Subsidies (WEF Summaries)
Problems and Solutions to the Climate Crisis from the World Economic Forum in Davos
A Large and Growing Chorus is Calling for an End to Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Scientists Urge Government Action on Climate Including Removing Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies Totaling One Trillion Per Year
Success of the #EndFossilFuelSubsidies Campaign
Rio+20: 350.org Campaign to End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama Striving to Put an End to Oil Subsidies
End Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Obama's Call for an End to Oil Subsidies
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies
Infographic - Climate Finance vs Fossil Fuel Subsidies: National Comparisons
Infographic - Fossil Fuel Subsidies and the US Congress

Read More»

Second Shell Oil Spill in Less than Two Weeks

For the second time in less than two weeks pipelines belonging to Shell have leaked oil. The most recent spill has leaked 21,000 Gallons (500 barrels) of oil near Tracy in San Joaquin County, California. This time the culprit was the company's underground San Pablo Bay Pipeline which transports crude oil from California’s Central Valley to the San Francisco Bay Area. The spill took place on May 20th but Shell did not report the leak until the evening of Monday May 23.

Ironically, this spill took place against the backdrop of the Altamont Pass Wind Farm, one of California's largest wind energy developments. The juxtaposition of an oil spill against a clean energy producing wind farm speaks volumes.

This is the second time that oil has spilled from this pipeline in 8 months and the second time Shell has reported a spill in less than two weeks.

On May 12, Shell spilled almost 90,000 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. In an interview with WMNF News, Scott Eustis, a coastal wetlands specialist with Gulf Restoration Network discussed the impacts of the May 12 oil spill on the corals, dolphins, whales, tuna and whale sharks.

“All this is happening while the government is considering new leasing in the Gulf. Although we know from this and many other events that there’s not enough clean-up, there’s not appropriate technologies to take care of the Gulf as a natural resource that belongs to all of us, here, and all of us in the United States. So, we’re calling for no new leasing until the government and industry can show that they can take care of our natural resources.”

Cleanup efforts at the spill site near Tracy are focused on the oil that has reached the surface. Oil is visible on a patch of land that is roughly 10,000 square feet in size. However, the majority of the leaked oil remains underground. California's fire marshal has launched an investigation into the spill.

The company claims that, “no release [of oil] is acceptable“. However, Shell's history of spills mirrors the experience of all oil operations. The extraction and transportation of oil is subject to spills. This is an unavoidable fact of life.

In addition to being the leading cause of climate change, oil spills contaminate soil and water with predictable regularity. In recent days there has been an oil spill at Three Oaks High School in Summerside, Prince County, Prince Edward Island.

Every year there are thousands of spills around the world. A summary of some of the fossil fuel spills in North America last year reveals just how common they are. These spills illustrate the dangers of transporting fossil fuels.

Related
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Oil Spill in Peru is a Life Threatening Emergency for Local Indigenous People (Video)
Three of the Most Destructive Tanker Oil Spills in History
Unstoppable Oil Leak at a Tar Sands Production Site in Alberta
Infographic: 13 Oil Spills in 30 Days
Top 25 Oil Spills Over 1000 Tonnes in the Last Decade
Obama Administration Cuts Shell's Arctic Drilling in Half
After a Failed Cover-up Shell Sub-Contractor Pleads Guilty
Greenpeace forces Lego to Dump Shell
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell

Read More»

Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking

Through the Environmental Protection Agency the Obama administration is cracking down on methane associated with the extraction of fossil fuels. Fugitive emissions are unintended or irregular gas leaks, however most of the emissions associated with fracking are intentional. Releases of gas are part of the standard operating procedure of the extraction process.

Methane is main ingredient in natural gas and one of the world's most potent greenhouse gases. The Obama administration’s new rules to curb methane come in the wake of two reports that illustrate the dangers of fracking. These reports show that methane is seeping into that atmosphere throughout the fracking process from extraction to the end users.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released the final version of their new federal rules to limit methane emissions at oil and gas facilities. While this is a good first step, the regulations only apply to new facilities.

Although carbon gets most of the attention, methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Although burning natural gas releases half as much carbon dioxide as coal, fracking for gas also releases unburned methane. CH4 (methane) is the main component of natural gas, it is a potent GHG and as such, a major contributor to global warming. Although methane has a shorter active life, it is as much as 105 times better at trapping heat over a 20-year timeframe than carbon.

In addition to contributing to climate change, fracking has been shown to contaminate drinking water, cause seismic activity (earthquakes), contribute to air pollution, and destroy land. Further, US fracking operations may make it difficult for the US to achieve its 26 to 28 percent GHG reduction targets.

