Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 7/4/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) It’s ‘Wait and See’ if New Federal Chemical Safety Law Will Impact State Regulations
Jul 4, 2016 | WBUR
By Jill Kaufman
President Obama just signed into law a new and long awaited Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Officially called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, it’s expected to radically change how the federal government oversees... -
Common Chemicals Harmful to Children's Brain Development
Jul 4, 2016 | Parent Herald
By Elizabeth Anderson
Authors of a new study are calling for greater attention on the large amount of evidence that children's brain development is at risk due to common chemicals. The study, Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental NeuroDevelopment Risks was published... -
Act Now to Develop Brexit Regulatory Strategy
Jul 4, 2016 | ICIS
By Will Beacham
Chemical companies which do any business with the UK should act now to develop an effective strategy for the impending departure of Great Britain from the European Union, according to an environmental lawyer. -
Firms Lobby Against Adding HHPA, MHHPA to Annex XIV
Jul 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
More than half of the responses to Echa's seventh draft recommendation for prioritisation of substances for possible inclusion in Annex XIV concerned just two of the 11 substances up for consideration... -
U.S. Becoming Net NatGas Exporter by 2017, EIA Predicts
Jul 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
U.S. dry natural gas production is forecast to continue growing “strongly” over the next two decades thanks to development of domestic shale resources, with the United States on track to become a net exporter of gas by next year, according to the latest... -
Five Easy Steps to US Energy Independence
Jul 3, 2016 | New York Post
By Stephen Moore
Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to make America energy independent, but we still import 9 million barrels of oil a day, much of it coming from the Middle East and OPEC. Now for the first time in a half-century — thanks to the shale oil and gas revolution... -
US States Reimbursed for Pipeline Safety Programmes
Jul 4, 2016 | Energy Global
By Stephanie Roker
The US Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has announced more than US$49 million in Pipeline Safety Base Grants to reimburse a portion of operating costs for state pipeline safety programmes. -
5 Train Cars Derail in Texas, Spilling Chemical, Injuring 2
Jul 4, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
Authorities say five train cars overturned outside of San Antonio, spilling about 1,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide and prompting a temporary evacuation. -
Leahy Adds Clout to Petroleum-by-Rail Safety Bills
Jul 4, 2016 | Barre Montpelier Times Argus
By Andy Clark
To improve the safety of rail transport of oil and petroleum products, two proposed bills were recently co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. -
Exxon Gets Boost in Climate Fight
Jul 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Exxon Mobil Corp. and its allies are finally starting to pick up wins in the fight over the company's history with climate change.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) It’s ‘Wait and See’ if New Federal Chemical Safety Law Will Impact State Regulations
Jul 4, 2016 | WBUR
By Jill Kaufman
President Obama just signed into law a new and long awaited Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Officially called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, it’s expected to radically change how the federal government oversees thousands of chemicals used in products and in the work place. (It was named after the New Jersey senator who died in 2013. His main priority in his final term was a bill he coauthored to overhaul chemical safety laws.)
For decades, lawmakers, the chemical industry and environmental advocates agreed — the law was outdated and ineffective. At the signing ceremony on June 22nd, 2016, the president explained just how ineffective.
“In 1976, some 62,000 chemicals were already on the market but the law placed demands on the EPA that were so tough, so onerous, that it became virtually impossible to see if those chemicals were harming anybody,” Obama said. “In fact, out of those original 62,000 chemicals, only five have been banned. Five. And only a tiny percentage have even been reviewed for health and safety.”
‘Need To Fully Protect’ All Interests
The new TSCA significantly expands the number of chemicals subject to federal regulation. Republican Sen. David Vitter from Louisiana is one of the bill’s key writers. He says TSCA’s overhaul is long overdue.
“We needed to fully protect public health and safety,” Vitter told fellow members of the U.S. Senate a few weeks ago. “We also needed to ensure that American companies do not get put behind by a regulatory system which is overly burdensome and unworkable.”
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer from California spoke about the bill’s major sticking point, which she and other lawmakers say they would have written differently.
“In the final bill,” Boxer said, “we were able to make important exceptions to the preemption provisions.”
Preemption provisions mean that, going forward, the EPA can potentially override state chemical safety regulations. But, Boxer said, states still have time.
“When EPA announces the chemicals they are studying, the states still have up to a year and a half to take action on these particular chemicals to avoid preemption until the EPA takes final action,” Boxer said.
