Energy Exchange

The Natural Gas Industry Is Its Own Worst Enemy

Anyone who thinks “old media” is dead should have spent this week with me in Washington, DC.  Virtually everywhere I went folks were discussing the articles in the New York Times this week on the water pollution issues associated with natural gas development.  Although ProPublica has done an excellent job of covering the many environmental issues associated with shale gas development for more than a year, there still is nothing like a front page story in the New York Times to get the attention of policymakers in Washington.

Of course, the New York Times tale of water quality regulators seemingly asleep at the switch, or worse, actually hiding data and findings, is a story sure to catch anyone’s eye.  And in the days leading up to the Academy Awards, where “Gasland” was competing for the best documentary award, hydraulic fracturing seemed to be everywhere in the media, and all of it bad news stories.  Flaming water faucets are an image hard to resist or dismiss.

But as the flurry of media attention begins to die down as the week comes to a close, we are left with two simple truths to reflect upon.  The first is that America is awash in natural gas, and this promises to be a good thing both in terms of national energy security and air quality, at least in comparison to coal, which is America’s other abundant domestic energy resource.  (Yes, we actually have a fair amount of oil, too, but even the biggest boosters of domestic production concede the days of America being oil self-sufficient are long gone).  The second simple truth is that the vast majority natural gas industry is squandering this opportunity through a combination of reckless indifference and sloppy production practices.

No one should give either state or federal regulators a free pass on failures to act aggressively to enforce existing oil and gas production regulations, or act equally quickly to revise regulations where they clearly are failing to protect public health and the environment in the onslaught of natural gas production in what IHS Cambridge Energy Resource Associates (IHS CERA) calls the “Shale Gale.”  But focusing all of our ire on the regulators’ failures gives the natural gas producers a perverse excuse.  For an example of this, see my post two weeks ago, where I took an industry lawyer to task for making the claim that regulators were at fault for failing to tell natural gas producers that it is a bad idea to use diesel fuel as a hydraulic fracturing fluid.  As if someone needs to be told that injecting diesel fuel into the ground might be a bad idea!

So, by all means, put the heat on the federal Environmental Protection Agency and your state environmental regulators, and hold Congress and state legislatures accountable for providing the resources needed to have good regulations and good enforcement.  But please save some of your indignation for those gas producers who are failing to come to grips with the issues of the day.  Natural gas producers know better than anyone what is in the water that is produced during the natural gas production process, and no one should let them get away with claiming otherwise.  Sadly, unlike a few of their more progressive colleagues, many natural gas producers fail to understand that they have an affirmative obligation to minimize the possibility that contaminated water causes harm to public health and the environment.  And even worse, far too few of them take proactive steps to reduce air and water pollution from their production processes – steps that actually could save them money in the long run. 

The industry seems more inclined to operate by the principle that “haste makes waste.”  More than anything else, what the New York Times articles demonstrate is that, taken as a whole, the natural gas production industry is simply failing to hold itself accountable for adhering to the highest common sense standards of environmental stewardship.  And unless and until the natural gas industry does, don’t expect any good news stories about natural gas in either old or new media.

Also posted in Washington, DC / Read 3 Responses

Interim Report on Fort Worth Natural Gas Air Quality Study Leaves Biggest Questions Unanswered

Last week, the Fort Worth City Council received an interim report on its Natural Gas Air Quality Study initiated last August.  Unfortunately, this interim report was short on details about the most unique aspect of the project – the direct measurement of emissions at the point of release.

The interim report only presented high-level summaries of results of sampling at 66 sites out of 170 sites where emissions were detected in Phase I (no emissions were detected at another 31 sites).  Stated differently, the interim report provided no information about nearly two-thirds of the sites with detectable emissions. Read More »

Also posted in Texas / Read 4 Responses

(Update) TCEQ Buckles On Oil & Gas Rules Under Pressure From Industry

Last week we lamented about the TCEQ’s capitulation to industry pressure on proposed rules dealing with emissions from oil and gas facilities. 

State Representative Lon Burnam provided us with a sampling of documents showing the influence exerted by industry during the tail end of the process.  These are just a smattering of the roughly five reams of paper his office received in response to a public information request.

In hopes that it might serve as a resource to others, we are also posting several other documents pertaining to the rulemaking:

Also posted in Texas / Comments are closed

Natural Gas Industry Wins The Award For Chutzpah

Chutzpah.  That’s how Washington lawyer Matt Armstrong, of Bracewell & Giuliani, characterized the possibility that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would now take enforcement action against natural gas drillers who injected millions of gallons of diesel fuel into the ground to facilitate hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, to extract  natural gas trapped in shale formations thousands of feet below.  His point was that the EPA – having taken little action to develop clear regulations banning or restricting this particular practice – can’t pretend that they always disapproved of diesel fuel injection now that a Congressional investigation spearheaded by Henry Waxman and Ed Markey has brought it to light. 

While I think Armstrong may have a point about the EPA being asleep at the switch on this one, and I take him at his word that he, and the natural gas industry clients he represents, welcome clear and effective federal regulations restricting or – better yet – banning this practice, I can’t help but conclude that it is the natural gas industry, rather than the EPA, that wins the award for chutzpah.

Part of the reason that anti-shale gas campaigners are gaining such traction with the general public is that the natural gas industry makes it so easy for them.  Does any CEO of any natural gas production company really think that the general public would ever believe that injecting diesel fuel into the ground is a good idea?  This little episode only further underscores the perception that when the natural gas industry unflinchingly opposes public disclosure of the chemicals used in “frac fluids” – or, as my colleague Ramon Alvarez pointed out yesterday – when the oil and gas industry sue to block recently adopted EPA regulations requiring basic air pollution reporting that, indeed, the industry really does have something to hide.  

