I feel like an alien, like I don't fit into my own environment. It's frightening," says Haire, 55, tears filling her pale slate eyes as she looks through her living room window out on her back fields. "It's horrifying what's happening here. The changes that have happened in the past 18 months are so dramatic. It's just a nightmare."
Crossposted at: UNBOSSED
Energy is FINALLY the issue of the day. FINALLY!!! In our daily
battle against the El Paso Corporation, lots of information comes my way. I'd like to continue sharing it with you all. All of these articles appeared within the last 10 days.
Past diaries in this series:
Energy News Roundup #1
Energy News Roundup #2
Energy News Roundup #3
Energy News Roundup #4
This week:
THE WORLD
Here are recent data from the Guinness Atkinson Global Energy Fund (& other sources) showing natural gas price information as of May 2006.
Note the comments re natural gas in storage being "significantly above normal;" the problem with rapid depletion of North American natural gas reserves; and the expected impacts of the growth of liquefied natural gas infrastructure on moving natural gas from a local market to a global one. Note also the huge fluctuations in natural gas prices in the 14-year historical record, dispelling the media myth of "skyrocketing" natural gas costs. The prices commonly plunge as rapidly and dramatically as they rise.
These articles (here and here) reinforce the physical facts and limitations regarding North American natural gas resources. The natural gas future of the USA will be dependent upon liquefied natural gas imported from the places in the world where natural gas exists in abundance. Domestic natural gas production is essentially flat despite the massive upsurge in drilling projects over the past decade. Drilling the North American Continent to produce natural gas to meet USA demands is futile. The increase in capacity of 9.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day promised by the plant expansions and new projects approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission yesterday means this for the Valle Vidal: these five projects alone - without considering new capacity to be developed - will handle more natural gas in two weeks than the Valle Vidal could produce in the next two decades.
Greg Palast has an interesting take on Iraq and energy. He poses the intriguing question:
"Did the petroleum industry, which had a direct, if hidden, hand in promoting invasion, cheerlead for a takeover of Iraq to prevent overproduction?"
The answer?
Whether by design or happenstance, this decline in output has resulted in tripling the profits of the five U.S. oil majors to $89 billion for a single year, 2005, compared to pre-invasion 2002. That suggests an interesting arithmetic equation. Big Oil's profits are up $89 billion a year in the same period the oil industry boosted contributions to Mr. Bush's reelection campaign to roughly $40 million.
China's getting us good. Slow death.
One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.
In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.
Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.
Filters near Lake Tahoe in the mountains of eastern California "are the darkest that we've seen" outside smoggy urban areas, said Steven S. Cliff, an atmospheric scientist at the University of California at Davis.
Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.
Here's an interesting fellow: Canada Conservative Gets Aggressive With Big Oil. Cool:
Since walking out on talks with a group led by Exxon Mobil and the Canadian subsidiary of Chevron over the development of the Hebron oil field this spring, Mr. Williams has never been more popular, at least at home. And he has since bolstered that gain by threatening to propose a new law that would revoke the lease on the property that has been held by the oil consortium for more than two decades.
By taking on Big Oil, which has developed other offshore fields in his province, Mr. Williams is taking quite a gamble. Newfoundland has been Canada's poorest province for more than 50 years, and can hardly afford to lose out on any chance of a windfall from Hebron.
But the fight also illustrates that the era of high prices and concern over energy supplies for the United States has emboldened some caretakers of oil fields enough to demonstrate to major oil companies that there are limits to how much is up for grabs. Indeed, Mr. Williams, who built one of his province's largest personal fortunes through a cable television operation, a law practice and an offshore oil services company, portrays the battle as being fought for the American energy supply as well his province's financial fortunes.
But his current battle with some of the world's largest oil companies over a last major offshore reserve has led critics to label him a revolutionary -- kind of a North American version of Mr. Chávez.
How about this for a concept:
"Alberta, the center of Canada's oil industry, introduced a series of laws in the mid-1970's that essentially give oil and gas leaseholders three years to develop properties or lose their rights."
NATIONAL
I want to draw your attention to this, again. This is important shit and I'm going to bring it up again and again and again:
I feel like an alien, like I don't fit into my own environment. It's frightening," says Haire, 55, tears filling her pale slate eyes as she looks through her living room window out on her back fields. "It's horrifying what's happening here. The changes that have happened in the past 18 months are so dramatic. It's just a nightmare."
Go check it out.
I guess that feeds right into this:
"The oil and gas industry experiences one of the highest fatality rates of all major industries, according to a March 2005 paper (Upstream Oil and Gas Fatalities: A Review of OSHA's Database and Strategic Direction for Reducing Fatal Incidents) authored by government and industry authorities and presented at a Society of Petroleum Engineers conference.