Her advice to states? Get going on regulations, as they’ve been doing for years. One example: In 1998, Vermont lawmakers forced industry to clearly label products sold in the state that were made with mercury — things like light bulbs and thermostats. Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island followed suit. So did Minnesota, New York, Louisiana and Washington state. Several states this year are debating proposals to ban BPA, flame retardants and formaldehyde.
States Expected To Race On Chemical Safety Regulations
The states’ concern with the new law? If the EPA chooses a chemical for safety review, before a state does, the states cannot do their own review of the chemical, for a period of time, or maybe at all. An EPA assessment could take up to three years. The chemical during that time is largely unregulated.
Mike Belliveau from the Environmental Health Strategy Centers, who at one point led Maine’s mercury reduction campaign, says the concern is, “the federal law takes the truly unprecedented step of prohibiting states from taking action on dangerous chemicals.”
Belliveau says there’s absolutely no policy rationale for not allowing states to remain regulators.
“It was simply a concession to the chemical industry, which is trying to chill state leadership in moving the market to safer chemicals,” Belliveau says.
It’s not all bad, he adds. For one thing, the EPA will have increased oversight of the chemical industry.
Anne Kolton from The American Chemistry Council says the EPA should make the final call on safety regulations. There needs to be a definitive decision maker, she says, “in order to protect the free flow of interstate commerce and ensure there are clear and understandable messages to both consumers and the marketplace.”
Kolton also says in many cases, “states don’t have the resources or expertise to conduct risk evaluations and make truly evidence-based, objective decisions about the safety of a chemical.”
Attorneys General Push Back, Politely At First
While Congress debated the bill, states have pushed back. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey is one of a dozen attorneys general who earlier this year jointly wrote to Congress and told them states need to be able to make their own best decisions about chemical regulation.
After President Obama signed the bill, Healey said in a press release, the attorneys general remain committed to “preserving the authority of states and local government.”
Also in this coalition, Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell. While hosting a National Association of Attorneys General conference in Burlington this week, he said concessions were made in the bill. In the end, states didn’t get a full loaf, but they got more than half.
“We raised about seven different issues with the bill back in January. Most of those were addressed,” Sorrell said. He then added, “Not all.”
What wasn’t addressed? It’s still unclear what happens in the end if the EPA sets a safety standard weaker than a state’s, and whether states would be granted waivers and how they would qualify.
Like any major piece of legislation, the proof will be in its implementation. Some say this is a comprised bill. Some say the new TSCA will only be as good as the EPA itself, and that will depend on funding.
In a recent blog post, one notable environmental group wrote a memo to state attorneys general, legislatures and governors. The tone openly tapped into the popular show Game of Thrones.
“The Night’s Watch is an underfunded and understaffed cadre of public employees guarding an aging infrastructure against an ancient evil,” they wrote.
“The fact is that you,” addressing state leadership, “still have a critical job to do. In the parlance of the show, 'Your watch has not ended.'”
This story is a production of the New England News Collaborative and originally aired on New England Public Radio.
http://www.wbur.org/morningedition/2016/07/04/federal-chemical-safety-law
-
Common Chemicals Harmful to Children's Brain Development
Jul 4, 2016 | Parent Herald
By Elizabeth Anderson
Authors of a new study are calling for greater attention on the large amount of evidence that children's brain development is at risk due to common chemicals. The study, Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental NeuroDevelopment Risks was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Chemicals that should be looked into include lead and mercury; organophosphate pesticides used in agriculture and home gardens; phthalates, found in pharmaceuticals, plastics and personal care products; flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); and air pollutants produced by the combustion of wood and fossil fuels. This is according to University of Illinois comparative biosciences professor Susan Schantz, as per a report from Science Daily.
The authors of the study said that these common chemicals are harming the brain development of children from the fetus stage and continuing to later years, according to AFP News as posted in Yahoo News. "The human brain develops over a very long period of time, starting in gestation and continuing during childhood and even into early adulthood," Schantz was quoted as saying.
Two chemicals, PBDEs and phthalates, reportedly disrupt the function of the thyroid hormone. This hormone is necessary for healthy brain development in children. There have been studies that some phthalates are associated with deficit in attention, lower IQ and disorderly conduct in children.
Government Action On Chemicals
According to a report from UPI, the authors question the government's method for evaluating scientific evidence about contamination of the environment. The authors have suggested that there needs to be a new framework in evaluating the danger posed by chemicals.