A recent Environment America Fracking Report concluded that fracking poses a risk to local communities and wildlife. The report comes to the clear and unavoidable conclusion that fracking must be stopped.

The report says that there are 137,000 fracking wells drilled or permitted across more than 20 states. In 2014, new fracking wells released 5.3 billion pounds (2.4 million metric tons) of methane into the atmosphere which is equivalent to the emissions from 22 new coal-fired plants. Fracking is fraught with a host of problems, starting from the point of extraction. Methane is released during fracking, in the processing, transporting and distribution.

The report concludes that there is “tremendous environmental harm and puts the health and safety of communities across the country at risk.” It further states that the companies behind this destruction should be made to pay for the damage they have caused.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) methane calculations appear to have drastically underestimated the scale of the problem. A recent Harvard study used satellite data from across the country over a span of more than ten years and found that US methane emissions have increased by almost a third since 2002. What makes this data so shocking is the fact that the EPA had been insisting that US methane levels were falling. The Harvard satellite data concluded that the surge of methane from the US is responsible for between 30 and 60 percent of the global growth in methane emissions this past decade.

The Harvard research corroborates previous findings including a 2014 Stanford study that reviewed over 200 earlier studies to find “U.S. emissions of methane are considerably higher than official estimates.” A 2014 PNAS study of fracking sites in southwestern Pennsylvania found that methane was being released into the atmosphere at a rate 100 to 1,000 times greater than estimated by the EPA.

Together, these studies demonstrate that fracking obliterates any climate benefits associated with natural gas.

A study, entitled, “Greenhouse Gases from a Growing Petrochemical Industry” shows that in addition to methane emissions, fracked gas is encouraging the development of energy-intensive infrastructure and industries that produce huge quantities of carbon dioxide. The study concludes that cheap shale gas is encouraging the development of other energy-intensive infrastructure and industries, which in turn produce approximately 86 million tons a year of CO2 each year. This is the equivalent of 19 coal-fired power plants.

The EPA recently released the final version of new federal rules intended to curb methane emissions. It aims to reduce gas-sector methane emissions 40 to 45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025. The EPA expects the regulations will cost $530 million by 2025, while generating $690 million in environmental benefits.

Even before the EPA’s latest move, the fracking industry had fallen on hard times. It seems market forces, specifically the low price of oil, are forcing the shutdown of fracking operations.

Up to a third of all fracking companies may declare bankruptcy by the end of 2016, Fortune predicted at the end of 2015.

James West, an energy industry analyst at ISI Evercore, says months of low activity have left many of the companies in the hydraulic-fracturing business either insolvent or close to it. He says as many as a third of the fracking companies could go bust.

As reported by Desmogblog, some of the biggest players in the fracking industry are in trouble. Among them are Chesapeake Energy, Continental Resources, Whiting Petroleum and Halliburton. The latter has announced that it was axing 5,000 drilling jobs globally or eight percent of its workforce. Continental Resources has stopped its fracking operations and they reported their first annual loss since they began operating in 2007.

States dependent on fracking are being hit hard. North Dakota and Oklahoma are projecting a $1 billion budget shortfall and in Alaska, the budgetary shortfall is $3.5 billion.

We need to expose the myth that fracking is a source of clean energy. The research indicates that fracked gas is not a bridge fuel. Ramping up the use of fossil fuels is incompatible with the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement, which aims to keep temperatures from rising no more than 2 degrees Celsius. This is the conclusion of numerous studies including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Environment America Fracking report makes it abundantly clear that this also includes fracked gas.

Source: Global Warming is Real

Related
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
US Proposals to Cut Methane and Other Pollutants
EPA Announces Plans to Regulate Methane
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Radiative Forcing: Carbon Dioxide and Methane
Whats the Fracking Problem
The US Environmental Protection Agency and Fracking
The Implications of the US being a Global Leader in Fossil Fuel Production

Read More»

Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water

Despite the secrecy of the fracking industry and the protections afforded by some states there is mounting evidence that hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" contaminates drinking water. Fracking is a fossil fuel extraction process that consists of injecting chemicals deep underground to break up shale formations.Conservative estimates indicate that there have been at least 260 documented examples of wells contamination due to fracking in Pennsylvania alone. As reported in Scientific American, a 2013 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA found widespread examples of methane laced drinking water In Pennsylvania. The researchers showed that the closer you are to a fracking site the more likely that your well will be contaminated.

According to an Environment America Fracking report water contamination is one of the most environmentally destructive corollaries of this process. "People living or working nearby can be exposed to these chemicals if they enter drinking water after a spill or if they become airborne." 

