Category Archives: Oil

Air Emissions from Eagle Ford Oil and Gas Activity Expected to Quadruple over next Four Years

Well site located in Eagle Ford Shale play

Well site located in Eagle Ford Shale play

Late last week, the Alamo Area Council of Governments (AACOG) released a report outlining emission projections from oil and gas activity in the Eagle Ford Shale play, the most active drilling area in the country right now. Under the moderate drilling activity scenario, projections of air pollutants are expected to quadruple in the next four years. Even though this seems like a staggering prediction, it is likely an underestimation, given certain emissions are not accounted for in the inventory.

What does the report say?

The report assesses the emissions from oil and gas activity in the Eagle Ford Shale play and projects air pollution under three different development scenarios: low, moderate, and aggressive. Projections over the next several years indicate that we can expect substantial increases in smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carbon monoxide. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, GHGs, Natural gas, Ozone, Particulate Matter, San Antonio, TCEQ | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

A New Study Points to the Need for Improved Air Monitoring in Texas

Source: Dallas Observer

Source: Dallas Observer

A new study accepted for publication in Environmental Science & Technology takes a close look at the amount of certain air pollutants in the Barnett Shale, a booming oil and gas region in North Texas. Using public monitoring data from 2010-2011, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin compared air pollution levels measured at a monitor surrounded by oil and gas operations to the levels that would be expected based on available emission estimates. The result brings to light that the emissions inventory from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for the Barnett Shale does not add up to the observations.

There are numerous air pollutants that can be emitted by oil and natural gas development.  Depending on the local composition of the produced gas, emissions can often include volatile organic compounds (VOC, such as propane, butane, pentane, etc.) that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (also known as smog), and toxic air pollutants like benzene and hexane that are directly hazardous to human health.  Methane, the primary ingredient in natural gas and a greenhouse gas catching lots of attention these days, is another powerful pollutant associated with these operations. Unlike the pollutants listed above, methane directly affects the health of our climate rather than human health. Fortunately, available technologies designed to capture methane are also effective in reducing these other pollutants. However, methane controls alone may not ensure that local air quality concerns are addressed – these require special attention.  Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Barnett Shale, Dallas Fort-Worth, GHGs, Natural gas, Ozone, TCEQ | Comments closed

EDF Is Going to Court to Secure Healthier Air for Millions of Texans

This post was co-authored by Tomás Carbonell, EDF Attorney, and Brian Korpics, EDF Legal Fellow.

Source: Texas Tribune Haze over Dallas Area

Source: Texas Tribune
Haze over Dallas Area

Last week, EDF took one more step toward protecting Texans from harmful levels of ozone pollution that have afflicted the state for far too long.

Ozone pollution, better known as “smog,” is one of the most severe and persistent public health problems affecting Texans.  Smog causes a range of health issues — including aggravation of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, decreased lung function, increased hospital and emergency room visits for respiratory conditions — and it is associated with premature mortality in urban areas.

According to the American Lung Association (ALA), Dallas-Fort Worth is the eighth most affected area in the country for smog.  ALA estimates the city is home to millions of people who are sensitive to ozone-related health problems — including 1.6 million people suffering cardiovascular disease; nearly 1.9 million children; nearly 650,000 elderly residents; and over 520,000 people with asthma. Read More »

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Dallas Fort-Worth, GHGs, Natural gas, Ozone | Tagged | 1 Response, comments now closed

EDF and Allies Defend EPA Emission Standards for Oil and Gas Pollution

Source: Angela Keck Law Offices LLC

Source: Angela Keck Law Offices LLC

By: Tomás Carbonell, EDF Attorney, and Brian Korpics, EDF Legal Fellow

This post originally appeared on EDF's Energy Exchange blog

As we have highlighted before, EPA’s recent actions regarding storage tank standards is of particular interest to Texas.  In 2009 alone, there were 6,120 storage tanks built in Texas large enough to be subject to EPA’s standards. The standards will apply only to new tanks. Since the number of new tanks is related to the number of existing wells, and Texas accounts for approximately 23% of new oil wells and 33% of new gas wells drilled in the U.S. (far greater than any other state), Texas is likely to account for a large share of the country’s new storage tanks. From a health standpoint, this rule preserves important protections for Texans, but much more remains to be done. Many counties in Texas fail to meet health based air quality standards. EPA needs to fortify thoughtful rules that place public health above all else, so that Texans (and many others) can breathe safe, healthy air that is free of ozone and other harmful contaminants. 

