Gas

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Schumer and Manchin’s ‘dirty side deal’ to fast-track pipelines faces backlash

      by

      Schumer and Manchin’s ‘dirty side deal’ to fast-track pipelines faces backlashScientists and environmental groups call proposed legislation a ‘giveaway’ to fossil fuel industry that will gut protections Scientists, health experts and environmental groups have condemned new legislation negotiated in secret by the fossil-fuel-friendly Democratic senator Joe Manchin and the Senate leader, Chuck Schumer, which will fast-track major energy projects by gutting clean water and environmental protections.Senator Joe Manchin unveils bill that would expedite federal energy projectsRead moreThe permitting bill published on Wednesday was the result of a deal between Manchin and Democratic leaders, which secured the West Virginia senator’s vote for Joe Biden’s historic climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, which Manchin held up for months.The bill mandates all permits for the Mountain Valley pipeline (MVP), a project long delayed by environmental violations and judicial rulings, be issued within 30 days of passage and strips away virtually any scope for judicial review.Democratic leaders want to push through Manchin’s bill without debate or analysis, and are expected to attach the legislation to a funding measure Congress must pass before 1 October.Energy industry associations have widely welcomed the reforms but opposition from Democrats and Republicans could scupper the deal.Critics say the bill is a giveaway to the fossil fuel lobby, paving the way for oil and gas production that will stop the US meeting its obligations to cut greenhouse gases and lead to further environmental injustices for people of color, Indigenous communities and low-income areas. It slashes judicial and state powers and oversight, handing Washington greater control over major projects.“This is not permitting reform,” said the Greenpeace USA co-executive director Ebony Twilley Martin. “This is permitting a giveaway that benefits those who continue to line their pockets at the expense of those affected by climate disasters. Our country cannot afford any new oil, gas or coal projects if we’re going to avoid climate catastrophe.”On Thursday, more than 400 scientists, doctors and nurses delivered a letter imploring Schumer and the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to reject the deal. “The scientific consensus is now crystal clear … fossil fuel projects carry enormous risks to public health … we need to leave oil, gas and coal in the ground and turn off the spigot of carbon pouring into the air.”Jennifer K Falcon, an Indigenous environmentalist from the Ikiya Collective, said: “Our communities have already lost so much from environmental racism but there is so much to save. [They] are not sacrifice zones for corrupt politicians like Manchin and Schumer who benefit from big oil’s windfall profits.“The science is clear about the worsening climate crisis. We have no time to waste on dirty side deals.”Manchin has received more campaign contributions from fossil fuel industries than any other lawmaker this election cycle, according to Open Secrets.The legislative side deal requires Biden to designate at least 25 energy projects of strategic national importance for federal review within 90 days of passage. The projects must include at least five that produce, process, transport or store fossil fuels or biofuels, as well as six that are not fossil fuels and four mining projects.The bill mandates a two-year limit on environmental reviews for major projects – regardless of their complexity and potential for harming the environment, water supplies and human health.According to Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, the bill contains the most significant loss of protections under the bedrock National Environmental Policy Act (Nepa) and the Clean Water Act since at least the last Bush administration, when Republicans had full control of Congress.“Any member of Congress who claims this disastrous legislation is vital for ramping up renewables either doesn’t understand or is ignoring the enormous fossil fuel giveaways at stake,” Hartl said.The bill was negotiated under a cloak of secrecy. Passage through the Senate is far from assured. A small group of progressive Democrats are looking to separate Manchin’s legislation from the stopgap funding bill, so they can vote against the permitting bill without voting to shut down the government.Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon has organised a letter to Schumer, with the support of Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Bernie Sanders of Vermont – a move that mirrors a similar plea by 77 House progressives earlier this month.The letter, which was leaked to Politico, states: “We have heard extensive concerns from the environmental justice community regarding the proposed permitting reforms and are writing to convey the importance of those concerns, and to let you know that we share them.”On Tuesday, Schumer said he planned to add permitting reform to the spending bill and “get it done”.But Republicans who want more radical regulatory and permitting reforms may also vote against the bill, which requires 60 votes to move to the House. Earlier this month, 46 Republicans signed on to an alternative permitting bill introduced by the other West Virginian senator, Shelley Moore Capito.Schumer’s decision to capitulate to Manchin has angered progressives.Manchin agreed to back his party’s historic climate legislation before the midterm elections but only after negotiating a side deal to fast-track the MVP, a shale gas pipeline which would stretch 303 miles across the Appalachian mountains from north-western West Virginia to southern Virginia.Before construction was suspended, the MVP had produced more than 350 water quality violations. Manchin’s bill exempts the MVP from the Endangered Species Act, which experts say will push two species – the Roanoke logperch and the candy darter – much closer toward extinction.On Wednesday, the Democratic senator Tim Kaine, of Virginia, said he could not support the “highly unusual provisions” regarding the MVP which “eliminate any judicial review”. Kaine said he had been excluded from talks, even though 100 miles of the pipeline would run through his state.Raúl Grijalva, chair of the House natural resources committee, said: “These dangerous permitting shortcuts have been on industry wishlists for years. And now they’ve added the Mountain Valley pipeline approval as the rotten cherry on top of the pile.“The very fact that this fossil fuel brainchild is being force-fed into must-pass government funding speaks to its unpopularity. My colleagues and I don’t want this. The communities that are already hit hardest by the fossil fuel industry’s messes certainly don’t want or deserve this. Even Republicans don’t want this. Right now, our focus should be on keeping the government open, not destructive, unrelated riders.”In favor of the bill Gregory Wetstone, chief executive of the American Council on Renewable Energy, said it “includes provisions that will help streamline the transmission approval process, improving our ability to meet our nation’s decarbonisation goals”.Heather Zichal, chief executive of the American Clean Power Association, said: “Our current permitting system is overly cumbersome and mired in delays, hamstringing our ability to grow the clean energy economy.”TopicsUS SenateFossil fuelsOil (Environment)Gas (Environment)Oil (Business)Gas (Business)Joe ManchinnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in World Politics