"For the past decade, fracking has been a nightmare for our drinking water, our open spaces, and our climate," Rachel Richardson, a co-author of the paper from Environment America, told ThinkProgress.

There have been a number of high profile frack-water related problems. Here are a few examples

"Two families in Pennsylvania were awarded more than $4 million in March — ending a seven-year legal battle against a fracking company they said contaminated local water sources. Last summer, a Texas man was severely burned after methane, allegedly from nearby fracking, caused an explosion in his well shed. Last summer, scientists in Texas found elevated levels of cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water in one of the state’s major fracking regions."

Fracking also wastes vast quantities of water. According to Environment America, at least 239 billion gallons of water have been used in fracking since 2005. These fracking operations are reducing the availability of water and driving up the price. This is particularly pronounced in drought stricken areas of the country. In Colorado the price of water went up 100 times the usual rate. The competition for scarce water resources is a serious issue for agriculture.

One of the major problems associated with studying fracking is the fact that many of states do release data. This includes some of the states that do the most fracking (eg Texas and North Dakota). Of the states that do release information it was found that 14 billion gallons of wastewater was produced by fracking in 2014.

In February Triple Pundit covered the fracking water contamination connection. A 2015 a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) draft report linked fracking to water contamination concluded that the absence of data and other “limiting factors” made research difficult. A similar conclusion was reached in a recent Stanford fracking report that was presented at the 2016 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. This study sought to explore how natural gas from the drilling sites contaminate local water supplies. However, it should be noted that the report’s lead author, Stanford professor Rob Jackson, has ties to the natural gas industry.

Nonetheless Jackson cites a case in Parker County, Texas, where the drillers did not include a cement liner all the way down the well and the result was that gases contaminated the drinking-water supply. Jackson singled out the dangers of contamination of drinking water from more than 2,600 shallow wells (ie wells that are less than 3,000 feet).

"We found a surprising number of places where companies are fracking directly into shallow freshwater aquifers," he says. "In no other industry would you be allowed to inject chemicals into a source of drinking-quality water."

After an exhaustive study New York state banned fracking in 2015. Last June, TriplePundit referenced studies which showed that fracking operations impact on water quality in Texas, and another associating lower birth-weight with mothers living near gas wells in Pennsylvania. Rolling Stone magazine followed up on an earlier Newsweek report on anecdotal evidence of infant mortality linked to fracking in Utah. Another fracking report linked a significant increase in hospitalizations to the "meteoric" rise in natural gas wells in Pennsylvania.

Determining the exact composition of the chemical cocktail used in fracking has been very elusive. However we are getting a better idea of what can be found in this toxic soup. There are over 700 chemicals used in fracking fluids which includes endocrine-disrupting chemicals, carcinogens and neurotoxins. This includes chemicals like formaldehyde, benzene and hydrochloric acid.

A 2014 study by scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that around ten percent of chemicals used in fracking brine are toxic to humans or aquatic life. In addition to these poisonous substances, fracking can also bring naturally occurring radioactive materials to the surface.

As reported by the LA Times, a 2013 study of water collected from fracking sites in Colorado finds substances that have been linked to infertility, birth defects and cancer. They found endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), which can affect human sex hormones. Of than 700 chemicals that could be used in the fracking process and estimated that about 100 are known or suspected EDCs.

Exposure to EDCs has serious health implications for fetuses, babies and young children. The World Health Organization issued a report which indicates that endocrine-related illnesses were on the rise worldwide.

The study, published in the journal Endocrinology, also found elevated levels of the hormone-disrupting chemicals in the Colorado River.

"With fracking on the rise, populations may face greater health risks from increased endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure," said senior author Susan Nagel, who investigates the health effects of estrogen at the University of Missouri School of Medicine.

Out of 39 water samples collected at five drilling sites, 89 percent showed estrogenic properties, 41perent were anti-estrogenic, 12 percent were androgenic and 46 percent were anti-androgenic..

"The human endocrine system and that of wildlife is guided by very small fluctuations of hormones," said Dr. Meg Schwarzman, associate director of the Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry at UC Berkeley. "Even low levels of anti-estrogenic or anti-androgenic activity could potentially alter development in ways that are meaningful."

Secrecy in the fracking industry may be coming to an end. A March 2014 ruling by the Wyoming Supreme Court ordered companies engaged in fracking to reveal the concoction of chemicals they use. However, the fracking industry has Republican allies in legislatures across the country. At the end of May 2016 the GOP in North Carolina pushed a bill that would jail anyone for disclosing the chemicals found in fracking fluid.