Schantz, a comparative biosciences professor at the University of Illinois, reportedly said that there is no current information on the effect of most chemicals to the brain development of children. "They just haven't been studied. And if it looks like something is a risk, we feel policymakers should be willing to make a decision that this or that chemical could be a bad actor and we need to stop its production or limit its use."
How are you protecting your children from chemicals? Share your thoughts below.
http://www.parentherald.com/articles/52608/20160704/common-chemicals-harmful-childrens-brain-development.htm
-
Act Now to Develop Brexit Regulatory Strategy
Jul 4, 2016 | ICIS
By Will Beacham
Chemical companies which do any business with the UK should act now to develop an effective strategy for the impending departure of Great Britain from the European Union, according to an environmental lawyer.
Although there is not yet any clarity on the form that so called Brexit will take, there are some regulatory areas where it makes sense now to question and review your regulatory compliance framework, according to Elizabeth Shepherd, head of environment, and a chemicals compliance specialist with international law firm Eversheds.
International chemical companies exporting to Europe often choose to appoint 'Only Representatives' within Europe to handle Reach regulatory requirements on behalf of their customers.
Many have chosen to use UK-based Only Representatives and it makes sense for these companies to review whether this makes sense for the future, according to Shepherd. “Already we are seeing questions around whether it makes sense going forward for a manufacturer outside the EU to appoint a UK-based Only Representative, in case Reach should fall away,” she says.
Similarly, some Europe-based companies which import raw materials from outside the EU use UK-based Only Representatives for Reach requirements. This should be questioned going forward: “If you have a pan-European business sourcing product from outside the EU you may have structured your supply chain so that your UK entity is the “importer” for Reach and so holds the registrations. This will need to be kept under review as negotiations around the UK’s future relationship with the EU get underway.”
Companies are currently preparing for another major Reach deadline – the 2018 registration for all chemical substances manufactured or imported in quantities above one tonne. This will impact a lot of smaller and specialty chemical companies which are not currently affected by Reach. Some businesses also want to get ahead by registering well ahead of the deadline to avoid the notorious logjams in the Reach registrations systems which have plagued previous deadlines.
“It’s premature to start making changes just yet. But it is a good time to start looking at what regulatory obligations you have and what you need to do in the lead up to 2018,” says Shepherd.
POST-BREXIT SCENARIOS
There are various scenarios for Brexit, each with a different impact on the regulatory framework. Britain could choose to leave the EU and instead join the European Economic Area, like Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
In this case the UK will still be bound by Reach and all European regulations as they continue to develop. “However we will no longer have a seat at the EU table or a voice to contribute to the debate and influence it,” says Shepherd.
If the UK leaves the single market and adopts a model which means it is not required to comply with EU laws, there will be a big gap in UK regulatory and environmental law to plug.
“EU Regulations such as Reach, Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) and the Biocidal Products Regulation will fall away unless the UK Parliament introduces legislation or amends the European Communities Act of 1972, which implements EU treaties which form the constitutional basis of the EU.”
Apart from EU Regulations a raft of UK laws which were created to follow EU Directives may also become invalid. These include the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE), Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), batteries and packaging waste rules, as well as environmental permitting legislation will be in the same situation.
“Another concern if Reach ceases to have effect is whether some re-registrations in the ‘new’ EU may be required,” adds Shepherd.
BIOCIDES HEADACHE
Apart from Reach, Brexit presents a challenge for biocidal product compliance where the Europe-wide Biocidal Products Regulation seeks to develop a single registration system, replacing individual nation-state requirements.
“If this regulation falls away, businesses operating across the EU may not be able to include the UK as part of EU-wide biocide approval. The UK will continue to be subject to the current UK regime and anyone supplying biocidal products to Europe will need to be mindful of both UK and EU regimes.”
EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has made judgements on controversial questions over the interpretation of Reach. Under Brexit there is a risk that the court will interpret EU-based laws differently to the UK justice system.
For example, in September 2015 the ECJ made a decision on the threshold for notification, under Reach, of Substances of Very High Concern in finished articles.
“It gave clear direction on what had been the subject of considerable EU debate. If that type of decision is made post Brexit the UK might end up imposing a different interpretation of EU regulations.”
DEVELOPING GLOBAL STANDARDS
Chemical regulation globally is becoming more harmonised with Reach being seen as the gold standard to be emulated by countries such as South Korea with its K-Reach.
So even if the UK does not join the EEA, in practical terms the UK is likely to plug the gaps in its own legislation, quite possibly with something similar to Reach.