      Alarm in Ireland About Natural Gas Supplies Next Winter

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Environmentalists condemn Biden administration’s offshore drilling plan

      by

      Environmentalists condemn Biden administration’s offshore drilling planPolicy would ban new ocean drilling but allow up to 11 lease sales in Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s south coast Joe Biden’s administration on Friday unveiled a five-year offshore oil and gas drilling development plan that blocks all new drilling in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans within US territorial waters while allowing some lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska’s south coast.The plan, which has not been finalized, could allow up to 11 lease sales but gives the interior department the right to make none. It comes two days after the US supreme court curbed the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to respond to the climate crisis.Environmental groups criticized the plan, and some expressed concern that the administration was backing away from the president’s “no more drilling” pledge during a March 2020 one-on-one debate with Bernie Sanders.Biden at the time said, “No more drilling on federal lands, no more drilling, including offshore – no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill – period.”Environmental groups also argued that new leasing would impede the Biden administration’s goal to cut carbon emissions by at least 50% by 2030 in an effort to keep global heating under the threshold of 1.5C (2.7F).“President Biden campaigned on climate leadership, but he seems poised to let us down at the worst possible moment,” said Brady Bradshaw, senior oceans campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The reckless approval of yet more offshore drilling would mean more oil spills, more dead wildlife and more polluted communities. We need a five-year plan with no new leases.”Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch said: “President Biden has called the climate crisis the existential threat of our time, but the administration continues to pursue policies that will only make it worse.”On Friday, the interior secretary, Deb Haaland, said she and the president “had made clear our commitment to transition to a clean energy economy”. The department’s proposal, she said, was “an opportunity for the American people to consider and provide input on the future of offshore oil and gas leasing”.California passes first sweeping US law to reduce single-use plasticRead moreThe proposal to sell off 11 leases must go through a series of reviews and a period of public comment that is likely to be contentious. Most of the new leases would be offered in parts of the western and central Gulf of Mexico, far from where legislators have outlawed new drilling near Florida.The executive director of Healthy Gulf, Cyn Sarthou, said the organization was troubled by the apparent change of policy.“Now is not the time to continue business as usual,” Sarthou said. “The continuing threat posed by climate change requires the nation to focus on a transition to renewable energy.”Nearly 95% of US offshore oil production and 71% of offshore natural gas production occurs in the Gulf of Mexico, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. About 15% of oil production comes from offshore drilling.The proposed leases come after sales in two regions of the Gulf were abandoned because of legal challenges.Advocates for the oil industry welcomed the new proposal, including the Democratic senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.“Our allies across the free world are in desperate need of American oil and gas,” Manchin said in a statement. “I am disappointed to see that ‘zero’ lease sales is even an option on the table.”One of the proposed new leases could be granted in Alaska’s Cook Inlet, an area that is already highly vulnerable to the effects of climate breakdown. “This decision is incredibly disappointing in the face of ongoing climate impacts that are already being deeply felt by our community around Alaska,” said the advocacy director at Cook Inletkeeper, Liz Mering.Mering added: “Alaskans have worked to ensure that Lower Cook Inlet remains this incredible place for our fisheries and tourism industry, which support a thriving local economy. Thirty-three years after the horrific Exxon Valdez disaster, Alaskans still remember and recognize the risk of more oil fouling our waters, killing our fish and hurting Alaskans.”The proposal came a day after the administration held its first auction of onshore lease sales, drawing bids of $22m from energy companies seeking drilling rights on about 110 square miles of public land across Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming.After the sale, the Western Environmental Law Center attorney Melissa Hornbein said: “Overwhelming scientific evidence shows us that burning fossil fuels from existing leases on federal lands is incompatible with a livable climate.”TopicsBiden administrationJoe BidenOilGasUS politicsCommoditiesClimate crisisnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Californians could see fuel price relief in the form of government rebates