A new year may be upon us, but – unfortunately – some members of the oil and gas industry would prefer we roll back the clock on common sense, long-overdue emission standards for oil and gas equipment.

Oil and natural gas production continues to expand rapidly in the United States – and with it the potential for emissions of climate-destabilizing pollutants (especially methane), smog-forming compounds and carcinogenic substances, such as benzene.  We urgently need rigorous national standards that comprehensively address the full suite of pollutants from oil and gas facilities, protect public health and the environment and conserve needless waste of our nation’s natural resources. Read More »

Also posted in Climate Change, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural gas, Ozone | Comments closed

Exposure to Fine Particulates And Other Air Emissions For Shale Gas Workers

Credit: Live Trading News

Over the last couple of years we've seen a lot of debate on the impacts that shale gas operations can have on local and regional air quality and even on the climate.  But there's been less attention paid to the potential impacts to the workers who daily toil in and around the hundreds of drilling sites.  Fortunately, that's about to change.

Highlighting this very issue, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recently released a Hazard Alert, identifying exposure to airborne silica as a health hazard to workers conducting hydraulic fracturing operations during recent field studies.

NIOSH is working to identify other potential health risks at drilling sites, acknowledging that there is a real lack of information on occupational dust and chemical exposures in this industry.

In a 2012 presentation, “NIOSH Field Effort to Assess Chemical Exposure Risks to Oil and Gas Workers,” Eric Esswein and other colleagues with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, state that little is known about the magnitude of potential chemical exposures, which could include not only silica, but diesel particulates, volatile organic compounds, hydrogen sulfides, acid gases, aldehydes and various metals.

Field studies are ongoing at 11 sites in five states, including Texas. NIOSH intends to identify processes and activities where chemical exposures could occur, characterize potential exposures to vapors, gases, particulates and fumes and depending on the results, recommend safe work practices and/or propose and evaluate exposure controls.

For now, immediate attention is focused on the respirable silica, present at higher than recommended levels at some drilling sites. Silicosis, the main danger associated with breathing silica dust, is an incurable lung disease that increases the risk of lung cancer. “Short term exposure at a high enough level can result in permanent damage,” said Robert Emery, a chemical safety expert with the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, in July State Impact coverage.

Esswein and colleagues highlight seven primary dust generation points at drilling sites, including site traffic, sand mover top hatches and transfer belts, blender hopper sand dropping, and more.

However, silica is just one of several chemicals used during the hydraulic fracturing process that can pose hazards at well sites, according to State Impact. “There are ‘biocides’ like chlorine used to kill slime in hydraulic lines . . . fumes from the hydrochloric acid used to clean cement out of the lines . . . exhaust from diesel trucks and generators.”

It’s worthwhile to note that NIOSH predicts other likely health hazards to include diesel particulates.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates particulate matter (PM) under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and recently, the agency proposed strengthening the standards. In fact, the proposed revised standards – to be issued December 14, 2012 – would strengthen the annual “primary” fine particle standard to protect public health and would establish a separate “secondary” fine particle standard to protect visibility in urban areas. Though the PM NAAQS are established for the protection of public health across the country and not just at drilling sites, the new standard could result in additional monitors being placed in areas near high drilling activity.  These monitors would provide information critical to ensuring clean air protections from the harms of PM.

August 31 ends the public comment period on these proposed standards. For the safety of shale gas drilling workers, as well as for the protection of millions of Americans impacted by health concentrations of PM, we encourage you to voice your concerns by submitting your comments to the EPA before the deadline.