“If we want to trade and maintain markets we must ensure our products comply with global standards. Taking a different approach to the EU and the rest of the world could result in different compliance obligations for companies manufacturing, importing or using chemicals in the UK, the EU and wider markets.”
She adds: “The EU has been a great driver of standards and technical guidance, coordinated by the European Commission. The UK will either have to rely on EU policies and documents without having a say in them, or bear the cost of developing our own.”
Shepherd points out that it is business as usual in compliance terms until we leave the EU, which will take a minimum of two years. In the meantime, she urges businesses to be involved, on their own or with their trade bodies, to influence the outcomes of the Brexit negotiations.
“At present there is a huge amount of concern and the uncertainty is causing a major headache for UK chemical companies and companies exporting to the UK. In reality there is currently no clear vision of what the UK would want its relationship with the EU to be. It’s likely to be some time before this emerges.”
http://www.icis.com/resources/news/2016/07/04/10013231/act-now-to-develop-brexit-regulatory-strategy/
-
Firms Lobby Against Adding HHPA, MHHPA to Annex XIV
Jul 4, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
More than half of the responses to Echa's seventh draft recommendation for prioritisation of substances for possible inclusion in Annex XIV concerned just two of the 11 substances up for consideration, the respiratory sensitisers HHPA and MHHPA.
The substances are used in the production of epoxy resin-based insulating materials. These are widely used for insulating high voltage equipment in electrical transmission and distribution.
Last November the European Commission called for information about the uses and conditions of use of11 substances to be considered for authorisation. The Commission particularly wanted to hear of the possible economic, social, health and environmental impacts of inclusion in Annex XIV.
A paper presented by the Commission to last week's meeting of Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) says it received 112 submissions from 15 industry associations, consortia and companies. Fifty eight submissions related to the two anhydrides.
‘No’ alternatives
All the submissions about the anhydrides say "technically and economically viable" alternatives do not exist for all the critical applications.
Several say there is a risk associated with substitution because long-term human health and environmental hazards associated with possible alternatives "are much less documented than for the anhydrides”.
Some submissions add that if substitution is possible at all, the costs would be significant.
Option to relocate out of Europe
According to an Anhydrides Joint Industry Taskforce (AJIT) report, €6.6bn is added to the European economy by the use of anhydrides, employing around 75,000 people.
The submissions point out that the final products do not contain the anhydrides and non-EU competitors "would not have to bear costs of authorisation.
An AJIT survey found that if those companies questioned faced a situation where (M)HHPA became unavailable:
· 54% would relocate outside Europe;
· 24% would close down;
· 15% would opt for substitution; and
· 3% would switch to an alternative process without epoxy.
Authorisation compared with other RMOs
According to the Commission document, some downstream users reckon the most straightforward solution would be an application by manufacturers and importers of the substance covering downstream uses.
Others say they have yet to decide, but relocation is the more likely scenario with “non-affordability” of the associated costs for SMEs being an issue.
On the 'appropriateness' of authorisation as an RMO, a high number of submissions say a more detailed RMO analysis concerning particular applications should be conducted. This could accurately determine the risks and appropriate mitigation actions.
In addition, a high number of submitters suggest the use in epoxy resin-based insulating materials should be exempted from authorisation.
A restriction – which would apply to imports as well as domestic output – would be a "more effective instrument" to address the potential concerns for workers, regarding concentration of airborne anhydrides.
Respondents also suggested the introduction of EU-wide occupational exposure limits (OELs) as an alternative to authorisation.
Meanwhile, two chemical companies are fighting HHPA and MHHPA's classification as SVHCs. They launched an appeal in the European Court of Justice last year. The case is ongoing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48396/firms-lobby-against-adding-hhpa-mhhpa-to-annex-xiv
-
U.S. Becoming Net NatGas Exporter by 2017, EIA Predicts
Jul 1, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
U.S. dry natural gas production is forecast to continue growing “strongly” over the next two decades thanks to development of domestic shale resources, with the United States on track to become a net exporter of gas by next year, according to the latest projections from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Speaking to an audience at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC, on June 28, EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski shared some of the agency’s updated long-term energy forecasts as part of a rollout presentation for the soon-to-be-released Annual Energy Outlook 2016 (AEO2016) report.