      by

      Californians could see fuel price relief in the form of government rebatesThe governor has proposed giving drivers in the state $400 debit cards and giving transit agencies $750m to cover bus or train fares California residents could get free public transit rides and gas rebates under a proposal from the governor to help bring relief as fuel prices in the state reach record highs.Gavin Newsom’s plan is the latest floated by officials in California, where drivers are paying more for fuel than anywhere else in the country.US gas prices have started to slowly fall after reaching record levels in recent weeks, surging in part because of pandemic-induced inflation and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But prices in the Golden State have continued to trend upward, and California drivers are now paying an average of $5.88 a gallon, according to AAA.‘It’s not worth it’: rising gas prices force drivers to work for less than minimum wageRead moreHere’s what we know about the governor’s proposal:What is Newsom’s plan?The Democratic governor has proposed giving all drivers in the state $400 debit cards for up to two vehicles, amounting to a total of $800. Anyone who has a car registered in California would receive the money, regardless of income, immigration status or whether or not their vehicles use gasoline.Newsom wants to give $750m to transit and rail agencies to cover bus or train fare for Californians who do not own cars. That funding would would cover the costs for free rides for 3 million people a day for three months, the governor said.The plan also includes $1.1bn to pause scheduled inflationary increases for diesel and fuel taxes this summer, and $500m for projects that promote biking and walking.Why is Newsom doing this?California’s gas prices are consistently the highest in the nation. On Wednesday, the state’s average gas prices hit a new record at $5.88 a gallon, more than $2 higher than it was a year ago, according to AAA.The high fuel costs are hitting residents hard, particularly gig workers for whom fuel makes up a large part of their daily costs.Giving money directly to taxpayers would provide relief and allow Newsom to avoid suspending the state’s gas tax as other states have done. California’s gas tax is the second-highest in the US at 51 cents a gallon, but Democratic leaders have been wary of pausing it as they fear oil companies would not pass the savings along to drivers.What are the criticisms?Republican lawmakers in the state have urged Newsom to suspend California’s gas tax in order to provide immediate relief to drivers. Newsom’s proposal will take time to deliver – the governor’s office has said people could see rebates by July.“People need relief now,” said James Gallagher, the assembly Republican leader. “We’ve got now, like, four different competing plans amongst the Democrats. These guys are going to negotiate against themselves for weeks to months and who knows what we’re going to get.”Meanwhile, Democrats have concerns about providing assistance to all Californians with registered vehicles, regardless of their income. Democratic leaders have been discussing their own proposal, which would give $200 rebates to every taxpayer and their children with taxable income less than $125,000 for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers.Rising fuel prices pose a policy challenge for Newsom as he tries to wean the state off fossil fuels. He has signed executive orders aimed at banning the sale of new gas-powered cars in the state by 2035 and halting all oil extraction by 2045.Laura Deehan with Environment California, a nonprofit that advocates for an end to fossil fuel use, was critical of Newsom’s effort, and said that giving people money for gas would encourage them to drive more. Instead, the governor should use the $9bn on programs aimed at getting people out of gas-guzzling cars, she said.“Just giving out these rebates to anyone who has a car in the state isn’t going to help us in the long run move away from the volatility that comes with our dependence on fossil fuels,” she said.What happens next?The state legislature, where Democrats dominate both the assembly and the senate, must approve the plan. Newsom’s office said the governor would be willing to negotiate with lawmakers about who can get the money, a process that could take time to sort out.A moderate Democrat who supported a separately proposed plan to give every taxpayer $400 has indicated they would back Newsom’s effort and urged the legislature and governor to act quickly.“The contours of the governor’s proposal are a little different than what we proposed, but I would be very happy to support this,” said Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democratic assembly member from Laguna Beach.What’s happening elsewhere in the US?With prices for fuel and other essentials soaring across the US, states are considering giving rebate checks directly to taxpayers as well as cutting sales taxes, offering property tax relief and reducing or suspending state gas taxes.The proposals come as many states have more funding than usual thanks to billions of dollars in federal pandemic aid and ballooning tax revenue.Janet Mills, Maine’s governor, wants to send $850 to most residents in the state to help with fuel costs and inflation. New Mexico’s governor recently signed off on a tax package that will give some taxpayers $250 checks, which lawmakers say will help with high gas prices.Maryland’s governor has signed a law temporarily suspending the state’s gas tax; Georgia has done the same while also offering $1.1bn in refunds to taxpayers. In Illinois, the governor has proposed halting a 2.2-cent increase in the motor fuel tax, suspending a 1% grocery sales tax for a year and providing a property tax rebate of up to $300.TopicsCaliforniaGasUS politicsexplainersReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      How the US ban on Russian oil risks splitting the west’s response

      by

      How the US ban on Russian oil risks splitting the west’s responseAnalysis: The lights will not be going out in America but the same cannot be said for the EU, given its energy dependence on Moscow

      Ukraine-Russia war – latest updates
      Joe Biden’s decision to ban imports of Russian oil increases the economic pressure on Vladimir Putin – but it is not without risk.On the face of it, the announcement from the White House looks like a bit of a free hit, given the fact that Russia accounts for just 7% of the oil imported by the world’s biggest economy. Three-fifths of Russia’s oil exports go to the EU, only 8% to the US.Even so, Biden is taking a gamble for three important reasons. The first is that a toughening up of sanctions has given another upward twist to oil prices. American motorists were already paying higher pump prices, even before the latest surge in the cost of Brent crude above $130 a barrel and, as the US president admitted, they will soon be paying even more.Oil prices are up by 70% since the start of the year and there is no sign of them coming down anytime soon. The Oslo-based consultancy Rystad Energy has predicted a complete ban on Russian oil and gas could send crude prices to $200 a barrel. The previous milestone was the $147-a-barrel peak reached in 2008.The second risk is that Biden’s action fractures the western coalition against Putin, which in the first two weeks of the conflict has been solid. While support from the UK (phased in by the end of the year) means the US is not going it alone with its ban, other European countries clearly have misgivings. That is hardly surprising, because the EU gets 40% of its gas and just over a quarter of its oil from Russia.European oil receipts boosting Putin’s war chest by $285m a day, study findsRead moreSo when Biden said the west remained united in its determination to keep the pressure on Russia, that is not strictly true. The EU, as the German chancellor, Olaf Scholz, made clear 24 hours before the US ban was announced, is worried about its energy security and has decided not to follow suit, for now at least. There is no risk of the lights going out in the US; the same could not be said of every country in Europe.This dependency on Russian energy creates a third risk, namely that Putin gets in his retaliation first by cutting off supplies. The EU has announced steps to reduce its dependency on Russian oil and gas, and the crisis could well have the effect of speeding up the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy, but in the short term the loss of such a big chunk of its energy supply would result in weaker growth and higher inflation.While high energy prices eventually prove self-correcting because they tend to lead to recessions, the damage they can cause is considerable. UK living standards are on course for their biggest one-year fall since modern records began in the mid-1950s, with the war in Ukraine putting at risk the post-pandemic recovery. All of which makes it important that sanctions work quickly. The longer the economic war, the higher the cost.TopicsOilGasCommoditiesUS politicsEuropean UnionEuropeRussiaanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      The Louisiana gas industry’s answer to lax safety enforcement? Loosen it more