Together, we can ensure cleaner Texas air as well as increased vigilance paid to the health of shale gas workers.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Natural gas | 1 Response, comments now closed

Court Upholds Historic EPA Actions, Rebukes Texas' Lawsuits To Undermine Health Protections


This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a unanimous opinion affirming EPA’s protective carbon pollution standards issued under the Clean Air Act.  The Court upheld EPA’s science-based finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare (the “Endangerment Finding”) and the Clean Car Standards.    The court also dismissed petitions challenging the requirement for large industrial sources to install modern cost-effective solutions to address greenhouse gases and EPA's common sense approach to inoculate small sources.  

Today’s ruling underscores what we have long known — that EPA’s climate protections are firmly grounded in science and law and will help secure a healthier, more prosperous future for all Americans.

EDF's press statement is appended below. 

The court's opinion is unanimous, strong, and emphatic.  Unfortunately, the lawsuits to obstruct these vital protections were brought by Texas and others. In today’s opinion, the court thoroughly rebuked those, like Texas, who attack science and obstruct progress in reducing climate pollution, noting “[t]his is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

Environmental Defense Fund, together with a large coalition of states and environmental organizations, intervened in defense of the clean air protections. Those protections include:  

  • The Climate Pollution Endangerment Finding, in which EPA – following the Supreme Court’s order in Massachusetts v. EPA – determined that climate pollution endangers human health and welfare on the basis of a rigorous review of the extensive body of climate science.
  • The Clean Car Standards, which establish cost-saving fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks. The standards are supported by U.S. auto makers and the United Auto Workers union, among others. They will save Americans thousands of dollars at the gas pump by enabling families to get more mileage out of each gallon of gas. They will also help break our nation's addiction to imported oil and will cut the amount of dangerous pollution from vehicles.
  • Carbon Pollution Limits for Big New Power Plants and Industrial Sources (the Timing and Tailoring Rules), in which EPA is phasing-in requirements for use of the best available cost-effective pollution controls, starting with new, large industrial emitters (like power plants) while shielding smaller emitters.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Clean Air Act, Clean Car Standards, Environment, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs | 1 Response, comments now closed

Strong Standards Are Needed To Protect Human Health From Harmful Air Pollution Emitted From Oil And Gas Activities

Update: Please note that the EPA is now due to finalize the national emission standards for oil and gas activities by Tuesday, April 17.

This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog.

On April 3, 2012 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize national emission standards to limit some of the harmful air pollutants discharged from a variety of oil and gas activities.   As Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has noted in past blogs, leaks, venting and flaring of natural gas from oil and gas activities contribute to ground-level ozone ("smog") and toxic air pollution.  As proposed, EPA's standards would reduce volatile organic compounds that contribute to smog by 25% and hazardous air pollutants by 30%, through the implementation of proven and highly cost-effective practices and technologies. 

Emissions from Oil and Gas Activities Linked to Unhealthy Levels of Ozone "Smog" Pollution

Extensive oil and gas development in parts of rural Wyoming and Utah, where little other industrial activity occurs, has led to dangerous ozone levels, higher than those recorded in some of the most heavily polluted cities. Last year, families in Wyoming’s Upper Green River Basin suffered over forty days in which ozone concentrations exceeded the current health standard.  In Utah’s Uintah basin, residents experienced twice this number of unhealthy ozone days, with one monitor located in Ouray recording forty exceedances alone.

In 2009 then Governor of Wyoming Dave Freudenthal requested EPA designate counties within the Upper Green River Basin as out of attainment with the current ozone health standard explaining the link between natural gas emissions and the serious ozone problems: 

"The State of Wyoming is also challenged by the need to reduce emissions from the natural gas industry which has not traditionally been regulated for ozone nonattainment problems….Therefore, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) has already identified the sources that require controls such as drill rigs, pneumatic pumps, dehydration units and small heaters."

