Obama Scuttles Keystone Pipeline
President Obama has declined TransCanada's application to build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, arguing a looming deadline gave his administration insufficient time to weigh the project's effects. (image: blogspot.com)
President Barack Obama is under fire for scuttling plans for the controversial $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline as heating oil costs soar, foxbusiness.com reports.
The 1700-mile pipeline project would have carried 700,000 barrels of Canadian sands crude to Texas refineries each day. Proponents argued it would create thousands of jobs, reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil from unstable Middle Eastern countries and provide a secure and plentiful source of energy for US homes and businesses.
However opponents have protested against the potential environmental effects of a major pipeline spill on pristine natural environments across six states and the threat to millions of people’s drinking water.
In a decision released last week, President Obama rejected the TransCanada project application, a month out from a February 21 deadline for the federal government to make a final call whether the project was in the national interest.
“The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment,” President Obama said in a statement.
The announcement “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline” that prevented the fact-finding needed to approve the project.
However, TransCanada immediately indicated it would reapply in a bid to keep the project alive.
“While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL,” TransCanada CEO Russ Girling said in a statement. “Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project.”
TransCanada said it planned to reapply for a permit and expected processing of the new application to be expedited, paving the way for an in-service date of late 2014.
“Until this pipeline is constructed, the US will continue to import millions of barrels of conflict oil from the Middle East and Venezuela and other foreign countries who do not share democratic values Canadians and Americans are privileged to have,” Girling said.
Heating oil dealers have been campaigning for the pipeline to proceed. They and their customers are battling spiraling heating oil prices, largely on the back of volatile world crude markets and heavy international demand for distillate fuel.
New England Fuel Institute president Michael Trunzo said late last year he supported the pipeline as a means of securing reliable energy supply for heating oil customers in the Northeast and creating jobs for US workers.
Republicans seized on President Obama’s decision.
“By declaring that the Keystone pipeline is not in the ‘national interest,’ the President demonstrates a lack of seriousness about bringing down unemployment, restoring economic growth, and achieving energy independence,” GOP presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney said in a statement.
TransCanada and other supporters of Keystone have said the project would create tens of thousands of jobs and some have even forecasted as much as 100,000 jobs would be created.
“The job creation, economic and energy security arguments are overwhelmingly in favor of building it,” said US Sen. Dick Lugar, from Indiana. “The President opposing pipeline construction is not in the best interest of the United States.”
However, President Obama defended his record on energy policy and rejected allegations he was not concerned about the nation’s energy security.
The Keystone decision “does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security.”
Final Decision on Keystone Pipeline Delayed
President Obama has announced a delay in his administration's final decision on whether the controversial keystone pipeline can proceed. (image: makebiofuel.co.uk)
Heating oil dealers are frustrated at the Obama Administration’s decision to delay a final call on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline.
President Obama said last week a final call on whether TransCanada’s $7 billion, 1700-mile pipeline could proceed was on hold while an alternate route through Nebraska was found. The process could take at least a year with some experts predicting a final decision unlikely until 2013.
The New England Fuel Institute (NEFI) has expressed disappointment. In its weekly newsletter, the institute said there were allegations the delay was politically motivated to delay the controversial decision till after the 2012 Presidential elections.
The pipeline would carry 700,000 barrels of tar sands crude a day from Alberta, Canada to refinery hubs in Texas, crossing six US states.
Proponents, which include heating oil dealers, say it will deliver a secure supply of crude oil from a neighboring ally, create thousands of jobs and economic prosperity.
But opponents say it would generate more greenhouse gas emissions and could create an environmental calamity, with major spills threatening wildlife habitats, agricultural land and pristine drinking water aquifers.
Thousands of protestors circled the Whitehouse last week in a bid to persuade President Obama to reject the pipeline project on environmental grounds.
Obama promised to weigh environmental issues as with concerns for job creation and energy security, Edmonton.ctv.ca reported.
“We don’t want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted.”
The State Department Inspector General is now investigating allegations of a conflict of interest following reports in the New York Times that the firm hired to carry out the State Department’s environmental assessment had close links to the pipeline’s owners.
Additional concerns surround the pipeline’s proposed route, with Nebraskan Governor Dave Heineman advancing new legislation demanding the Keystone project be re-routed.
The project has now been under review for 39 months. A final decision had been earmarked for later this year. An earlier environmental assessment which found the pipeline posed no significant risks had given proponents hope it would get the green light.
The NEFI said it supported the pipeline as a means of securing reliable energy supply for heating oil customers in the Northeast and creating jobs for US workers.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg News reports that Enbridge, Inc is planning an alternative pipeline connecting Canada oil fields to Gulf Coast refineries. Though it would not need Obama administration approval, the NEFI understands it would fail to deliver oil shipments in line with the Keystone XL.
EPA Official Flags Environmental Concerns about Keystone Pipeline
The Keystone XL pipeline would carry 700,000 barrels of tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada to southern US refineries. The EPA has voiced environmental concerns about the proposed project. (image: ipolitics.ca)
The United States’ top environmental regulator has voiced concerns about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline and says her agency is about to issue its final statement, Reuters reports.
Speaking at Howard University last week, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency was about to complete an environmental impact statement on the $7 billion project.
The pipeline would carry 700,000 barrels of crude from the tar sands oil fields of Alberta, Canada across six US states to oil refinery hubs in Texas. The Obama Administration is set to make a final decision on whether the controversial project can go ahead by the end of the year.
The 1711-mile pipeline’s proponents say it would guarantee regular oil supplies from a stable ally, reducing our reliance on oil imports from volatile Middle Eastern countries, creating thousands of jobs and boosting economic development.
But opponents fear the environmental consequences of oil spills contaminating major aquifers that provide drinking water to millions of people, irrigation for huge swathes of US agriculture, and habitats to thousands of animals and plants.
There are also claims the pipeline would contribute to global warming as tar-like sands crude requires greater energy to extract and process than conventional oil, generating more greenhouse gas emissions.
Commenting on the pipeline last week, Jackson said she was concerned about additional greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands production; the possibility of leaks; and harmful emissions from refineries along the Gulf Coast.
“This isn’t a little tiny pipeline, this is a pipeline that cuts our country literally in half.”
The State Department has the power to decide whether TransCanada Corp’s pipeline can go forward because the project crosses the national border. The department issued its finaI environmental and safety assessment on the project in August. It found the pipeline would have “no significant” environmental impacts.