Being tone deaf to public perception is not a crime, but when you turn around and blame the regulatory agency you regularly oppose for failing to stop you from engaging in what is obviously a potentially harmful practice that they should have been regulating, you certainly are guilty of chutzpah.  If the natural gas industry ever expects to be embraced as a responsible partner in transitioning this nation to a safe, secure, low-carbon, clean energy future, natural gas production practices need to dramatically improve and the stonewalling and finger pointing at others need to stop.

Also posted in Washington, DC / Read 2 Responses

Gas Industry Lawsuits Undermine Americans’ Right To Know About Dangerous Pollution

It was disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising, that Chesapeake Energy and three natural gas industry trade associations filed legal challenges to EPA’s new rule that requires assessment and public disclosure of the industry’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

I find it ironic that the industry that touts itself as the “low-carbon” fossil fuel is fighting efforts to require disclosure of its global warming pollution.

Learn more about this in our news release sent out earlier today.

Also posted in Climate, Texas / Read 2 Responses

TCEQ Buckles On Oil & Gas Rules Under Pressure From Industry

After a 10-month process, the TCEQ finally ended the suspense regarding what emissions safeguards the oil and gas industry will have to follow in order to protect the citizens of Texas.   On Wednesday, the TCEQ adopted a much, much weaker rule than the one it proposed in July (see details at the bottom of this post).  The rule was dramatically scaled back to apply only to those living near the Barnett Shale near Dallas-Fort Worth and, miraculously, the process will begin anew to decide what protections will apply elsewhere. 

If you are reading this, you are probably wondering what I think about the outcome.   I’ll answer by telling you what I am going to tell my boss, who will surely ask how my efforts – scores of hours attending meetings, writing comments, coordinating and consulting with experts on this topic (as well as having to watch industry unrelentingly bully TCEQ staff) – translated into results.   

It is a fair question given that I truly threw myself into this one.  I convinced myself (and my boss) that – this time – it was going to be different.  With all of the attention focused on the emissions from natural gas operations, including reports showing how the emissions from the oil and gas industry were much higher than everyone assumed, I thought this time we actually had a chance to help TCEQ do the right thing.   

The most favorable answer I can give is that “it could have been worse.”  Maybe, just maybe, had we not made the effort, the final rule might have been even worse.  What issues went in favor of public health?  The TCEQ did expand the proposed definition of “receptors” that must be protected to include hospitals, day cares, and certain businesses (although this definition is still less protective than many other agency rules).  Oh, and in response to our expert modeler’s numerous examples showing that the agency’s modeling did not represent “worst-case” conditions as claimed, the TCEQ changed their description to “reasonable worst case” (while making numerous other changes that allowed far greater emissions of harmful pollutants than originally proposed).  Sadly, that’s all I can say went in a positive direction. 

The TCEQ’s initial proposal in July would have established a basic framework that provided greater assurances of protectiveness to the public.  But industry firepower overwhelmed the TCEQ staff, which had little, if any, apparent support from their Commissioners.  The final rule was gutted with so many exceptions and loopholes (see below) that it almost makes me wonder if there is sufficient environmental benefit left to justify the regulatory burden.  Especially troubling was the number of sweeping changes made to the rule during a 6-week continuance, out of the public eye, during which time staff was asked to attempt to resolve industry concerns.  

In the end, I have no choice but to admit that my time would have been better spent on something else.  This story is yet one more example of why the legislature’s required sunset review of the TCEQ is so timely.  It is time for the TCEQ to put the protection of public health and the environment first.

On this last point, State Representative Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) who serves on the state’s Sunset Advisory Commission, ably captured the situation in an interview on KUT’s feature “Letters to the Lege” this morning:

“In hearings we’ve held, we’ve heard complaints from all over the state … and there’s definitely an issue at the TCEQ when it comes to the response to citizen complaints. There’s no doubt about it. The EPA is seriously put out with the TCEQ and there’s a real standoff going on right now between the Perry administration and the federal government on how the TCEQ regulates pollutants in Texas. And in my opinion, we need to shake the agency up and make it more responsive to the public.”

At EDF, we completely agree.     

Key Examples Of How The July 2010 Oil & Gas Permit by Rule Proposal Was Weakened:

  • Applies only to Barnett Shale. A new rule will have to be developed by January 2012 to apply to the rest of Texas
  • Allowable hourly emissions of benzene increased by up to a factor of 20X
  • Eliminated formaldehyde emissions limits and protectiveness review
  • Increased VOC and other pollution limits, and removed limits for others
  • Created an exception for “small operations,” specifically projects with a maximum engine horsepower (450 hp or less depending on fuel), or five defined combinations of emissions sources and components.  These only have to maintain equipment in good working order and maintain a minimum 50-foot setback with no notification to TCEQ required
  • Protectiveness review only required for new or modified sites within ¼- or 1/2- mile from a receptor (depending on size of facility), and excludes consideration of existing emissions at modified sites if the off-site concentrations are less than 10%-25% of an Effects Screening Level
  • Removed prohibition against increasing emissions of applicable pollutants in an Air Pollutant Watch List Area (where pollution levels already exceed the TCEQ’s own acceptable risk levels)
  • Replaced Executive Director’s right to deny a permit for good cause with limited additional pre-conditions for a permit
Also posted in Climate, Texas / Read 4 Responses