EPA  in turn concluded “[t]he [Wyoming] AQD’s analysis provided with its recommendation shows that elevated ozone at the Boulder monitor is primarily due to local emissions from oil and gas development activities: drilling, production, storage, transport and treating of oil and natural gas.”

In Colorado and Texas, smog-forming emissions from the oil and gas industry have exceeded other major sources of pollution such as vehicles.   In 2008, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concluded that the smog-forming emissions from oil and gas operations exceeded vehicle emissions for the entire state.  Similarly, a 2009 study found that summertime emissions of smog-forming pollutants from oil and gas sources in the Barnett Shale were roughly comparable to emissions from all of the motor vehicles in the Dallas Fort-Worth area.

Oil and Gas Activities Emit Benzene-A Known Carcinogen-and other Air Toxics

Venting, flaring and equipment leaks also emit hazardous air pollutants or air toxics, including hydrogen sulfide, formaldehyde and benzene into the environment.  Elevated levels of benzene have been detected near gas production sites in Texas and Colorado. In 2010 the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) measured acute concentrations of benzene that exceeded the state’s health-based risk levels at two exploration and production sites in the Barnett Shale in Texas. Research based on air samples taken from oil and gas sites in the Piceance Basin in Colorado in 2008 determined that emissions from well completions, dehydration units, and condensate tanks posed an elevated cancer risk to nearby residents. Similarly, atmospheric measurements collected by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that “oil and gas operations in the DJB (Denver-Julesburg Basin) could be the largest source of C6H6 (benzene) in Weld County.”

As oil and gas development continues to expand across the country, strong, national clean air standards are essential to protect public health.  EPA’s standards, which build on clean air measures already in place in states with extensive oil and gas activities, such as Colorado and Wyoming, are an important first step in strengthening clean air protections for human health and the environment.

Also posted in Air Pollution, Barnett Shale, Environmental Protection Agency, Natural gas, TCEQ | Comments closed

If The Problem Isn't Hydraulic Fracturing, Then What Is?

 This commentary was originally posted on the EDF Energy Exchange Blog by Scott Anderson.

Today, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin released a major report titled, “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.” The report’s conclusions are those of the authors, though Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) helped the University of Texas at Austin define its scope of work and reviewed drafts during the course of the project.

What are the main conclusions? As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate.

The following conclusions are particularly important:

  • Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g. failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
  • Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater than hydraulic fracturing itself.
  • Blowouts – uncontrolled fluid releases during construction and operation – are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.
  • The lack of baseline studies makes it difficult to evaluate the long-term, cumulative effects and risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.
  • Most state oil and gas regulations were written well before shale gas development became widespread.
  • Gaps remain in the regulation of well casing and cementing, water withdrawal and usage, and waste storage and disposal.
  • Enforcement capacity is highly variable among the states, particularly when measured by the ratio of staff to numbers of inspections conducted.

The report deserves widespread attention. But it is by no means the final word on these topics. Chip Groat, who led the study on behalf of the Energy Institute, plans to tackle additional topics in the future. These include air emissions from natural gas operations, induced seismicity and a field and laboratory investigation of whether hydrogeologic connectivity exists between the Barnett Shale and aquifers and other geologic units above and below the formation.

To read the complete report, visit

Also posted in Barnett Shale, Natural gas | 1 Response, comments now closed

Let’s Resolve to Pollute Less in 2012- Part 2

This blog post is part one of a two part series. See part one.

(Source: US Coast Guards)

Deepwater Horizon Gulf Oil Spill- 2010

By far, the most horrific pollution incident over the last decade is the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig, where a fire burned for 36 hours before the oil rig sank. Caused by a gas leak, this explosion resulted in hydrocarbons leaking into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days until they were finally sealed off.