It also argued the pipeline was necessary because refineries in Texas - which account for half the nation’s refining capacity - faced declining supplies of heavy crude from Mexico and Venezuela.
Senior Obama administration officials have already made comments that suggest tacit support for the pipeline. Hundreds of protesters have been arrested outside the Whitehouse in recent months demonstrating their opposition to the proposed energy project.
Challenged about the pipeline by opponents last week in Denver, Obama said he was aware of people’s misgivings.
“We’re looking at it right now” Obama replied to an activist. “No decision’s been made and I know your deep concern about it, so we will address it.”
But heating oil dealers have thrown their support behind the project to secure reliable oil supplies to the US and help prevent volatility in the price of fuel oil.
Meanwhile, the deadline for a final decision on the pipeline could yet be pushed back. A US official told Reuters the goal of deciding by the end of the year could slip as the administration’s top focus is to conduct a thorough review.
Heating Oil Company Acquitted in Oil Spill Case
A heating oil company has been cleared of allegations its contractor overfilled a home heating oil tank and flooded a basement with 230 gallons of oil. (image: kulr8.com)
A Massachusetts heating oil company has been acquitted of negligence charges following a home heating oil spill in New Hampshire.
Haffner’s oil company was found not liable for hundreds of thousands of dollars in contamination to a Salem home, eagletribune.com reported. The property was damaged by an oil spill in 2007 when 230 gallons of home fuel oil spilled into a basement.
The property owners, Michael and Suzanne Demers, claimed the spill was caused by a Haffner’s contractor overfilling during a delivery. But the company claimed the spill was the result of a faulty tank and piping.
The Demers brought a lawsuit seeking $225,000 for damage to their property and another $160,000 in living expenses. But the negligence charges were thrown out after a week-long trial in Rockingham Superior Court last week.
Michael Demers said the verdict was an injustice. After the spill the home was so badly contaminated the family spent 28 months living in a hotel before moving into a 70-foot mobile home.
Mr Demers said he and his mother were out of money and the home still reeked of oil with extensive mold damage.
“Something went wrong and my mother is the victim here,” Demers said. “The only other alternative is my mother is going to have to file for bankruptcy.”
The state Department of Environmental Services ordered Haffner’s to pay for the post-spill cleanup. Haffner’s attorney said the company had spent about $400,000 on the work.
DES officials told the court the Demers could have safely returned home two years ago. However Mr Demers said excavation done to remove the contamination from beneath the house had cracked the foundations, making it unsafe.
Heating oil spills can lump homeowners with significant costs Depending on the severity and amount of contaminated earth that must be removed, remediation can cost in excess of $50,000.
Oil is considered a hazardous substance and spills must be cleaned up by licensed professionals according to strict environmental regulations. The oil can harm bird and aquatic life, contaminate waterways and pose a human health risk.
As oil tanks can corrode over time, it’s important to have old tanks regularly serviced to check for faults and watch out for signs of a leak. These can include rapidly falling oil levels, oil odours or dead plant life near your tank.
Homeowners face oil tank upgrade deadline
Heating oil customers could face a cold winter if oil dealers refuse delivery because homeowners have not complied with new rules designed to prevent spills. (image: heatingoil-newyork.com)
Heating oil dealers in Massachusetts are refusing to deliver to customers who fail to install proactive mechanisms to guard against leaks.
A state law requires homeowners to upgrade their fuel storage tanks by encasing buried fuel lines in plastic sleeves or installing a protective valve that shuts off oil flow if a leak develops, thesunchronicle.com reports.
The deadline for complying with the three-year-old law is September 30. But just days out from the deadline, many homeowners have ignored their responsibilities.
As a result, some heating oil dealers fear liability if their customers’ oil tanks or supply lines leak so are refusing to deliver until the environmental safety requirements are met.
“The law does not prevent oil deliveries from being made, but some companies are making business decisions against doing that if a customer has not complied,” Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Ed Coletta said.
New buildings have been required to meet the environmental compliance standards since 1990, but older systems were previously exempt. The new law was scheduled to go into effect last year but the deadline was pushed back to give thousands of customers more time to comply.
The law also makes property owners eligible to buy insurance against the cost of an environmental cleanup in the event of a leak.
Heating oil is considered a hazardous substance. If oil seeps into the earth it can potentially contaminate waterways, affect bird and aquatic life and pose a human health risk. Spills must be cleaned up by licensed professionals according to strict regulations. A homeowner can be liable for massive cleanup costs in excess of $50,000.
As the Massachusetts deadline nears, many oil companies are carrying out inspections of customers’ equipment then notifying homeowners who need to take action.
Those that refuse to install the required protective devices may face a cold winter if dealers decide to refuse delivery.
Coletta said it was impossible to know how many home and business owners were still in breach of the law. Some oil vendors were poring over customer lists and reminding those who still needed to upgrade their systems.
Mark Allen, owner of the heating oil supplier W.H. Riley, said he had been warning customers about the changes for years and the vast majority had complied with the law. But if customers refused to comply, W.H. Riley would consider whether to supply them with heating oil. Allen feared a costly leak could result in a lawsuit.
“Nobody wants to be part of a test case,” he said.
According to the DEP website, installation of protective measures cost from $150 to $350 – a far cry from the cost cleaning up an environmental spill.
New Campaign Targets Maine Heating Oil Tanks
A properly maintained heating oil tank is less likely to corrode and leak. (image; seattletimes.nwsource.com)
Homeowners who rely on heating oil during winter are being targeted by a new campaign promoting oil tank maintenance to help prevent costly spills, bangordaily.com reports.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is warning heating oil customers that deteriorating oil tanks can cause environmental damage, health risks and hit homeowners hard in the pocket.
A new television awareness campaign was launched this month. It features emergency spill responder Lee Thomas warning viewers to have their tank’s thickness tested annually by heating oil company technicians or replaced with a double bottom tank.
About three-quarters of Maine’s homes rely on fuel oil for home heating – making it the nation’s biggest heating oil-using state. Maine has about 400,000 residential heating oil tanks in use, according to the DEP.
And though heating oil is non-combustible and relatively clean-burning thanks to low-sulfur standards mandated in many US states, internal corrosion from water and sludge build-up is a leading cause of leaks.
Oil leaks can have serious environmental and health ramifications if it seeps into soil and contaminates water sources. As heating oil is considered a hazardous material, spills have to be cleaned up according to stringent environmental standards, often requiring the excavation of large areas of contaminated earth. A home heating oil spill can cost a homeowner upwards of $50,000 to fix.