In 2004, the oil and gas industry experienced 43.9 fatalities for every 100,000 workers. This equates to approximately one fatality every four days. This rate is over eight and a half times higher than the average fatality rate for all industries in the United States. In comparison, the coal mining industry had a fatality rate of 29.9 fatalities for every 100,000 workers in 2004."
Nice. Killing us and killing themselves all at once. Christ.
The LA Times (sorry no link) is reporting that the EPA has been getting rid of groundwater rules after Karl Rove and a little chat with industry
EPA Rule Loosened After Oil Chief's Letter to Rove
WASHINGTON -- A rule designed by the Environmental Protection Agency to keep groundwater clean near oil drilling sites and other construction zones was loosened after White House officials rejected it amid complaints by energy companies that it was too restrictive and after a well-connected Texas oil executive appealed to White House senior advisor Karl Rove.
The new rule, which took effect Monday, came after years of intense industry pressure, including court battles and behind-the-scenes agency lobbying. But environmentalists vowed Monday that the fight was not over, distributing internal White House documents that they said portrayed the new rule as a political payoff to an industry long aligned with the Republican Party and President Bush.
In 2002, a Texas oilman and longtime Republican activist, Ernest Angelo,
wrote a letter to Rove complaining that an early version of the rule was causing many in the oil industry to "openly express doubt as to the merit of electing Republicans when we wind up with this type of stupidity."
Rove responded by forwarding the letter to top White House environmental advisors and scrawling a handwritten note directing an aide to talk to those advisors and "get a response ASAP."
Rove later wrote to Angelo, assuring him that there was a "keen awareness" within the administration of addressing not only environmental issues but also the "economic, energy and small business impacts" of the rule....
...and it goes on...
Alot of folks predicted last year that this would be the outcome at EPA after the Energy Bill was passed. Many Dem Senators voted for the Energy Bill that the CWA provision & predictably expansive rulemaking is precisely. This is why we fought it so hard in the first place, and why
Colorado advocates fought hard to get the state water commission to maintain oversight instead of yielding to COGCC. There is clearly some White House political payback happening here, but the Senate made it possible by passing this stupid bill in the first place.
We need a coalbed methane equivalent to this site.
The court arguments continue in determining settlements and future liability for companies involved in manipulating natural gas resources and prices. Note the mention of the $1.6 billion settlement paid by Houston, Texas-based El Paso Corp. in 2003, perhaps motivating that corporation to find ways to recoup its economic losses by drilling for coalbed methane natural gas in north central New Mexico.
Here is information from the California Public Utilities Commission on how customers will be charged for transmitting energy from renewable sources - in this case, a wind farm.
THE WEST
The BLM issued a very interesting study last week showing that coalbed methane development has very negative effects on sage grouse populations. This seems like a non brainer for those of us with a grain of thought in our head but it is the first scientific evidence pointing to what some have claimed is going on along time. Becky Bohrer at the Associated Press (sorry no link) reported that:
New research suggests coal-bed methane development in areas of Montana and Wyoming is adversely affecting sage grouse, with populations lower within the gas fields of the mineral-rich Powder River Basin.
Leks, or mating sites, in developed areas didn't appear to benefit from the same strong population rebound recorded elsewhere in the basin in 2004 and 2005, the University of Montana researchers found. Data from 2000 to 2005 also suggested leks in extensively developed areas showed far lower population trends than those outside development, they said.
While researchers note the findings are preliminary, and part of a continuing study of coal-bed methane drilling on sage grouse in the area, they say the results support the notion sage grouse avoid developed areas and may be moving to undeveloped, nearby habitat. The basin includes parts of eastern Wyoming and southeastern Montana.
The researchers cited loss of habitat, expansion of roads, increased human activity and West Nile virus as aspects of development that can hurt sage grouse numbers. Their work so far suggests coal-bed methane development is negatively affecting sage grouse "over and above" the long-term regional declines that, as of last year, had left the population overall at about 16 percent of what it was in 1988, before development took off. More than 24,800 coal-bed methane wells have been drilled in Wyoming's portion of the Powder River Basin, and most of those since the late '90s, an official with the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. About 580 methane wells have been drilled in Montana's portion, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Billings, Greg Albright, said. Court action has led to a temporary hold on the issuance of new drilling permits for wells on federal leases.
The study is available here.
Colorado is considering more pollution controls on the oil and gas industry because the air has gotten so bad the feds are coming down on the state.
Staying with Colorado, There is a new stealth plan for the Roan Plateau. This is yet another perfect example of why citizens cannot trust the BLM and Forest Service to manage the public lands. Despite 70,000 comments opposed to drilling and the initial promise to move any potential drilling forward in a slow, multi-staged process, the BLM has now sprung a new, very damaging plan on the people of central CO without public input.