      by

      When a natural gas pipeline fire south-west of New Orleans killed one worker and burned three others, the Louisiana state police ordered Phillips 66 to pay a $22,000 fine for failing to immediately report the incident. The fire burned for four days before first responders could put it out.But the company ultimately didn’t pay any police fine, ending up with just a warning.That story is common, according to public records reviewed by the Louisiana Illuminator and Floodlight with the Guardian. The Louisiana state police – which oversees pipeline safety – issued 34 fines and five warning letters in the past five years. A quarter of those penalties were reduced: three were lowered, five were replaced with warning letters and two were dismissed. The fines that did stick were low, between $2,250 and $8,000.Aside from the obvious potential harms to workers, gas leaks pose fire risks and can cause respiratory problems for people in nearby communities.Phillips 66 declined to comment for this story. The company was separately fined $20,000 over the incident by the department of natural resources.Despite the record of lax enforcement by the state police, gas companies in the state say they are being treated unfairly and have lobbied for legislation to loosen requirements around reporting pipeline leaks. Louisiana has more gas pipelines than any other state except Texas, and more gas pipeline projects are planned in the state to support the growing demand for US natural gas exports.The proposal, House Bill 549 from Louisiana’s Republican representative Danny McCormick, was approved by Louisiana lawmakers and has been sent to the Democratic governor John Bel Edwards’ desk. It is one of many efforts by the influential oil and gas industry to avoid regulation and keep its tax rates low in the state. If signed into law, it would absolve companies from reporting natural gas leaks of less than 1,000 pounds, unless they cause hospitalization or death.Gene Dunegan, the program manager for Louisiana state police’s emergency services unit, defended the department’s record on fines, saying it had reduced them when pipeline companies present reasonable explanations for failing to report them within an hour. While Louisiana law requires pipeline companies to “immediately” report leaks, it does not define a deadline for doing so. The state police ask companies to report incidents within an hour.“Our goal is not to collect monies, but to keep the violation from recurring,” Dunegan said. “Most [companies] are proactive and implement needed changes and training prior to hearing from us, others not so much.”The state police issued few tickets over the past five years – less than 10 a year on average. One pipeline company’s name appears on the list more than any other: Centerpoint Energy. The company was ticketed seven times over the past three years, totaling $38,750.Trey Hill, a lobbyist representing Centerpoint, helped push McCormick’s bill through the Louisiana legislature. Centerpoint contested a ticket for failing to notify state police of one natural gas release, but state police dismissed the fine before a judge could decide on the case, Hill said in a legislative meeting in April. Atmos Energy, which was fined by Louisiana state police twice in 2020, also supported McCormick’s bill.Louisiana was among the first states to make trespassing on pipelines a felony, which pipeline companies have used to target environmental protesters and journalists. A federal judge recently allowed a challenge to Louisiana’s anti-protest pipeline law to move forward.Pipeline incidents are already underreported, said Anne Rolfes, the director of Louisiana Bucket Brigade, an environmental organization that opposed the Bayou Bridge pipeline. “These accidents are overlooked, business as usual,” she said.In other states, the leaks are often overseen by energy regulators. In Oklahoma, for example, violations are enforced by the state’s Corporation Commission, but the highway patrol can also file charges against companies.In Louisiana, the department of natural resources’ pipeline division regulates only much larger gas leaks in intrastate pipelines that carry toxic or flammable products. “Our role is to conduct an investigation after the fact,” Steven Giambrone, the pipeline division director, said in the April committee hearing. “We’re not a first responder.”John Porter, the commander of the emergency services unit of the Louisiana state police, warned lawmakers that looser reporting thresholds could trigger public health concerns when smaller leaks happen in populated areas.“If we have a gas leak at a major intersection, 1,000 pounds would be an extreme amount with vehicles traveling by, with pedestrians traveling by,” he said. “And all we’re asking is for notification for us so we can get the proper emergency services people out there to protect the public.” More