“What we have on the natural gas side in these numbers is that we’re expecting production actually to continue fairly strongly over time. This is a little bit different than oil." Depending on the resource case, oil production could remain “kind of flattish, maybe trending up,” Sieminski said. “Natural gas [is expected to continue] moving up strongly. Growth in natural gas production is driven by the continued development of shale gas resources, where the technology improvements result in higher rates of recovery and lower costs all across the projected period.”
With “consumption growing at a rate below domestic supply,” the United States will become a net exporter of natural gas sometime around the middle of 2017. “Between now and then, we will see not just exports of LNG -- liquefied natural gas -- but we’ll see more exports of pipeline gas to Mexico, and potentially a little bit less imports from Canada,” Sieminski said.
The growth of LNG exports figures to be influenced significantly by the price of oil, he said, with low oil prices reducing “the desirability of exporting natural gas from the United States.”
The Henry Hub spot price for natural gas varies widely under different scenarios relative to the reference case, according to EIA projections. A low oil and gas resource case -- or where extraction technology does not improve as quickly -- would put upward pressure on prices, approaching $8/MMBtu Henry Hub by 2030, compared to $4.50/MMBtu in the reference case or $3.50/MMBtu in a high oil and gas resource/technology case, Sieminski said.
As for crude oil, U.S. production is expected to rise above the historical high of 9.6 million b/d in 1970 before 2030, according to EIA’s projections. An increase in tight oil production, combined with higher fuel efficiency, is expected to contribute to a decline in imports from 24% of supply in 2015 to 19% of supply by 2040.
EIA lowered its near-term crude oil price projections for AEO2016 compared to the 2015 report, Sieminski said.
In the 2016 reference case, the EIA’s projected Brent price sits around $100/bbl in 2030, with the agency using a low oil price case of $50/bbl and a high oil price case of around $200/bbl.
“Even in the very near term, there’s a wide spread in how we look at oil prices...If you use the current options prices, over the next year or so, what that says is oil prices could be anywhere between about $25/bbl and $80/bbl,” Sieminski said.
Though EIA always has an oil price forecast for its models, such projections should be taken with caution, he said. “You should be very, very careful, assuming those point forecasts are going to give you the right answer. There’s just a tremendous amount of volatility, and that’s true in the gas markets as well.”
Electricity generation and industrial demand are expected to pace domestic natural gas consumption growth during the forecast period, which extends through 2040. All demand sectors are expected to increase with the exception of residential, which is expected to remain flat, according to Sieminski.
“We are expecting to see more natural gas consumption” in the industrial sector, “especially for feedstock, where lower gas prices mean a lot more natural gas being used in the petrochemicals and fertilizers, as well as just general industrial output,” he said.
With exports to Mexico expected to grow through 2020 before flattening off under EIA’s reference case, Sieminski said a lot depends on “how successful Mexico is with the energy reform that’s underway...The Mexican government has undertaken a massive review and change in energy policy, including the ability for foreign capital...to invest in Mexico in things like production of oil and gas. Five years from now it’s very possible that production in Mexico will be coming up.
“...Despite lower oil prices, Mexican energy reform seems to be moving ahead, and the government seems to be very committed to doing that, and we’ve built some of that into our reference case.”
As for LNG, the growth potential “is less limited than what you can put across the border,” though some gas could be exported into Canada or Mexico and then shipped out through LNG terminals, Sieminski said. “The ability for LNG exports in the United States to grow is there. It’s going to depend a great deal on what happens to global oil prices.”
EIA factored the implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) into its AEO2016 reference case. Under the CPP, the Obama administration’s landmark rule to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants, both natural gas and renewable generation will surpass coal-fired generation by 2030. Only natural gas would surpass coal under a scenario without the CPP.
Projecting the impact of the CPP is going to be an ongoing process as state responses to the rule continue to develop, Sieminski said.
“I guess we’re going to have to see what happens. We’ve made some assumptions about how we think this will come about...there are a number of states that have filed the Supreme Court case to block the Clean Power Plan, so there’s not a lot happening. In some cases, some of those states, even though they’re trying to block [the rule] are moving ahead with some of the regulations,” he said. “It’s a patchwork of approaches that the states are taking, and we will over time, as it happens, we will begin to build that into the cases. This is the wonderful thing about an annual energy outlook, is we get another chance next year.”
In the near-term, prior to implementing the CPP around 2022, EIA’s projections show coal overtaking natural gas in share of U.S. electric generation. Sieminski attributed this to “the impact of the extension of the tax credits” for renewables. “In the very near-term, that has a tremendous impact on the financial viability of solar and wind and could lead to a little loss of market share for natural gas. Eventually, the expiry of those tax benefits along with low natural gas prices lead to gas going back up again.”