Here in northern New Mexico, the El Paso Corporation of Houston, Texas is trying to scare the hell out of us. Once again, this multi-BILLION dollar company is threatening Colfax County over the county's proposed ordinance to regulate natural gas drilling. The ordinance addresses issues that include security at a drilling site, visual impacts, noise, wildlife, water, roads and access, waste disposal, weed control, spacing of wells, restoration and reclamation, and drainage and erosion control. It would require a company to obtain a permit from the county before doing any drilling. El Paso thinks these issues are onerous impediments to its designs on natural gas extraction. El Paso seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. In thier push to drill the Valle Vidal. El Paso is claiming that they would "do it right", copying their supposed "environmentally responsible drilling" from Ted Turner's Vermejo Park Ranch. Well, its interesting that the proposed Colfax county regulations were modeled on the Vermejo Park regulations. If El Paso so willing to crow about how they are doing things on Vermejo why dont want to be 'forced' to use the same practices elsewhere in the County? In a follow up article, we, once again, see the influence of the myth of "drilling done right" on the Vermejo Park Ranch, although to date there is no confirming scientific evidence that the coalbed methane drilling there is substantially different from or less destructive than that done anywhere else.
What acid Cloud? Halliburton doesn't want people to become preoccupied with the difference between a 5 percent concentration and a 30 percent concentration of FE1A, an acetic acid used for fracturing oil and natural gas wells. Meanwhile, the Director of the New Mexico Poison Center says:
"a 30-percent concentration can cause serious physical symptoms."
Who can we believe here? Surely Halliburton.
The NM State Oil Conservation Division (OCD) seems perplexed about its role because the spill "became vapor, and never hit the ground." Despite causing the evacuation of about 220 people, Halliburton was "not negligent" according to the OCD, and "the company had things under control."
Folks in NM might be interested in this: The Oil and Gas Accountability Project and others in Colorado are currently building up steam to ask the COGCC and the Health Dept. to require companies to fully disclose the CHEMICALS in their PRODUCTS to these agencies; have the Health Dept. then make this information available to impacted citizens and the general public; AND have the health dept. monitor for specific chemicals over the long haul. The two issues in both CO and NM (lack of specific chemical disclosure and regulatory authority gaps noted in article below) are making health and safety issues impossible to deal with from a public health perspective. People who are being impacted from chronic or acute exposures often don't know what they have been exposed to because they can usually only get a PRODUCT name from an MSDS sheet and when they do have chemical specifics don't have enough info on volume or how chemicals are combining with other elements in the env. Additionally, we don't know what specific chemicals to monitor for over the longer term next to our homes or on a community/environment wide scale. We are finding that industry is using lots of highly mobile chemicals with known health effects (no surprise) including things like nonylphenols which the industry has stopped using in Europe. Full disclosure of chemicals seems like a good first step in catching up to specific chemical bans and promoting a wider use of non-toxic products.
Oil, natural gas prices on the rise, but NM production declining:
Rising oil and natural gas prices usually result in a corresponding increase in production. Not so in New Mexico, according to an industry report prepared by the Bureau of Business and Economic Research at the University of New Mexico.
Industry is pushing to open up more and more land here in NM but they are not drilling it.....
The Casper Star Tribune (WY) reports that with an increase in oil and gas drilling comes a significant increase in illegal hunting:
Poachers are at it again in the gas-rich energy fields of southwest Wyoming.
Game and Fish Department officials are seeking the public's help to find those responsible for the killing of three antelope along one of the main roads in the Moxa Arch gas fields northwest of Granger in Sweetwater County.
"Some people just don't get it," said Green River Game Warden Duane Kerr.
Sure they do. You build a road, people come. Its easy to get a buck from your pickup. Hell, you can even drink beer and listen to the radio while you're doing it. Lesson? DONT BUILD ROADS.
Selling the West. Two articles came out this week from the Montrose (CO) Daily Press and Daily Sentinel on the 50,000+ acres offered in Montrose County in an oil and gas lease sale (sorry no link):
Daily Sentinel
More than 50,000 acres in Montrose County will be on the auction block for oil and gas development in an August sale administered by the federal government.
[snip]
Jim Stephenson, a member of the environmental group Western Colorado Congress, said he thinks Montrose County may not be ready for that type of development, should companies purchase the leases and commence drilling.
"People move to Montrose County for the lifestyle of recreation and outdoors-oriented activities, and I don't think oil and gas is compatible with that," he said.
Stephenson said the nominated 50,000 acres was 5 percent of all the public lands in Montrose County.
"You have to stop and think ... Our public land could be eaten up fast," he said.
Daily Press
The prospect of oil and gas development in Montrose County looms a little larger following Tuesday's nomination of more than 50,000 acres for an upcoming oil and gas lease auction.