It’s best to pick up problems early, before they become costly disasters. But corrosion tends to destroy a tank from the inside out, so the damage often goes unnoticed by the homeowners until a “catastrophic tank failure” occurs.
Maine’s DEP Division of Response Services responds to about one spill a day from residential tanks – adding up to $2 million to the state’s annual Groundwater Oil Clean-Up Fund costs.
“The purpose of this campaign is to bring people’s awareness to their tanks and what may be happening inside of them before it’s too late,” said DEP senior engineer David McCaskill. “By taking care of your tank, you’re protecting our environment, your family’s health and your pocketbook.”
Many oil dealers employ licensed technicians who can perform ultrasonic thickness tests on tanks to determine if they are deteriorating and if so, recommend a replacement before the tank fails.
Heating oil spills are also caused by external tank damage – usually from falling ice and snow snapping off filters – or from overfilling.
A licensed oil technician can help you prevent such problems by installing a filter protector and vent whistle, which sounds until a tank is full.
To see the television campaign or for more information, visit www.maine.gov/dep and click on “Residential Tank Safety”.
Flooding Triggers Heating Oil Tank Collapse
An unknown quantity of fuel oil spilled from seven large tanks when a heating oil company in Pennsylvania was hit by severe flooding. (image: republicanherald.com)
Severe flooding has caused another heating oil tank spill, this time in Pennsylvania.
Seven large tanks at Duke Heating Oil, Shamokin, collapsed overnight on Thursday, apparently after rising floodwaters washed out their foundation, republicanherald.com reported.
Neighbors are complaining of an oil smell in the area following the rupture, but it is not know how much oil may have leaked from the tanks. Duke Heating Oil filed for bankruptcy earlier this year after failing to deliver to customers receiving federal fuel aid assistance and missing pre-paid oil contract deliveries. The company is not believed to have been operating last week.
The spill comes just weeks after thousands of gallons of oil leaked into the Ramapo River from New Jersey heating oil company SOS XTreme Comfort. The company was inundated with raging floodwaters when a dam breached upriver in Arden, New York State during Hurricane Irene. Environmental protection officials were testing water supplies for possible contamination.
Josh Lenker, 35, who lives a few hundred yards away from the Duke Heating Oil site in Northumberland County, said he heard “something like metal screeching or scraping” about 3am Thursday. The next morning he and son Owen went to survey damage after the flooding.
I was mainly looking at the water; all of a sudden, that’s when I realized I smelled oil and I looked over and all the tanks were on their side.
The tanks were partly submerged in the flooded Shamokin Creek after it overflowed following four days of heavy rain, which triggered widespread flooding in Northumberland County. Though there was no obvious accumulation of oil, Lenker said the oil smell was “pretty strong” near the Duke property, and could also be detected at his home.
Heating oil is considered a hazardous substance and spills have to be cleaned up by Hazmat officials according to strict environmental regulations.
Obama Administration Offers Tacit Support for Keystone Pipeline
As debate over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline rages, US energy secretary Steven Chu says the US would be better off relying on Canadian tar sands crude than oil sourced from the volatile Middle East. (image: agreenliving.org)
Comments by US Energy Secretary Steven Chu appear to suggest the Obama administration is on-track to grant approval for the controversial Keystone XL pipeline – despite growing opposition.
In an interview with energyNOW!, Chu argues that when it comes to importing oil from foreign countries, Canada is a better option for the US than alternatives in the Middle East and elsewhere, blog.chron.com reported.
“Having Canada as a supplier for our oil is much more comforting than having other countries supply our oil,” Chu said.
But just last week, Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman asked the federal government to deny TransCanada’s pipeline application, wsj.com reported. In a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Heineman expressed concern at the project, warning it could damage the state’s Ogallala Aquifer.
“I am concerned that the proposed pipeline will potentially have detrimental effects on this valuable natural resource and Nebraska’s economy,” Gov. Heineman wrote.
The $7 billion 1700-mile pipeline would pump 700,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada to refineries and production hubs in Texas and Oklahoma. The project has sparked fierce opposition from environmentalists who fear disastrous consequences to water supplies in the event of a major spill and argue production of the tar crude is accelerating climate change.
Proponents argue the pipeline will guarantee a plentiful supply of crude oil from a neighboring ally while creating jobs and wealth.
The US State Department issued its final environmental impact and safety assessment on the proposal last week. It found the pipeline posed no significant environmental threat and was necessary to feed US refineries as oil supplies from Mexico and Venezuela waned.
From a heating oil perspective, a plentiful supply of crude from Canada would help bolster global oil supplies and counter geopolitical turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East, possibly easing price volatility.
The government is required to make a final decision on whether the 36-inch Keystone pipeline is in the national interest later this year. But Chu’s comments are making some environmentalists nervous, as they see his words as a tacit endorsement for the project and latest signal that an approval is likely.
Chu’s remarks, delivered at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas, dovetail with arguments advanced by Keystone XL proponents. TransCanada’s vice president for Keystone, Robert Jones has said the Obama administration must decide whether the US wants “to import oil from Canada or get conflict oil from OPEC nations.”
And Hillary Clinton stressed last year that as long as the US is reliant on oil to fuel its energy needs, “we’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada.”
In response to environmental arguments, Chu said: “The technologies that are used to extract tar sands oil are improving dramatically. The companies that are extracting these tar sands are making great strides in improving the environmental impact of the extraction of this oil and will continue to do so.”
But the energy secretary acknowledged that the final decision would not satisfy everyone. Ultimately the US needed to diversify its energy supply and wean cars and trucks off oil.
“Right now, our transportation needs come almost exclusively from oil,” Chu noted, but that could change with continued research and investments in electric vehicles, biofuels and energy efficiency.
Keystone Pipeline Necessary to Supply US Refineries
Hundreds of protestors campaigning against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline were arrested this week outside the White House. The pipeline would carry more than 500,000 barrels of tar sands crude from Alberta Canada to US refineries each day. (image: upi.com)
The US State Department has issued its final environmental impact and safety assessment on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Reuters reported.
It says the $7 billion proposed project, which would pump 500,000 barrels a day of tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada to refineries and production hubs in Texas and Oklahoma, would have “no significant impact” on the environment.
Proponents of the ambitious 1711-mile pipeline say it would help guarantee US oil supplies from a neighboring ally, reducing our reliance on oil imports from volatile Middle Eastern countries. It would also create thousands of jobs and boost economic development and wealth.
However critics argue the pipeline is a potential environmental calamity. They fear oil spills contaminating major aquifers that provide drinking water to millions of people in eight states, irrigation for huge swathes of US agriculture, and habitats to thousands of animals and plants.
There are also claims the pipeline would contribute to global warming as tar-like sands crude requires greater energy to extract and process than conventional oil, generating more greenhouse gas emissions in the process.
However, the State Department report, released Friday, says the pipeline would not significantly threaten water in the Great Plains or have serious impacts on climate change, miamiherald.com reported.
Officials predict the pipeline would suffer nearly two oil spills each year in excess of 2100 gallons. The existing Keystone pipeline, which began operating in June 2010, has experienced 14 spills so far.
However no spill would hurt the entire Northern High Plains Aquifer System, nor would the pipeline cross any “sole-source aquifers, or aquifers serving as the principal source of drinking water,” the report said.
Furthermore, the environmental assessment argues the pipeline is necessary because refineries in Texas - which account for half the nation’s refining capacity - have declining supplies of heavy crude from Mexico and Venezuela.
Fourteen alternative pipeline routes were considered but ruled out because of cost, technical problems or environmental risks.
Though the report is not the final go-ahead, it will lend weight to pipeline proponents in the Obama administration, who have argued that Canada will continue to exploit Alberta’s oil sands whether or not the Keystone pipeline goes ahead.
“The sense we have is that this oil sands is going to be developed and therefore there’s not going to be any dramatic change in greenhouse gas if the pipeline was to go forward or without the pipeline,” Kerri-Ann Jones, the assistant secretary of state for oceans and international environmental and scientific affairs, said in a briefing.
Keystone, according to the report, must take steps to prevent damage from geologic hazards, erosion of soil, contamination of water bodies and soil, destruction of wildlife and fisheries, loss of endangered plants and animals and noise pollution.
But pipeline critics remain unconvinced. Hundreds have been arrested in peaceful protests against the project outside the White House last week.
“The US State Department’s final report on the Keystone XL is an insult to anyone who expects government to work for the interests of the American people,” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said.
The Obama administration must make a final decision on the pipeline by November.
Hurricane Causes New Jersey Heating Oil Spill
A burst dam in New York State sent a wall of water slamming into a riverside heating oil company, damaging tankers and causing a spill of several thousand gallons. (image: John Moore/Getty Images via propublica.org)
New Jersey officials are testing water supplies for possible contamination after a heating oil company was inundated with flood waters during Hurricane Irene, northjersey.com reported.
Heating oil flowed into the Ramapo River when several oil tankers at Tuxedo’s SOS XTreme Comfort were damaged after a dam breached upriver in Arden, New York State.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Larry Hajna said Tuesday that between 3000 and 5000 gallons are thought to have leaked after the riverside facility was severely damaged at the weekend.
Hazmat officials were at the site this week directing the clean-up. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation is conducting an official spill assessment.
Though Oakland Mayor John Szabo said it was unlikely the city’s wells had been infiltrated, officials had begun monitoring the water system and would retest it next week.
“We haven’t had a chance to assess the broader impact” to wildlife, he said. “The flooding itself is catastrophic enough and this just makes it worse.”
Mahwah residents were asked to conserve water and the borough shut down six wells as a precaution. River-goers have complained of strong fumes with reports of dead fish and oil coated animals washing up along its banks, Mahwah police chief James Batelli said.
“Where the river recedes, it’s leaving pools of standing water that we are getting reports of sheen and an odor,” he said.
Fuel company owner Jeffrey Spiegel issued an apology to residents downriver but said the 30,000-gallon facility was storing only a small amount of oil at the time of the spill, northjersey.com reported.
Tankers used to transport diesel and home heating oil were swept up by the weekend current, which sent an “eight foot wall of water down the river,” he said. One truck slammed into a pipe connected to a 250,000-gallon storage tank.
The company was still trying to determine the size of the spill. It had operated the Tuxedo facility since 1976 and had never experienced such extensive flooding.
Spiegel said the company “did what we thought was sufficient based on the water level we’ve seen in five or six previous floods over the last 30 years.”
It would have been nice if we could have forecast the dam breaking, but if it was not for the dam break, those trucks would be fine.
Sierra Club spokesman Jeff Tittel said the spill highlighted the need for regulations prohibiting gas stations and hazardous material storage facilities in environmentally susceptible areas.
Maine Oil Company Fined by EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency's headquarters are pictured in Washington DC. A Maine heating oil dealer has been fined $50,000 by the EPA for inadequate oil spill protection plans. (image: popularmechanics.com)
A Maine heating oil company accused of violating federal regulation designed to prevent oil spills contaminating waterways has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the case, kjonline.com reported.
Fabian Oil Inc. sells heating oil, gasoline and other petroleum products from several facilities in Maine. It was founded in 1988 and also has locations in Jay, Augusta and Thomaston,
In a release this week, the US Environmental Protection Agency accused Fabian of having inadequate spill prevention plans. The company had violated the Clean Water Act and federal regulations designed to prevent water contamination in the event of oil spills.
The EPA alleged Fabian failed to maintain and fully implement Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans at three of its facilities. The regulations are designed to help ensure that heating oil tank failures or accidental spills from oil storing facilities don’t lead to oil contamination of rivers or streams, which can cause serious harm to human health and ecological life
The company implemented revised SPCC plans after EPA officials carried out inspections in 2009 and 2010. The work included installing concrete pads to contain potential spills from tank truck loading areas, updating spill control equipment, and performing oil tank integrity testing.
Prior to the work being carried out, Fabian’s three facilities were not fully prepared to deal with oil spills or prevent spills having potentially serious environmental consequences, the EPA said. The agency acknowledged there had been no oil spills at Fabian properties.
The regulations apply to facilities with above-ground oil storage capacity of more than 1320 gallons. Fabian’s three violating facilities had storage capacities of 30,000 to 60,000 gallons.
“Because oil spills can do significant damage to the environment, it’s very important that facilities handling and storing oil do everything possible to minimize the risk of oil spills,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “It’s much easier and less expensive to prevent pollution before it occurs.”
The EPA said that Fabian agreed to pay $50,000 in a settlement.
Apart from posing serious environmental and health risks, home heating oil spills can cost homeowners upwards of $50,000 to remedy. The oil is considered a hazardous material and must be cleaned up by licensed professionals according to strict regulations.
