Energy Exchange

Turning COP26 methane promises into action

One of the biggest accomplishments from COP26 is the global consensus around the urgent need to reduce methane emissions. More than 100 countries representing more than two-thirds of the global economy promised to collectively reduce 30% of man-made methane emissions by 2030.

The agreement follows recent analysis from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which warns there is no plausible pathway to limit temperature rise to 1.5°C without dramatic reductions in both methane emissions and carbon dioxide. We can’t get there through either pathway alone. We have to do both.

Read More »

Posted in Climate, Methane regulatons, Natural Gas / Language: / Comments are closed

Methane standards are the law of the land; it’s time to stop litigation and start complying

Let me first make this important point: I’ve met and worked with a lot of folks in the oil and gas industry who are truly dedicated to making their operations as safe and clean as possible – people who care about the communities they live and work in and who take pride in the reputation of the companies they work for.

That said, I’ve always rolled my eyes a little when I see companies boast in sustainability reports that they comply with all applicable federal and state laws.  Really?  Not breaking the law is the high bar you’re shooting for?

But , as it turns out, one of the nation’s largest oil and gas trade associations is now saying that not only does it oppose common-sense laws requiring companies to reduce their emissions of methane and other harmful air pollution, it’s casting doubt on the extent to which companies should even comply.

The courts have repeatedly struck down efforts by the Trump administration and industry lobbyists to suspend these pollution standards.  And these rules are now in full legal effect. Read More »

Posted in Methane, Natural Gas / Language: / Comments are closed

Leading States Tackling Fugitive Emissions Problem Head-On

statesYou see something once, and it might just be an anomaly. See it twice, maybe coincidence. But when you see it a third time – that’s a pattern. A trend.

With Ohio’s move last week to control “fugitive” emissions from oil and gas operations, that’s what we’re seeing – a rapid trend from leading states to control this major source of air and climate pollution. The Ohio rules come on heels of similar actions in Wyoming and Colorado. Together, these rules signal a fast-growing recognition that fugitive emissions are a problem that has to be dealt with, and that there are cost-effective ways we can slash these emissions today.

Read More »

Posted in Air Quality, Colorado, Methane, Natural Gas, Ohio, Wyoming / Language: / Read 1 Response

What LEED Did for Buildings, This Could do for Shale Gas Production

Matt Watson PhotoThis commentary originally appeared on our EDF Voices blog.

The Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD) put out the Open For Business sign today – a key milestone in this innovative effort to up the game on environmental protection in shale gas development.  The question now is, will energy companies step up?

We hope so.

CSSD is an unprecedented collaboration – bringing together environmental groups, philanthropic organizations and energy companies to develop performance standards for reducing environmental impacts from shale gas production, and setting up a system so gas producers can have their operations audited and certified against those standards.

CSSD isn’t a substitute for effective regulation.  Strong rules and robust oversight is a nonnegotiable bottom line.  But we like the idea of upping the ante.  Why not have a program that recognizes companies for going beyond the regulatory minimums and doing more to protect communities and the environment?  These companies are tough competitors – so let’s make environmental performance part of what they compete on. Read More »

Posted in Climate, Natural Gas, Pennsylvania / Tagged , | Language: / Read 1 Response

Is BLM Phoning It In?

Source: Soundcheck-WNYC

Yesterday the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a new draft of its so-called “fracking rule.” To be fair, the proposed rule does represent a level of progress compared to sorely outdated rules on the books. But we’re dealing with critical issues here – not the kinds of things we can afford to only get half right.  And unfortunately, “half right” is about all we got here.

The most significant failings of the proposed rule have to do with well integrity – the way an oil or gas well is constructed and operated to minimize risks to the environment and public safety. Proper casing, cementing and pressure management are critical to protecting groundwater resources and the lives of the men and women who work the rigs. The rule takes steps in the right direction, but it doesn’t include nearly the level of detail necessary to ensure casing is set where it’s needed, operators are getting good cement jobs and the whole system is checked for mechanical integrity at critical points in the well development process.

The rule also falls short on chemical disclosure. We’re pleased to see the agency propose the same basic disclosure framework that has already been established by leading states – including requirements that operators disclose all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids (not just chemicals subject to OSHA reporting), and requirements to post the information on a user-friendly, publicly accessible website like FracFocus. But the proposal is far too weak on trade secrets. For the public to have confidence trade secret protections aren’t being abused, there needs to be a clear path for challenging trade secret assertions and policing the system.

Finally, while we recognize that you can’t address every issue in a single rule, it’s still worth noting two areas where agency rules are in glaring need of an overhaul. First, BLM needs to improve its rules for the handling, storage and disposal of the huge volumes of wastewater produced by unconventional oil and gas operations (the proposed rule merely asks operators to submit a plan). Second, BLM needs to adopt requirements to minimize emissions of methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas – and other contaminants that create local and regional air quality problems like they’re seeing in Colorado and Wyoming. There’s long been talk of dealing with methane emissions at BLM, but so far we’ve yet to see action. We hope that changes soon. Read More »

Posted in BLM Methane, Natural Gas / Tagged , , , | Language: / Comments are closed

Ohio Energy Bill Falls Short Of Governor’s Vision For Chemical Disclosure

Ohio Governor John Kasich showed real leadership earlier this month when he introduced energy bill with the most comprehensive rules in the country for chemical disclosure during oil and gas operations. The Governor’s bill would have required disclosure of not only the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing – as a number of other states have done – but also the full range of chemicals used throughout the lifecycle of a well. Hydraulic fracturing gets all the attention, but the Governor and his team understand that dangerous chemicals are also used in drilling, producing, servicing and shutting down wells. The entire process should be transparent from beginning to end — “from spud to plug,” as it’s called.

This was smart policy when the Governor proposed it. And it’s smart policy today. Unfortunately, the energy bill passed yesterday by the Ohio General Assembly fails to fully deliver on that vision. In the face of intense industry opposition, lawmakers eliminated many of the reporting requirements contained in the original bill. EDF is disappointed the final bill does not live up to what Governor Kasich proposed, but we give the Governor credit for putting the idea forward and expanding the terms of the debate – both in Ohio and nationally.

To be fair, even in its scaled-back version, the Ohio disclosure policy breaks new ground. It requires disclosure of the chemicals used in stimulating a well. This includes not just hydraulic fracturing but also other kinds of stimulation techniques – something most states have missed in their disclosure rules.

Additionally, companies will be required to disclose the chemicals used in a well until the surface casing is set in place. As we testified in the Ohio House, this still leaves the public in the dark about a lot of dangerous chemicals that are used to drill and operate a well. But again, it’s a step forward compared to what other states have done.

We’re disappointed, though, by changes the House made to the trade secret provisions in the bill. In the original version, companies would have been required to report trade secret information to the Department of Natural Resources. This would have ensured that the agency had quick access to chemical information it might need to respond to a spill, initiate an investigation or respond to a complaint.  Under industry pressure, the Assembly caved on that language, and companies will now be allowed to withhold trade secret information from the regulators. 

The bill establishes an unqualified right for certain land owners to challenge trade secret claims in court. So, there’s at least a mechanism in place to police the system and make sure companies aren’t hiding behind bogus trade secret claims. But it would have been far better to have trade secrets turned over to the state – not only in cases where this information is needed to protect public health and safety, but also because it would have given anyone, not just the land owners, a right to challenge trade secrets under the Ohio Public Records Act.

This is a big bill. It addresses a wide range of issues – not just oil and gas – and includes far too much to cover here. It has some good provisions, such as new requirements for companies to report where they’re getting their water from and how much they’re using, and requirements for companies to test the baseline water quality in nearby water wells before they start drilling. The bill also has some really bad provisions – like an egregious one that strips citizens of the right to appeal permits issued to oil and gas operators.

The passage of the energy bill is not the end of the process: the agency rules implementing this bill will be written in the months ahead, and EDF will be working to make sure they are as strong as possible. And we’ll be working on other rules to reduce the risks oil and gas operations pose to communities and the environment.

This includes improving Ohio’s rules for air pollution from oil and gas operations. It means making sure we have tough standards in place to manage the huge waste streams these operations produce. It means putting smart planning in place to preserve landscapes and protect the fabric of local communities. And sooner rather than later, it’s going to mean coming back to the General Assembly and fixing what didn’t get done right the first time.

Posted in Natural Gas / Language: / Read 2 Responses