[snip]
The nominations prompted criticism from a local environmental group. Members of the Western Colorado Congress reiterated some of the main complaints that led the group to protest more than 17,000 acres of leases in the May 2005 auction.
"We're disappointed that this has happened, that the government has decided to open five percent of the public lands in Montrose County for oil and gas leasing," said Peter Crowell, vice president of the group's Montrose chapter, the Uncompahgre Valley Association. "We're particularly upset that the BLM still has not provided proper notification to split estate owners despite our protest at an earlier date."
In the Montrose County parcels released Tuesday, 9,979 acres included split estate ownership in which the surface was owned privately and the mineral estate was held by the federal government. Although the agency is not required to notice private landowners, the agency will send out notice of the sale for $5.
Mel Lloyd, a public affairs specialist for the BLM's Uncompahgre Field Office in Montrose, said providing free notice to all affected landowners would be a huge undertaking given the agency's resources. She added that citizens should also take the initiative to find out who owns the mineral estate underneath their property.
"People need to be somewhat responsible for themselves in that regard," she said.
Stephen Capra at the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance gets it right:
Albuquerque Journal
Saturday, June 10, 2006
More Wells a Drop in Bucket of Energy Woes
By Stephen Capra
New Mexico Wilderness Alliance
For the past year many people have watched with frustration as the energy crisis has come to engulf America. We all knew it was coming; it's just that we have a President that chose to ignore the warnings and continues to blame conservationists and any rational person who has challenged his oil-based policies.
America burns 10,000 gallons of oil per second. We possess only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, and 2.9 percent of the world's natural gas reserves, yet we are producing them at a much faster rate than many Mid-East countries, meaning we will be more vulnerable to shortages sooner, according to reports from British Petroleum.
The Gulf region in the Mid-East provides 24 percent of our oil. In Saudi Arabia, more than half their oil comes from just one field. More than two-thirds of their oil goes through one processing plant. Imagine what would happen if there was a successful terrorist attack on that one plant! Of the top six non-Gulf producing countries that import to America, none are considered stable governments.
Here in the Rocky Mountain West, oil and gas development has spread like wildfire. Drill rigs are entering residential neighborhoods, bordering National Parks, sprouting up in National Monuments and threatening some of our wildest remaining public lands, yet we are now paying more than ever to heat our homes and drive our cars. It seems abundantly clear that oil is not the answer to our energy needs.
For the past six years President Bush and Congress have given the oil and gas industry everything they want on a silver platter.
[snip]
This president and Congress should be held accountable for failing miserably to protect the economic, environmental and national security interests of our country by allowing the big oil lobby to control domestic energy policy.
As industry profits soar, so, too, does their media message barrage, from full-page ads in newspapers nationally to endless commercials on television. Their propaganda is designed to make people view the industry as bold explorers who are working hard to protect the environment while getting energy to a hungry America.
[snip]
In the oil fields around Carlsbad, spills and leaks riddle the landscape. Wildlife habitat is being completely fragmented. Ranchers who have worked for generations are seeing their land inundated with rigs, dust, contamination-- and their voices continue to be ignored by government agencies and this White House. Real money for on-the-ground enforcement remains woefully inadequate. Restoration of habitat remains generations away from reality. That is the real story in the American West.
The industry stump speech continues to be we need all types of energy, including alternative sources. But when it comes to putting your money where your mouth is, industry, with a few exceptions, continues to put its effort into drilling and its money into lobbying for more access to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Otero Mesa, Valle Vidal and any place that can put money in their coffers.
The question is how do we solve the problem? First, I think we can all agree there are no simple solutions. Oil in the short-term will clearly continue to be part of the energy matrix. Where conservationists and the oil industry differ is in approach. It is imperative that drilling of our wildest public lands be stopped. It's simply not going to make a meaningful difference in the supply or price of oil or gas that we have in America. If we drilled in the Arctic Refuge today it would take more than 10 years for that oil to reach the market and would reduce the price at the pump by 1 cent per gallon in 20 years, when it finally reached peak production, according to the Energy Information Administration, a branch of the Department of Energy. With the price of oil being set by the world market, Refuge oil would be a drop in the bucket.
[snip]
More than 95 percent of our public lands are open today to drilling. The conservation community is battling to save the last 5 percent. Oil is not the answer. We must be bold and imaginative in developing alternative sources of energy. We must begin by saying no to the Bush energy policies and yes to sanity.
Please note that some of the commentary and analysis is not my own (clearly, the most brilliant and insightful observations are indeed my own) but comes, rather, from informed and trusted allies. Once again, thank you to BB, JA, JG, ML, ESG, Jill, Jen, Steve and others.