Related
Fracking: A Tragic Waste of Water Resources
Infographic - How Much Water Does Fracking Consume
Fracking Operations Shut Down to Protect Drinking Water in California
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Natural Gas Versus Renewable Energy
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change

Read More»

Natural Gas versus Renewable Energy

Natural gas, particularly gas from fracking cannot hold a candle to renewable energy. Nonetheless, the positive spin associated with fracking for natural gas persists. Natural gas is anything but clean but it continues to be sold as such.

This American made technology has been shipped all around the world. So has US natural gas. As the first load of American gas was being shipped by Cheniere Energy, the company’s vice president of marketing, Meg Gentle, told industry and government officials that natural gas should be rebranded as renewable energy.

"I’d challenge everyone here to reframe the debate and make sure natural gas is part of the category of clean energy, not a fossil-fuel category, which is viewed as dirty and not part of the solution," she said.

Contrary to Gentle's assertions, the emissions associated with natural gas are much higher than initially thought. In fact, gas may be worse than coal. We also know that fracking causes earthquakes and a host of other problems.

As explained in an Environment America report, air pollution from fracking also contributes to smog which can cause both disease and death. Fracking releases air pollutants that have been linked to cancer and other serious health effects.

Together the evidence is clear, natural gas is not clean energy. fracked gas does not warrant being called a bridge fuel. It is as bad or worse than some of the dirtiest forms of fossil fuels. 

Natural gas will not slow climate change but it has undermined the growth of renewables. Starting in 2012 we began seeing evidence that the prodigious growth of fracking was slowing the market for renewables. Natural gas production started eating into renewable energy development more than four years ago. The result was that investments in wind and solar waned somewhat in 2012.

Despite these headwinds, renewable energy keeps growing in the US. As reported by Cleantechnica, a 2013 Credit Swiss report predicted US renewable energy would keep growing. The title to the first section of the report says it all, “Renewables Are Economic and Disruptive to Conventional Markets.” The falling costs of renewables has made them competitive with natural gas. Once so called externalities are incorporated into the equation, renewables definitively crush natural gas.

Despite the plethora of fracked gas that has flooded the market, renewables continue to grow in 2016. According to the "Energy Infrastructure Update," in the first three months of 2016, the US added 18 megawatts of new natural gas generating capacity compared to 1,291 megawatts (MW) of new renewables.

Related
The Myth that Fracked Gas is a Bridge Fuel
Fracking Contaminates Drinking Water
Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah
Obama Begins to Reign-in Methane Emissions from Fracking
Jurisdictions Across the US are Saying "No" to Fracking 
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
Video - Methane is a Potent Greenhouse Gas
Whats the Fracking Problem
Natural Gas Explosions Highlight Safety Concerns

Read More»

Fracking and Earthquakes go Together like Sodom and Gomorrah

Earthquakes caused by fracking are a common occurrence in the US. We have seen a 4000 percent increase in earthquakes in the US in the last 8 years. Earthquakes caused by natural causes can be both destructive and deadly but they are unavoidable, whereas earthquakes caused by fracking for climate change causing natural gas are both lamentable and avoidable. Fracking related earthquakes are caused when the heavily polluted water used for fracking is disposed of by injecting it deep underground below aquifers near fault lines.

A new report mapping earthquake hazards, including those induced by fracking, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGG) says that

Eight years ago the US was averaging 24 earthquakes of 3.0 magnitude or larger each year. In 2015, there were 1,010 earthquakes of 3.0 or greater. This year we may exceed that number. As of mid-march there have already been 226 earthquakes in the central United States alone.

According to the USGG, fracking has put parts of Oklahoma and Kansas on a par with California in terms of their earthquake risk. Last year, Oklahoma officially earned the dubious distinction of being the most earthquake prone place on earth. Scientists have linked this seismic activity to the fracking boom in the state. In 2009 Oklahoma experienced 20 magnitude 3 or higher earthquakes in 2015 there were more than 700.

Even if we were to stop injecting wastewater deep underground, the earthquakes would likely continue as it sometimes takes a while for the water pressure to trigger a quake.

To see the USGG's earthquake map click here.

Related
Leaking Methane Associated with Fracking
The Myth that Fracked Natural Gas is a Bridge Fuel
The Porter Ranch Methane Leak Could be a Catalyst for Change
Natural Gas Will Not Slow Climate Change and it Will Impede the Growth of Renewables
Natural Gas (Methane) is Not Clean Energy
US Proposals to Cut Methane and Other Pollutants
EPA Announces Plans to Regulate Methane
Radiative Forcing: Carbon Dioxide and Methane
Newfoundland Pauses Fracking
Whats the Fracking Problem
Record Breaking Drought in California at Odds with Fracking
The US Environmental Protection Agency and Fracking
The Implications of the US being a Global Leader in Fossil Fuel Production

Read More»