In the AEO2016 reference case, CO2 emissions are forecast to be lower than in the AEO2015 reference case. Even without the CPP, the AEO2016 forecasts show an overall decrease in CO2 intensity compared with last year’s reference case, according to Sieminski.
A reduction in energy intensity in U.S. consumption is expected to offset gross domestic product (GDP) growth, leading to relatively to slow rate of increase in domestic energy consumption across the forecast period both with and without the CPP, Sieminski said.
Thanks to a shift towards low- and no-carbon fuels, both CO2 intensity and energy intensity per dollar of GDP are expected to continue trending downward through 2040 under the reference case, he said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106945-us-becoming-net-natgas-exporter-by-2017-eia-predicts
-
Five Easy Steps to US Energy Independence
Jul 3, 2016 | New York Post
By Stephen Moore
Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to make America energy independent, but we still import 9 million barrels of oil a day, much of it coming from the Middle East and OPEC. Now for the first time in a half-century — thanks to the shale oil and gas revolution — true American energy independence is not just a pipe dream but easily achievable if the next president takes the right steps.
Such an energy strategy means we could stop draining our economy of about $200 billion a year we could really use here at home.
But this isn’t just about the economy. We know from intelligence reports that as much as $500 million a year of petro-dollars find their way into the coffers of terrorist networks, including ISIS.
To achieve American energy self-sufficiency doesn’t mean building more windmills (sorry, Hillary Clinton). We only get about 5 percent of our energy from windmills and solar panels.
Instead, this is about taking the strategic steps necessary to making the United States the energy dominant force on the planet within five to 10 years by using our super-abundance of fossil-fuel resources. Thanks to the amazing made-in-America technological breakthroughs of the last decade — including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to get at shale oil and gas reserves — the United States now has at least 150 years of oil and natural-gas resources on top of 500 years worth of coal.
Consider what has happened in less than a decade with oil production. In 2008, the United States produced about 5 million barrels a day. We hit 8.7 million in 2014 and could double that by 2025.
As we tap into the full potential of our tens of billions of shale oil and gas we can become the No. 1 export nation on the planet. This could easily mean more than $1 trillion a year in oil, gas and coal exports each year — perhaps exceeding 5 percent of GDP. This would mean as many as 6 million new jobs, according to the Institute for Energy Research.
Let’s not forget about coal. America was built on coal, and our nation has far more of it than any other nation. And we burn it cleanly and efficiently, unlike China and India, which build hundreds of coal plants every year, but spew out dirty emissions.
I estimate that with five simple steps taken by the next president, America will gain its energy independence:
1) Allow drilling and mining permits on federal lands. So far at least 90 percent of the shale-gas and shale-oil revolution has happened on private land. But around half of all the land west of the Mississippi is government-owned. There are an estimated $50 trillion of energy resources stored underneath non-environmentally sensitive federal lands. This is the biggest treasure chest in the world.
2) Build a national network of pipelines across the country by allowing the permitting for projects like Keystone XL and many others. Right now, the federal government is holding up as many as a dozen necessary pipelines to get the oil and gas across the country and then shipped across the world.
3) Build refineries and liquefied natural gas terminals in the United States. The Energy Information Agency says the latest refiner “began operating in 1977” — almost 40 years ago, even though the US population has nearly doubled since the mid-1970s and our energy production has doubled as well.
4) Stop the Obama war on coal. Environmentalists have tried to shut down coal production; the next president should revive it. This means putting a muzzle on the EPA to allow our energy resources to be harnessed and used in an environmentally responsible way. Complying with basic environmental rules doesn’t make coal production impossible, and we shouldn’t pretend it does.
5) End all subsidies for all forms of energy. The left complains about taxpayer subsidies for oil and gas. The best way to promote efficient energy is to let the free market work and remove government handouts — particularly to the green-energy sector.
If we get this right, America can declare its independence from OPEC and Middle Eastern oil. We can become the Saudi Arabia of the 21st century.
Stephen Moore is an economist with Freedom Works and co-author of “Fueling Freedom: Ending the Mad War on Energy.”
http://nypost.com/2016/07/03/five-easy-steps-to-us-energy-independence/
-
US States Reimbursed for Pipeline Safety Programmes
Jul 4, 2016 | Energy Global
By Stephanie Roker
The US Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has announced more than US$49 million in Pipeline Safety Base Grants to reimburse a portion of operating costs for state pipeline safety programmes.
