Skip to main content

View Diary: The Hockey Stick rides again (137 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  First....your link only points to the 2 page (0+ / 0-)

    summary from Earthworks and apparently Earthwork has either withdrawn or is otherwise hiding its full report about its "full exemptions white paper."   There are no links that Earthworks displays about its "full exemptions white paper" so I presume that Earthworks has withdrawn that material are erroneous and will not otherwise disclose or share it the public on their website.

    Virtually all of the discussion of the Clean Air Act and the oil and gas industry from the 2 page summary is erroneous.

    Hydrogen sulfide has been regulated under the Clean Air Act since 1974 when regulations binding on petroleum refineries and kraft pulp mills were first enacted under the 1970 Clean Air Act.

    Volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and particular matter from oil and gas industry operations are not only regulated under the Clean Air Act, they are subject to emission unit aggregation as NSR-regulated your claim that the Clean Air Act bars emission unit aggregation in major source definition is completely erroneous.

    Finally, contrary to Josh Fox drek, all hydraulic fracturing fluids and process wastewater associated with oil and gas industry operations are subject to the requirements for permits for discharges to surface waters.   EPA and the states enforce this requirement.

    •  Pretty big leap there fella (5+ / 0-)

      Because you can't find Earthworks' full report on industry's exemptions you infer something sinister. The report was written quite some time ago and things to change but it was never hidden.

      In Texas, each facility can be and is permitted separately and equipment can be added to the site/facility without seeking further permitting. This is exactly how the train wreck in Dish, TX happened and why many of these facilities are operated under minor permits instead of being considered as a major source.

      Maybe you should explain to NRDC legal counsel that they are also wrong about the industry's loopholes in the CCA and CWA. Please extend that explanation to the Congressional authors of the Fresher Act.


      •  Thanks for the link to the 'full exemption white (0+ / 0-)

        paper."   which you provided at the Department of Energy advisory committee.  Note that your link is not a link at the Earthworks website so that organization, despite saying the full paper is available at their site....does not actually make it available there as Earthworks claims which is why I could not locate it there.

        Your comment about the Texas air quality program isn't a dispositive comment about the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.  Texas has many serious problems in its air pollution permitting and air pollution control programs that have the attention of U.S. EPA.  In addition, many states are revising their requirements in light of the 2012-2013 EPA emission control rules for air pollution control from the natural gas industry.   Those rules were developed under the Clean Air Act using the legal authority you, Earthworks, Gasland and Josh Fox deny exists in the Clean Air Act.

        Nothing in the NRDC link you provided illustrates exemptions of the oil and gas industry from the Clean Air Act.   Finally, nothing in the proposed FRESHER Act addresses or regulates process wastewater, flowback and hydraulic fracturing fluid from the oil and gas industry.  These are already regulated under the Clean Water Act for purposes of surface water discharge.

        •  OMG! You do jump around! (6+ / 0-)

          Here is the direct link that is one the Earthworks site  Nothing sinister it is easily found using Google.

          Talk about the mother of all conflations. I don't even know where to begin and I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

          •  And pulll...eeeeze................ (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TXsharon, greenotron

            Don't interfere too effectively with the 8-cent-a-posting shillery.

            Where the cut-and-paste text defending Big Coal is ready out the gate, you know you're "talking" with a virtual boiler room operation.

            •  Your claim that I'm a defender of big coal is (0+ / 0-)

              complete BS.   And I'm not shilling for anybody.   I'm a long time activist with the Sierra Club and I've been involved in air pollution control and environmental protection in the non-profit sector for the last 40 years {including 15 years at the American Lung Association).

              Everything in your statement, including your 'virtual boiler room' claim is false.

            •  I don't think he is part (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              of the Fracking Joe Camel boiler room operation although, where fracking is concerned, he does use many of their talking points.

              This is a sufferer of the Smartest Man In the Room complex who cannot see the the forest because he keeps running head on into trees.

              •  More likely an infiltrator who has been (0+ / 0-)

                getting checks for his efforts for decades.

                There's dozens of them.

                Look to the Occupy movement for the pattern. OWS at Zuccotti was fly paper for established infiltrators, for one example. They came from as far away as Wisconsin, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas. The Arkansas Princess showed up to the First Anniversary at Zuccotti with her own two-man reporter/photographer team -- nothing if not obvious -- and well funded.

                Then we had the Queen of the Right Wingers, who showed up at Oakland. From Italy. Carrying a sign saying, "All My Heroes Kill Cops."

                Out of a family of fascisti. At the source.

          •  Thanks for that link from wasn't (0+ / 0-)

            apparently on the summary material page and I didn't see the full link come up when I did a search for "full exemption white paper" on the Earthworks yes...EW still has it on their site.

            I'm planning a diary to address the collateral damage that would be caused by the enactment of the proposed BREATHE Act, which would have the effect of deregulating, for federal enforceability purposes, existing hydrogen sulfide emission limitations in Clean Air Act Title V and New Source Review permits nationwide and across all industry sectors, including oil/gas, kraft pulp mills, coke ovens, petrochemical plants and others.

            I wanted to have the full Earthworks white paper in hand in order to address all of the statements therein concerning the alleged exemptions from Clean Air Act when I do my diary about how bad the BREATHE Act is.

            •  The BREATHE Act is (0+ / 0-)

              like the FRACK Act, not what it should be.

              I can hardly wait for your diary.

              •  I think the FRACK Act (S. 1135) is a reasonable (0+ / 0-)

                proposal I mostly support.   Parts of the jurisdictional aspects over the confidentiality matters on hydraulic fracturing additives i'm not too impressed with.

                However, nothing appears in the proposed FRACK Act that causes the collateral damage in the manner that the BREATHE Act does.  The reason for this is an existing provision of the Clean Air Act 42 U.S.C. 7412(b)(6) and the effect of that provision on the regulation of hydrogen sulfide from all industrial categories upon enactment of the BREATHE Act.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site