Most below-ground heating oil tanks hold up to 1000 gallons and are usually made from steel, which can corrode after years of use. Homeowners should carry out regular maintenance after the first 15 years of use and check for signs of deterioration to avoid spills.
Oil Pipeline Projects
Oil pipelines carry millions of barrels of oil from production hubs to dozens of US refineries. Though crucial to the country's energy needs, they have sparked huge opposition because of potential environmental hazards. (image: voyagesphotosmanu.com)
A glut in oil reserves stored at the Cushing Oklahoma delivery depot has been blamed for the growing price “spread” between the US and European benchmark crudes.
The massive stockpiles have helped push the price of US benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude down against Europe’s benchmark Brent crude. The spread between the two contracts hit a record of more than $23 last month but has since eased back.
To help ease the growing oil glut at Cushing, oil companies have released a string of pipeline plans aimed at moving the stored reserves to the US refining hub on the Gulf of Mexico. Some are completed, others are underway, and some are still proposals. Many face stiff opposition because of environmental opposition following a series of ruptures and spills.
Reuters has compiled the following list oil pipeline projects in the Gulf and midcontinent regions:
ENTERPRISE - ENERGY TRANSFER
Planned:
The two companies plan a joint venture to build a 400,000 barrel-per-day, 584-mile (940km) pipeline to ship crude from Cushing to Houston. It would be completed by the end of 2012.
TRANSCANADA CORP
Completed:
Keystone Pipeline - The Keystone line carries 590,000 bpd of Canadian oil from Alberta, to Illinois, and to the storage hub at Cushing.
Proposed:
Keystone XL - The Keystone XL project will run 2673 km (1661 miles) from Alberta to Port Arthur, Texas, and carry 500,000 bpd, with the additional pipe boosting the capacity of the entire system to 1.1 million bpd.
The Keystone XL project is scheduled to be completed by 2013. However, it has yet to receive final approvals from the U.S. government and faces huge opposition lawmakers and environmentalists, who fear the impact of increased Canadian oil sands development on air, land, water and local communities.
The combined Keystone projects would cost an estimated $13 billion.
Bakken Marketlink - The $140 million project will carry up to 100,000 bpd of oil from Baker, Montana, in the northern US portion of the Bakken field and connect with the Keystone XL line to carry it to Cushing.
ENBRIDGE INC
Completed:
Alberta Clipper Pipeline - Opened in April 2010, carrying 450,000 bpd. The $3.3 billion project runs 1600km (1000 miles) from Hardisty to Superior, Wisconsin, and forms part of the company’s 2 million bpd mainline system, which handles the bulk of Canada’s crude oil exports to the US.
The line can be expanded to handle as much as 800,000 bpd.
Proposed:
Bakken Expansion - The $560 million project would ship 145,000 bpd from producers in Saskatchewan and North Dakota’s Bakken field. The expansion, to be completed by late 2012, will take oil from the region to a connection with Enbridge’s mainline system at Manitoba.
Monarch Pipeline - The system’s first leg would carry up to 300,000 bpd from Flanagan, Illinois, to Cushing. The second leg would deliver up to 350,000 bpd from Cushing to the refining hub near Houston. It could be complete by late 2013.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE LP
Proposed:
Mid-Continent Expansion Project - The $25 million project will add up to 38,000 bpd from the Cleveland Sand, Granite Wash and Colony Wash regions on the company’s Kansas and Oklahoma pipeline systems.
It is scheduled to be complete later this year.
Bakken North Project - The $200 million project would build a new 12-inch pipeline 162km (100 miles) from Trenton, North Dakota, to the southern terminus of the Wascana pipeline on the Saskatchewan-Montana border. The project is slated for completion in late 2012.
Basin Pipeline Expansion - The project would expand Plains’ Basin line to handle 450,000 bpd from 400,000. The system moves crude from West Texas and southern New Mexico to Cushing.
Work is expected to be completed early next year.
MAGELLAN MIDSTREAM PARTNERS
Proposed:
Magellan plans to reverse the flow of its Texan Longhorn pipeline, which currently carries refined products from Houston to El Paso.
The proposal would move 225,000 bpd of crude to Houston, and is expected to cost $275 million.
Keystone Pipeline a Step Closer to Fruition
The proposed Keystone pipeline would pump nearly a million barrels of crude each day from the Alberta tar oil sands to US markets. (image: buffalopost.net)
The controversial Keystone XL pipeline may be a step closer to reality after the passage of legislation requiring a decision on the project by November, usnews.com has reported.
The pipeline would stretch about 1700 miles from Alberta, Canada to Houston, Texas, transporting an additional 830,000 daily barrels of oil to US markets. The proposal was first lodged in 2008 but has been delayed while federal regulators weigh huge opposition to the project.
Proponents say the pipeline would boost US oil supply and reduce the need to import oil from hostile foreign countries. Canada is already the biggest supplier of crude to US markets, as well as an ally. The pipeline would also generate 20,000 jobs during construction and countless other related jobs once it was built, foxnews.com reported.
“The US oil and natural gas industry right now supports 9.2 million jobs throughout the economy,” said Marty Durbin, vice president of the American Petroleum Industry. “Through full utilization of Canada’s oil sands, we can actually create 340,000 US jobs between 2011 and 2015.”
However, opponents fear oil spills from the pipeline could contaminate drinking water and irreparably damage delicate ecosystems. There are also fears about increased greenhouse gas emissions. The pipeline would carry crude from Canada’s bountiful tar oil sand deposits, but environmentalists argues production of this “dirty” oil generates much more emissions than standard crude.
“The pipeline would pump some of the dirtiest oil on earth down from Alberta, Canada and put our farms at risk of oil spills, and it will increase pollution in communities surrounding refineries,” said Alex Moore of Friends of the Earth.
“It has much higher levels of heavy metals like lead, and when it’s refined those metals end up in the air – and that means more kids with asthma, and it means more elderly people with respiratory diseases.”
The pipeline would be built by foreign-owned company TransCanada and requires sign-off by the US State Department. Many believe the Obama administration views the project favourably.
The State Department recently said the Keystone-XL project would pose only “limited adverse environmental impacts” and that an additional period of public comment on the project had turned up “no new issues of substance.”
The House of Representatives last week passed legislation requiring the Obama administration to reach a decision on the Keystone pipeline by November 1 of this year – an indication that federal regulators have had long enough to consider the project.
The pipeline could have direct ramifications for the price of heating oil, as fuel oil prices are directly linked to factors relating to crude oil supply. The New England Fuel Institute, which represents hundreds of heating oil dealers, last week welcomed the bill’s passage, “which would expedite the long-delayed Keystone XL pipeline.”
Yellowstone Pipeline Spill Worse Than Initially Feared
About 1200 barrels of crude are thought to have spilled into Montana's Yellowstone River when a pipeline ruptured in severe flooding. (image: timesonline.com)
Officials now believe the amount of oil that spilled from an Exxon Mobile pipeline into Montana’s Yellowstone River is well above previous estimates, greatfallstribune.com reported.
About 750 people are now involved in the cleanup operation but more may need to be brought in. The oil company initially estimated that up to 1000 barrels of oil had spilled from the 12-inch pipeline, which runs from Silvertip to a refinery in Billings. The facility processes crude oil from Wyoming and Alberta, Canada into gasoline and ultralow-sulfur diesel, according to the Exxon’s Web site.
But officials now say up to 1200 barrels of oil may have been released, the equivalent of more than 50,000 gallons, which is 20 percent worse than earlier estimates.
Severe flooding is thought to have caused the pipeline to rupture. Built in 1991, it met all regulatory requirements and was last inspected in December.
Federal authorities have ordered ExxonMobil to make safety improvements to the ruptured pipeline.
The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued a corrective action order requiring ExxonMobil to re-bury the pipeline underneath the Yellowstone River bed to protect it from external damage. The oil company will also have to conduct a risk assessment on the pipeline where it crosses any waterway.
“The safety of our nation’s pipelines is a priority and the investigation into this incident is ongoing,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement.
“It is our responsibility to ensure pipelines are safely delivering energy to U.S. households and businesses, and when companies are not living up to our safety standards, we will take action. We will continue to work with the EPA, while ensuring that those responsible are held accountable.”
As the flood waters have receded, new contamination has been found. Water levels on the Yellowstone have dropped six feet since the July 1 accident. Hundreds of logjams and debris piles, many coated in a layer of drying crude, now litter its banks and islands.
State officials and Environmental Protection Agency officials have rejected the idea of burning the piles. On Friday they said the debris will have to be torn apart, run through wood-chippers and hauled away to landfills.
EPA on-scene coordinator Craig Myers said the work will take more people than the 750 ExxonMobil now has in Montana for the spill, which environmental officials want cleaned up by September 9.
“They’re planning on ramping that up in short order,” Myers said as he toured an area along the river where dozens of cleanup workers were cutting down oil-fouled trees and plants.
ExxonMobil spokeswoman Claire Hassett said: “We intend to bring in the resources we need to ensure the cleanup is conducted efficiently and thoroughly.”
The investigation into why the pipeline broke could take months to complete.
Phase-Out of Dirty Heating Oils Hits Poor Residents Hardest
Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer has released a report showing two-thirds of New York City boilers that burn the dirtiest grades of heating oil are in rent-regulated buildings. (image: DNAinfo.com)
Moves to phase out the dirtiest heating oils in New York could face dangerous setbacks because of low-income tenants’ inability to pay for new oil burners, the New York Times reported.
About 10,000 New York City buildings burn the dirtiest forms of oil. A new report warns that most of those buildings are rent-controlled and house lower-income residents. Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer says many of these residents cannot afford the new oil burners required to switch from dirty-burning number four and six heating oils to cleaner grade-two oil or natural gas.
“What you end up having is a population of working people who have to stay in these buildings where these toxins are emitted for generations,” DNAinfo.com reported.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced in April the city would phase out the most polluting oils by 2030. The dirty oils comprise the refinery process’s soot-laden remains and produce dangerous black smoke containing particulates and sulfur dioxide. The move to low-sulfur, number two heating oil – which is commonly used in most homes – is predicted to save hundreds of lives each year. But the changeover requires the installation of new burner systems costing anywhere from $10,000 up to $125,000.
The city has created a new nonprofit corporation, the New York City Energy Efficiency Corporation, offering loans to building owners to help convert boilers to handle the cleaner fuels. But the Tenants and Toxins report, released this month by Stringer’s office, shows 63 percent of boilers that burn the dirtiest oils are in buildings with rent-regulated housing, whose residents are often unable to shoulder the additional costs of expensive capital improvements.
Stringer says lower-income tenants shouldn’t be forced to pay for the upgrades. He wants more public funds made available to ensure the city meets the 2030 deadline and protects vulnerable citizens.
“We need to create cheap capital. The buildings are in many of the communities that have serious environmental issues.”
The report recommends using proceeds of a multi-state cap-and-trade program, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and giving rent-regulated buildings priority in any financial aid. But the city’s Department of Environmental Protection says the additional costs on building owners and tenants have already been reduced substantially through the scheme’s two-step implementation.
“As most boilers will need to be replaced anyway by 2030 at the end of their useful life-cycle, our policy simply requires that they be replaced with new boilers that burn cleaner fuel instead of the types that contribute more pollution to the air we breathe,” department spokesman Farrell Sklerov said.
New Biofuel Heating Oil Requirements Signed Off in Vermont
Biodiesel is a sustainable fuel made from natural products that can be blended with heating oil to burn cleaner and more efficiently than regular heating oil, saving consumers money. (image: biodieselkitsguide.com)
Vermont has signed off new regulations requiring heating oil to contain biodiesel to reduce emissions and make the state’s energy policies more sustainable.
The new rules follow moves in New York City to phase out dirty-burning number six heating oil by 2015 and number four oil by 2030 to reduce air pollution and improve residents’ health.
Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed the Vermont Energy Act of 2011 this week, biodieselmagazine.com reported Thursday. The broad-based energy policy establishes low sulfur and biodiesel requirements for all heating oil sold in Vermont. It is timed to match implementation of similar legislation in surrounding states.
“This bill speaks to the North East region’s continued commitment to using renewable, cleaner-burning fuels to heat their homes and businesses,” said Shelby Neal, state governmental affairs director for the National Biodiesel Board.”
“The Vermont policy builds on the strong partnership created between the home heating oil industry and the biodiesel industry to provide a more sustainable, cleaner energy solution through Bioheat.”
The new legislation requires all heating oil sold in the state to contain a 3 percent biodiesel blend (B3) from July 2012. This will increase to 7 percent (B7) by 2016. Vermont becomes the nation’s ninth state to pass sweeping biodiesel requirements.
Biodiesel is an advanced biofuel made from readily available, renewable resources. Biodiesel blends in home heating oil, a product called Bioheat, reduce particulate emissions, unburned hydrocarbons, and soot, which combine to greatly improve air quality in and around the home, biodieselmagazine.com reported.
Cleaner-burning fuel also prolongs the life of a homeowner’s oil furnace, making it more efficient and requiring less maintenance – meaning greater cost savings in the longer term.
Renewable Energy Vermont secretary Netaka White congratulated the state legislature on backing the new energy rules.
We got it done in Vermont; now it’s up to the Congress to make sure every gallon of heating oil in the country contains ultra-low sulfur and clean, renewable biodiesel.
Earlier this year, President Barack Obama outlined his vision for the country’s energy future, which included strong support for biofuels as a key energy source over the next decade and cutting oil imports by a third by 2025.
Heating oil dealers and customers stand to benefit if quality biofuels are widely produced and readily available at lower cost. But there are still questions around distribution networks that would need to be established for biofuel products to become a viable alternative fuel.
NYC Clean Heating Oil Mandate Will Apply to City Owned Buildings
The black dregs of the refining process are what give no. 6 (left) and no. 4 heating oils their black color and dirty emissions. No. 2 heating oil's (right) cleaner makeup is obvious in its near-transparent appearance (the reddish tint comes from a dye added after the refining process). (image: ny1.com)
In January, the New York City government proposed new laws to phase out the use of no. 4 and no. 6 heating oils to help clean up the city’s air. On Monday, the 30-day comment period on the rules expired and the city moved forward with implementing the heating oil mandate, set to take effect in the next few months. NY 1 reported on Monday that the rules are on track for implementation and that they will apply to city owned buildings such as public schools as well as to privately owned properties.
The proposed rules seek to phase out no. 4 and no. 6 heating oils, high-sulfur petroleum fuels known as “residual fuels,” by requiring building owners to switch to progressively cleaner fuels between now and 2030. The first phase involves users of the dirtiest residual fuel, no. 6 oil, switching over to the slightly cleaner no. 4 oil. Ultimately, every New York City building will have to burn the cleanest heating oil, no. 2 oil (the same oil most suburban and rural heating oil customers use), or natural gas for heating. In addition to high sulfur content, residual fuels contain soot that creates particulate emissions that are extremely hazardous to respiratory health, especially for people with existing lung conditions like asthma. No. 4 and no. 6 heating oils emit up to 15 times more particulate emissions than no. 2 heating oil.
Some building owners who use nos. 4 or 6 heating oil complain that upgrading their burners and boilers to burn cleaner fuel is an excessive expense. NYC’s Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner told NY 1 that city-owned buildings that burn residual fuels, 455 in all, will have to abide by the proposed regulations. Throughout the city, around 9,000 buildings total currently burn no. 4 or no. 6 heating oil.
This latest report confirms that while the cost to the city and private building owners to comply with the new rules will be substantial, the health benefits to New Yorkers will be great.
NYC Introduces Rules to Phase out No. 4 and No. 6 Heating Oil
The unsightly and unhealthy emissions produced by buildings in New York City that burn no. 4 and no. 6 heating oils would be cut significantly under recently-proposed policies. (image: pollutionfree.wordpress.com)
In July, Mayor Bloomberg signed into law new mandates governing the sulfur and biofuel content of heating oil burned in New York City. The regulations, which will take effect in October of 2012, cap the sulfur content of any heating oil used in the city at 1,500 parts per million and require a minimal biodiesel content of 2 percent. The rules targeted no. 4 and no. 6 heating oils, the dregs of the refining process known as “residual fuels,” in an attempt to reduce their emissions, which are harmful to human health and the environment.
The New York Times’ Green blog reported on Friday that the new regulations serve the same overall goal of reducing heating fuel emissions, but by phasing out no. 4 and no. 6 heating oils altogether. The rules, which are now subject to a 30-day public comment period, would require all heating systems using no. 6 (the dirtiest of the three types of heating oil) to switch to the slightly cleaner no. 4 or an equivalently clean-burning fuel. All new boiler installations in the large commercial and residential buildings that burn residual fuels would be required to run on low-sulfur no. 2 fuel oil, the cleanest type that is used by most residential buildings—effectively phasing out no. 4 oil over a longer period as buildings upgrade their heating systems.
The proposed laws, in conjunction with existing city statutes and state laws enacted last year, are expected to significantly reduce particulate emissions in New York City: “City officials estimate that the regulations will reduce the amount of fine particles emitted from heating buildings by at least 63 percent.”
Oscar-Nominated Gasland Makes Aggressive Case Against Hydraulic Fracturing
Gasland was released to the public in early 2010. (image: awardsdaily.com)
A natural gas industry representative testifies in a congressional subcommittee hearing in the opening scene of Gasland that North America sits on a “virtual ocean of natural gas.” The particulars, or more specifically the risks, of how industry will extract that gas are the subject of the film by Josh Fox that on Tuesday received a 2010 Academy Award nomination in the Documentary category.
Fox is the director and producer of the film, but also its first subject. As he explains, the idea for the project was born of an offer he received from a natural gas drilling company to lease his family’s property in rural Pennsylvania’s Delaware River Basin for drilling, offering $4,750 an acre for a total of over $100,000. The offer prompts Fox to launch his own investigation into the recent rush to tap huge natural gas reserves in the Northeast and around the country, and document his findings.
To be sure, his findings on natural gas drilling (at least those presented in the film) are entirely negative. Fox takes along his camera as he visits families in rural Pennsylvania, Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, and Louisiana who allowed gas drilling on their properties and later found their water wells to be contaminated by natural gas and other harmful chemicals. In some cases, the contamination is so bad that affected residents can light the water from their kitchen tap on fire–certainly the film’s most unforgettable image. The central issue in these contaminations and the focus of the film is the drilling method known as hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, which involves blasting millions of gallons of water and chemicals deep underground to free natural gas trapped in rock. The opinion of all of the leasing landowners that appear in the film, and of Fox himself, is that hydrofracking is directly responsible for the contamination of their water and, in some cases, serious health problems. This opinion is the main point of contention over hydrofracking that is covered in the film and being fiercely debated today across the country. Landowners who have experienced contamination and environmentalists vehemently argue that unchecked fracking can lead and has led to tainted water, which the gas industry strongly denies, citing a lack of hard evidence linking fracking to contamination. It should be noted that if Fox encountered any landowners who signed drilling leases and did not experience any problems with their water or air quality, he did not include them in the film’s final cut.
Gasland primarily consists of an in-depth exploration of the anti-fracking side of the debate, supplementing conversations with sick and frustrated landowners with results of water tests and comments from scientists that point to a strong connection between hydrofracking and groundwater contamination. The one-sided narrative is a product of both Fox’s own opinion and the absence of any interviews with drilling industry representatives, who consistently stonewall Fox’s requests for comment, as the director illustrates by including a seemingly endless loop of rejections, referrals, and automated messages from gas companies. Perhaps taking some lessons from the films of liberal firebrand and documentarian Michael Moore, the gas companies now apparently know better than to appear on camera for an independent documentary.
Though Fox’s direction in Gasland is clearly subjective, it never goes as far as Moore’s now-familiar scolding, hyperbole, and name-calling. Early on in the film, Fox takes up the position of everyman, maintaining in his narration and conversations with his subjects that he is simply a regular guy with a camera whose interest in hydrofracking and its effects were sparked by potential drilling in his back yard. Fox’s voice, heard for most of the film in voiceover, is a low, even sound that borders on monotone and conveys little emotion. Much of the video footage in the film is shot in an amateurish style with grainy picture quality and shaky framing, leaving the distinct impression that Fox shot much of the movie on his own with no outside help. Through the film, Fox also presents himself as a lover of nature, and strategically places beautiful shots of American landscapes (with an emphasis on streams and rivers) to remind viewers what is at stake in the hydrofracking debate. Fox rounds out his “normal guy” image with a banjo, that deeply American instrument that conveys bone fide folksiness in a way few other objects can. He introduces the banjo with black-and-white footage of folk hero Pete Seeger strumming away as he sings “This Land is Your Land” as he describes Seeger as a leader of a 1972 effort to remind New York City residents to care for the Upper Hudson Valley (now a potential gas drilling site), as it is the source of all the city’s drinking water. Fox’s banjo also figures prominently in the image that defines the film, a photo of Fox picking at the instrument while wearing a baseball cap and bulky respirator on a Wyoming gas field with two drilling rigs in the background.
While Gasland doesn’t exactly produce the smoking gun that would swing the balance of power away from gas companies in the hydrofracking debate, it certainly makes a strong case for closer scrutiny and increased government oversight of the practice. Perhaps the most unsettling fact relayed in the film is the exemption of oil and gas companies from regulation by the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other environmental laws under the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This so-called “Halliburton loophole” (Halliburton was the corporation that pioneered new fracking techniques now being used by several American companies) makes it difficult for government agencies or anyone else to uncover exactly which chemicals are used in fracking operations and therefore even harder to make conclusive connections between hydrofracking and well water tainted by chemicals. Perhaps most disturbing, the exemption carves a large hole in the gas industry’s argument that hydrofracking has never contaminated water supplies—if that were true, why would the exemption from environmental laws protecting drinking water be necessary? At a Congressional subcommittee hearing that closes the film, Congresswoman Diane Degette (D-CO) puts this question to an industry representative, who takes pains not to give a direct answer. That denial, coupled with accounts from landowners with tainted water of gas company employees and hired researchers who had said their water was safe refusing to drink the water in question, constitute the sharpest indictment of the gas drilling industry presented by the film.
Because of its strong anti-fracking point of view, Gasland has come under fire from the gas industry and hydrofracking proponents for being misleading and unfair. Whether or not those criticisms are warranted is of course a matter of opinion, but there is no doubt that the film, through its long television run on HBO, its availability for DVD rental, and its recent Oscar nomination, has already succeeded in alerting millions of previous oblivious Americans to the controversy over hydrofracking. It’s also safe to assume that Gasland played a major role in a surge of hydrofracking opposition that brought about the ratification of a one-year ban on the most invasive form of fracking in New York State in December.
Despite the loads of heart-wrenching bad news presented in Gasland, the film ends on a somewhat optimistic note, hinting that, although damage has already been done by hydrofracking, informed citizens (specifically those who have just watched the film) have the power to stop irresponsible drilling practices and end the threat they pose to pristine natural environments and sources of drinking water across America.
For more information on the film, visit the Gasland website.
For more information on hydraulic fracturing, check out the HeatingOil.com archives.
Halliburton Will Disclose Hydrofracking Chemicals
Energy services company Halliburton has decided to publicly list the chemicals it uses in hydraulic fracturing. (image: halliburton.com)
Halliburton, a leading employer of hydrofracking, will publish all of the chemicals it uses in the drilling process next month, a company executive announced on Friday. The oil and gas industry news source upstreamonline.com reported the announcement on Friday, which was made at a technology summit in Houston. Halliburton’s announcement is the latest development in the controversy over hydraulic fracturing, the natural gas drilling method that involves injecting chemical-laced water and sand deep underground to free natural gas reserves trapped beneath beds of rock. Following the discovery of massive natural gas reserves beneath the Eastern US’ Marcellus Shale formation invited a surge in the use of hydrofracking, the energy industry and environmental advocates have had been engaged in a heated back and forth over the practice, with environmentalists citing threats to drinking water supplies and drillers insisting that the method is completely safe.
Halliburton’s plan to disclose all of the chemicals used in hydrofracking is a somewhat surprising about-face on the issue—the company (and other gas drilling companies) had long resisted such disclosures, claiming that chemicals constituted valuable trade secrets. But after other fracking companies Chesapeake Energy and Range Resources recently disclosed the chemicals they utilize—which include toxic substances like benzene—Halliburton will attempt to boost its public image by becoming more transparent. The move could be especially valuable to the company’s reputation, considering that the disclosure of hydrofracking chemicals is a central demand of many fracking opponents. Following its announcement, Halliburton’s US Technology Manager, Richard Logan, confirmed that the disclosure decision was largely a strategic move to win the public relations war over hydrofracking as the issue gains wider visibility. He told upstreamonline, “The whole effort is all about educating the public.”
The effort by Halliburton and other fracking companies could also be about anticipating imminent regulations from the federal and state governments, which would likely include chemical disclosure requirements. Last week, Pennsylvania’s Environmental Quality Board took the first step toward enacting stronger regulations of hydraulic fracturing, and the proposed regulations include a mandate for full disclosure of chemicals used.
According to Logan, Halliburton’s disclosure will be published on a new company website on November 15. While the action will likely be well-received by environmentalists and other parties wary of hydrofracking, it will do little to reduce the heat on the simmering conflict over the process, which will no doubt continue until the results of a comprehensive EPA investigation into the technique give a clear picture of its dangers and new laws resulting from the EPA’s findings are on the books.