“The Federal/state partnership is the cornerstone of the national pipeline safety programme,” said US Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx. “State pipeline inspectors oversee more than 80% of the nation’s 2.6 million mile pipeline network, and we want to make sure they have the resources needed to ensure the safety of the American people.”
PHMSA’s base grants provide a reimbursement of up to 80% of operating costs for state programmes charged with inspecting intrastate transmission and distribution pipelines that transport natural gas, crude oil and other energy products within state boundaries.
The grants include a maintenance of effort clause that requires each state to contribute the average of its last three years of contributions unless the state can demonstrate an inability to maintain or increase its contribution due to economic hardship.
“PHMSA’s base grants ensures funding for state programs that employ over 340 inspectors on the front lines of pipeline safety,” said PHMSA Administrator, Marie Therese Dominguez. “This is a performance-based grant and is awarded based on the state’s estimated programme costs and recent performance scores.”
http://www.energyglobal.com/pipelines/regulations-and-standards/04072016/US-states-reimbursed-for-pipeline-safety-programmes/
-
5 Train Cars Derail in Texas, Spilling Chemical, Injuring 2
Jul 4, 2016 | AP (In The New York Times)
Authorities say five train cars overturned outside of San Antonio, spilling about 1,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide and prompting a temporary evacuation.
Bexar County Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Monica Ramos tells the San Antonio Express News (http://bit.ly/29azBba ) the derailment happened around 4 p.m. Sunday in an industrial area southwest of the city.
Ramos says the sodium hydroxide didn't cause fumes or residue. She says sodium hydroxide is only dangerous if touched.
She says two men inside a tug car that overturned suffered minor injuries and were treated on scene before being released.
A nearby flea market was temporarily evacuated.
KENS-TV reports the rail line involved is privately owned by oilfield services company Schlumberger.
An environment group is cleaning up, and authorities are investigating the cause of the derailment.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/07/04/us/ap-us-train-derailment-texas.html?ref=aponline&_r=0
-
Leahy Adds Clout to Petroleum-by-Rail Safety Bills
Jul 4, 2016 | Barre Montpelier Times Argus
By Andy Clark
To improve the safety of rail transport of oil and petroleum products, two proposed bills were recently co-sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
Leahy said he had concerns about oil transported along the shores of Lake Champlain, and the threat it may pose to the lake and to area residents.
“There has been an exponential increase in the number of oil trains crisscrossing the country in the past several years. From Vermont we only need to look west to the New York shore of Lake Champlain to see the trains rumbling by one after another,” he said.
“We learned the hard way that oil tank cars can easily rupture,” he said. “The Champlain Valley has thus far been spared, but I dread what the impact could be on human life, and on Lake Champlain, should one of these trains leave the tracks.”
The bills were referred to a Senate committee in 2015 and are unchanged in 2016.
Despite the slim chance they will pass in a Republican-controlled Congress, Leahy’s spokesman, David Carle, said, “discussions and coalitions on the two bills can force further dialogue and bi-partisan approaches.”
The number of oil train cars moving on U.S. rails went from fewer than 10,000 in 2008 to more than 500,000 in 2014 according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.
The Lac Megantic disaster on July 5, 2013, unfolded after a cascading series of actions and failures of equipment to hold the petroleum-filled cars in place on a hill in Nantes, Quebec.
Sixty-three of the cars loaded with crude oil rolled into Lac-Mégantic at over 60 miles per hour, derailed and exploded, immolating 40 buildings, killing 47 people, and sending over a million gallons of crude oil into the nearby lake and river. The site and water resources are still polluted at this time.
Several other oil-carrying train derailments have occurred in the U.S. and Canada since the Lac-Mégantic disaster.
Leahy has become a cosponsor of the Hazardous Materials Rail Transportation Safety Improvement Act of 2015. It creates incentives for companies to remove out-of-date and potentially dangerous tanker cars in favor of newer, safer models. The legislation would impose fees on the most dangerous tank cars used to ship crude oil. Revenues would provide grants for emergency preparedness, first responders and additional inspectors.
Leahy also is a cosponsor of the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act, which would establish new federal safety standards for rail cars that transport oil and other flammable liquids and require the phasing out of dangerous tank cars. The bill mandates more safety inspections of rail carriers and oil producers, heftier penalties for noncompliance, improved spill response plans, and notification of local authorities when these materials are shipped through their communities.