Eleven people died and 17 were injured from the explosion. The spill caused extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats and to the Gulf’s fishing and tourism industries. Scientists reported an 80 mile “kill zone” surrounding the well.  Over 400 wildlife species hurt/threatened by the biggest oil spill in U.S. history and the second largest environmental disaster in U.S. history. Almost five million barrels of oil leaked into the ocean before the well was capped on July 15, 2010. The well is dead, but it has left industries and livelihoods on life support in its wake.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation- 2007

At the Citgo East Plant refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, state inspectors found during an unannounced visit that the organization was operating open top tanks as oil water separators without first installing emission controls for benzene required by federal and state regulations. The inspectors found 4.5 million gallons of oil in two 12 million-gallon tanks; these tanks accounted for more than 57 metric tons of benzene in the waste streams, which are exposed to the air. Federal regulations limit refineries to operate with 6 or less metric tons of benzene in their exposed waste streams.

 As a result, Citgo was indicted for the lack of emissions controls and for failing to identify all of the points in the refinery wastewater system where benzene was generated in a report to the TCEQ.  This case is still ongoing; however, if Citgo is found guilty, the company could face up to $500,000 fines for each of the 10 counts of environmental violations at the refinery. Residents near the plant are paying careful attention to the outcome of the case; many of them believe the dangerous benzene emissions are responsible for their health problems. The Houston Chronicle spoke with Kimberly Curiel, a resident in the area. "Cancer, cancer, cancer," she said, pointing to a string of houses on her old street where neighbors have fallen ill. "That just doesn't happen very often."

Air Products and Chemical Plant- 2010

On February 16, 2010, the Air Products and Chemical Plant shut down due to a pipe leak after a unit tripped offline. This leak emitted an orange cloud of nitric acid, a toxic irritant, over Highway 225, an area with heavy traffic. The City of Pasadena officials initially claimed “there was no danger to the public”. However, several individuals who came in contact with the nitric acid cloud were sent to the hospital after they had trouble breathing.

Nitric acid is a dangerous colorless, highly corrosive liquid which can cause severe burns and irritation to the eyes. The city shut down Highway 225 for several hours and issued a shelter in place until the leak could be contained and the plant was secured.

BP Refinery in Texas City- 2011

In November 2011, there were reports of gas leaks at a BP refinery in Texas City, the third largest refinery in the U.S. A caller initially reported a sulfur dioxide leak to the National Response Center. There is some confusion on the extent of the sulfur dioxide leak, since BP claims the report was not made by a company employee. However, BP did confirm an ongoing leak of methyl mercaptan, a smelly gas added to natural gas as a safety measure; the odor was bad enough that 30 workers from a neighboring plant downwind were taken to the hospital. Texas City Emergency Manager and Homeland Security Director Bruce Clawson said of the gas leaking from the plant, “It smells ugly and makes you sick. It’s not a small matter.”

Magnablend Chemical Plant Fire- 2011

As we told you late last year, a fire broke out at Magnablend, Inc. on October 3, 2011 in Waxahachie, Texas that was caused by blending of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid. This led to the evacuation for an apartment complex, an elementary school, a junior college and nearly 1,000 residents who live close to the chemical plant.

Upon further investigation, officials discovered that neither EPA officials nor the Waxahachie Fire Rescue team were aware of what Magnablend produced at the plant and that a risk management plan had not been filed for the facility. The TCEQ issued an air pollution watch level orange for that day.

We Need Better Solutions and to Increase Prevention Efforts

Within Region VI of EPA, which includes Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Arkansas, there is an average of one shelter in place a week due to upset events at different facilities. One a week! While a rare disaster may be unavoidable, most of these terrible pollution events are completely preventable. These disasters are unfortunate and cause severe damage to our health and our environment. My hopes for this year are that we will resolve to lower the number of pollution events through strict air quality standards, strong rules in place for construction and operation of chemical facilities, and harsh penalties to encourage companies to keep our air and water clean and safe.

I am thrilled to see the recent passage of new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards by the EPA. Let’s keep up this great momentum throughout the next decade and prevent disasters like these from destroying our environment and contributing to increased public health risks. 

Also posted in Air Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, GHGs | 2 Responses, comments now closed

It Makes Dollars & “Sense” To Capture Air Emissions

This blog was written by Susanne Brooks and was originally posted on EDF's Energy Exchange blog.

Oil and gas exploration and production is rapidly expanding across the U.S. due to technological developments that have made extraction of previously untapped unconventional resources such as shale gas feasible.

In fact, shale gas production “has gone from a negligible amount just a few years ago to being almost 30% of total U.S. natural gas production.”

But national clean air standards covering these activities have not been updated since 1985 in one case and 1999 in another. They are limited, inadequate, and out of date, particularly given recent technological advances in this area.

This poses a serious problem, since exploration and production activities emit numerous hazardous air pollutants and other airborne contaminants that threaten human health and the environment. Communities across the country are paying the price, suffering from air pollution in the absence of protective, comprehensive standards.

In July, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new nationwide safeguards to reduce air pollution from upstream oil and gas production activities. Recently, the public was given a chance to express their opinions on the issue at three hearings held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Denver, Colorado, and Arlington, Texas. EDF testified at all three. (Public written comments will be accepted through October 31th and EPA is required to issue a final rule by February 2012. You can submit comments online, via fax or through the mail. In your correspondence, please be sure to reference Docket Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0505; FRL–9456–2.)

I testified at the EPA hearing in Pittsburgh where compelling concerns were raised by many in the communities hard hit by air pollution impacts. People in communities across Pennsylvania expressed concern that adequate protection from dangerous pollution in their home state is simply not in place. Some pleaded with the EPA to finalize new standards, others expressed anger that EPA has not done so already, and many fear that the new standards won’t be tough enough to keep their families safe.

The individual who testified before me declared that when it comes to our health and that of our children, the costs of cleaning up harmful pollution should not factor into EPA’s decision-making. He got a standing ovation.

Of course, the hearing also featured industry representatives, some of whom echoed the position of the American Petroleum Institute (API) calling for more time to comment on the proposed standards and to delay their implementation.

Yet, the truth is that the proposed EPA rules will standardize many practices and technologies already being used in states such as Colorado and Wyoming, and elsewhere by natural gas companies. Further, these practices and technologies reduce gas losses, which results in greater recovery and sale of natural gas, and thus increased economic gains. The return on the initial investment for many of these practices is sometimes as short as a few months and almost always less than two years. In these tough economic times, it would seem wise to eliminate waste, save money, and reduce environmental impact.

Based on EPA estimates of natural gas losses, industry lost more than $1 billion in profits in 2009 due to venting, flaring and fugitive emissions. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), with supporting data from EPA, estimates that around 40% of natural gas estimated to be vented and flared on onshore federal leases could be economically captured with currently available control technologies. Recouping these losses could increase federal royalty payments by $23 million annually, at a time when revenue is desperately needed.

The industry can demonstrate their commitment to bringing natural gas to market in an environmentally sound way by using best practices, acknowledging the benefits of these safeguards, and being proactive in helping them get adopted.

And, while EPA’s proposed rules are a great start, there is room for improvement (for more details, see EDF’s preliminary analysis of the regulations). Bottom line: it is critical that stronger clean air standards move forward. They are vitally important to protect human health and the environment.

At the EPA hearing in Pittsburgh, the public demanded that EPA require industry to be more vigilant about health and safety, and reduce their environmental impact. Considering the potential increased revenue of capturing more gas, advocating for strong clean air rules makes both dollars and “sense.”

Also posted in Natural gas | Comments closed
  • Confluence of SJR, Old, and Middle rivers

    About This Blog

    Advocating for healthier air and cleaner energy in Texas through public education and policy influence.

  • Get blog posts by email

    Subscribe via RSS

  • From Twitter

  • Meet The Bloggers

    Ramon AlvarezRamon Alvarez
    Senior Scientist

    Elena Craft
    Health Scientist

    Jim Marston
    Vice President, US Climate and Energy Program, Director of the Texas regional office

    Marita Mirzatuny
    Project Manager

    Marcelo Norsworthy
    Transportation Research Analyst

    Kate Zerrenner
    Project Manager

  • Categories

  • Archives