Ed Greenberg, media relations spokesman with the Association of American Railroads, said his organization does not comment on pending legislation.
“We have a 99 percent record of delivering rail cars safely. If they are inspected and deemed worthy we are legally bound to transport them to their destination,” he said.
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20160704/NEWS01/160709847/1003
-
Exxon Gets Boost in Climate Fight
Jul 4, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Exxon Mobil Corp. and its allies are finally starting to pick up wins in the fight over the company's history with climate change.
After months of new investigations by state attorneys general, pressure from Democratic lawmakers, protests by environmentalists and more, Exxon's supporters say it has started clawing back with victories in court.
But the foes of the United States’ largest oil company are undeterred and promising to keep the fight up for as long as it takes to hold Exxon accountable for its role in climate change.
At issue is the difference between Exxon’s public stance on climate change and its internal research on the issue, and whether the company's actions over the last four decades constitutes fraud or other crimes.
Reports last year in InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times said that as early as the 1970s, Exxon scientists had concluded that carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels would change the climate. Exxon chose to publicly sow doubt about whether the climate was changing and what role fossil fuels played, mostly to prevent policies that could hurt its business, the reports allege.
Exxon has repeatedly denied the allegations, pointing to its current position that human activity is the main cause of global warming, and saying that its research has never strayed from the mainstream.
Now four liberal attorneys general are probing whether Exxon’s actions broke state laws. But recent developments highlight the challenges those investigations face.
Claude Walker (I), the attorney general for the United States Virgin Islands, withdrew a wide-ranging subpoena he had sent Exxon demanding decades of documents on a broad set of topics.
Walker also withdrew his subpoena of a right-wing think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the groups Exxon previously funded to promote climate skepticism.
It also came to light that Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (D) agreed not to enforce a demand for more documents in her investigation of the company while Exxon challenges it in court.
Exxon declined to comment on the developments, but its allies were cheerful.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who launched his own investigation into the liberal attorneys generals’ probes, said Walker’s move was a major sign of victory.
The decision, he said, “confirms what my committee has known all along — these legal actions were conceived and driven by environmental groups with an extreme political agenda and no actual regard for the rule of law. Companies, nonprofit organizations, and scientists deserve the ability to pursue research free from intimidation and threat of prosecution.”
Energy In Depth, an oil industry-funded blog, declared that the anti-Exxon campaign is “unraveling.”
“An environmental activist-led effort to restrict free speech has suffered a series of damaging setbacks in recent weeks, including the withdrawal of a controversial subpoena requesting climate advocacy documents from scores of non-profit groups,” the website wrote.
"[E]nvironmental activists are quietly conceding that the campaign has not panned out as they expected.”
Adding to Exxon’s victories, shareholders in May declined to pass almost all of the proposals from activists intended to make the company more transparent and accountable for climate change.
But Exxon’s foes still have numerous successes and are vowing to press ahead. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is still actively investigating the company. California Attorney General Kamala Harris (D), a candidate for Senate, hasn't denied reports from media outlets and lawmakers that she’s also investigating.
And the Virgin Islands and Massachusetts attorneys general made it clear that their probes are still active, even if their subpoenas are withdrawn or on hold.
“This agreement will allow the Department of Justice to focus on its ongoing investigation, without the distraction of this procedural litigation,” Walker said in a statement regarding the withdrawal of the subpoena, which spurred Exxon to drop its lawsuit against him.
Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the movement and momentum are definitely still in activists’ favor.
“People are coming to understand that Exxon Mobil had its own scientists telling them repeatedly as far back as the ‘70s about the harms caused by the burning of fossil fuels. And notwithstanding what their own scientists were telling them, Exxon Mobil was putting out a public story intended to downplay and disparage and sow doubt about climate change,” Kimmell said. “The public is increasingly understanding that and seeking to hold the company accountable for that.”
Michael Kraft, an emeritus professor of environmental policy at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, speculated that the drive to punish Exxon might be fading because the company is no longer denying climate change science.
“Exxon’s been trying to be more outspoken on the issue, in terms of recognizing the reality of climate change and backing a carbon tax,” Kraft said. “So this is the new Exxon, and maybe that’s got something to do with it.”
Kraft said he supports efforts to hold Exxon accountable, but recognizes that it’s a “difficult case to make.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/286335-exxon-gets-boost-in-climate-fight
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested