Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/11/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Celebrate “Pinktober” With A Free Movie Screening
Oct 10, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
It’s that time of year again… we’re drowning in pumpkin spice and pink ribbons. Each October, companies from the NFL to KFC use Breast Cancer Awareness Month to engage in “pinkwashing.” -
US FDA Issues Two Sunscreen Guidance Documents
Oct 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration has issued two guidance documents outlining processes and procedures that come under the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA). -
Bills Introduced in Congress to Ban Asbestos, BPA
Oct 10, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Separate bills were recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that seek to strictly limit the use of two of the most contentious chemicals in the marketplace. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips' $6 Billion Houston Expansion Nears Completion
Oct 10, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The dozen or so cranes visible from Interstate 10 in Baytown will only remain for a few more months as Chevron Phillips Chemical's $6 billion petrochemical expansion moves toward completion. -
Natural Gas Is 'Cul-De-Sac' — McKibben
Oct 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton hit a sour note with some environmentalists last night when she referred to natural gas as a "bridge to more renewable fuels" while laying out her energy policy. -
Clinton Vexed By Pipeline, Fracking And 'Phony' Greens — Emails
Oct 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northe
A trove of leaked emails from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's inner circle reveal a tricky balancing act the former secretary of State faced trying to appease both unions and environmental groups before announcing her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline last year. -
Energy Policy Touched on Briefly During Contentious Second Presidential Debate
Oct 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
After nearly 90 minutes of acrimony punctuated by personal attacks on each other, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump briefly discussed energy policy during the Second Presidential Debate on Sunday. But the candidates essentially repeated comments they made earlier on the campaign trail. -
Sioux Request for Dakota Access Pipeline Injunction Denied by Appellate Court
Oct 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A three-judge panel in a federal appellate court in Washington, DC, on Sunday denied a request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for an injunction to block ongoing construction of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline. Backers of the four-state project hailed the court action, and the Native American opposition vowed to continue their fight. -
New Wave OF Power Plants Is Fueling U.S. Gas Demand: Kemp
Oct 4, 2016 | Reuters
By John Kemp
The United States is experiencing a structural increase in gas demand with more gas-fired power stations operating more hours per year and consuming a record volumes of gas.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Celebrate “Pinktober” With A Free Movie Screening
Oct 10, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
It’s that time of year again… we’re drowning in pumpkin spice and pink ribbons. Each October, companies from the NFL to KFC use Breast Cancer Awareness Month to engage in “pinkwashing.”
Companies urge us to “shop for the cure” by selling products slapped with pink ribbons. But many times, corporations get much more out of these promotions than breast cancer-related charities do. Often, a shockingly low percentage of the price paid for the product ends up in the hands of an organization fighting cancer. For instance, a 2013 analysis found only 8% of money spent on pink NFL merchandise went to cancer research. Sometimes pink ribbon products even contain ingredients linked to increased cancer risk.
Before you buy pink ribbon merchandise, please check out Breast Cancer Action’s “4 Questions Before You Buy Pink.” It’s one of the resources available through their Think Before You Pink project.
Happily, this October, there’s a Breast Cancer Awareness month promotion I can get behind. You can view the award-winning documentary “STINK!” for free online all month.
“STINK!” follows filmmaker Jon Whelan’s quest to find out what chemicals are hiding in a pair of foul-smelling pajamas he ordered for his daughter. Along the way, he meets Brandon Silk, a teenager with a life-threatening allergy to fragrance chemicals, and public health advocates, including our director Andy Igrejas. He even meets Cal Dooley, top lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council.
In the end, he learns the sad truth that many products on store shelves, especially those containing the ingredient “fragrance,” aren’t safe. Dubbed “the movie the chemical industry doesn’t want you to see,” I highly recommend it.
http://saferchemicals.org/2016/10/10/celebrate-pinktober-with-a-free-movie-screening/
-
US FDA Issues Two Sunscreen Guidance Documents
Oct 11, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration has issued two guidance documents outlining processes and procedures that come under the Sunscreen Innovation Act (SIA).
One outlines the process for withdrawing section 586(A) requests. Interested parties may submit these to the FDA for it to determine if a sunscreen active ingredient is generally recognised as safe and effective (GRASE).
The other document addresses the convening of the advisory committee, as covered in section 586(C)(c).
The SIA stipulated the issuance of the guidances. The FDA must also finalise guidance on safety and effectiveness data for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreens by 20 November.
The FDA has also granted a request from NGO Environmental Working Group (EWG) for a meeting to discuss non-active ingredients in sunscreens.
The 18 October meeting will include a review of ingredients such as retinyl palmitate.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50210/us-fda-issues-two-sunscreen-guidance-documents
-
Bills Introduced in Congress to Ban Asbestos, BPA
Oct 10, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Separate bills were recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives that seek to strictly limit the use of two of the most contentious chemicals in the marketplace.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) introduced the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2016. If passed, the bill would amend TSCA and force the EPA to impose restrictions that “permanently eliminate the possibility of exposure to asbestos,” Chemical Watch reports.
The bill would require that the restrictions be put in place within 18 months of enactment, but it would allow the president to create exemptions in circumstances where national security is at risk or no other reasonable alternative exists.
Asbestos was used for years in fire-proofing or insulation materials. Many products containing asbestos arealready banned in the U.S., but some, such as pipeline rap and vinyl floor tile, are still allowed.
A separate bill was also introduced that aims to ban the use of bisphenol A (BPA) in food containers.
That act — called The Ban Poisonous Additives Act — would ban containers that could leach BPA into food.
It would also block the use of replacement chemicals that are known carcinogens or endocrine disrupters or known to be reproductively or developmentally toxic.
“Banning BPA from food and beverage containers is common sense,” Rep. Grace Meng (D-Flushing), one of the representatives who introduced the legislation, said in a prepared statement. “…this bill would ensure that kids and families are not exposed to such a dangerous and toxic substance. It would also better protect factory workers who manufacture products that contain this hazardous chemical.”
BPA, which is believed to be an endocrine disrupting chemical, has been targeted by environmentalists for years. But assessments by major government bodies in the U.S. and EU have also shown that current exposure levels of BPA are well below toxic thresholds. And a handful of major manufacturers, such as Campbell Soup Co. have already willfully eliminated the chemical from their products.
https://www.chem.info/news/2016/10/bills-introduced-congress-ban-asbestos-bpa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips' $6 Billion Houston Expansion Nears Completion
Oct 10, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The dozen or so cranes visible from Interstate 10 in Baytown will only remain for a few more months as Chevron Phillips Chemical's $6 billion petrochemical expansion moves toward completion.
Chevron Phillips' complex is more than 80 percent complete, although it won't be fully operational for almost another year. The project involves a massive ethane cracker - on a plot the size of 44 football fields - that will separate a component of natural gas called ethane, which will provide the feedstock for some 1.5 million metric tons a year of ethylene, a common building block of plastics.
Chevron Phillips, a joint venture of Chevron and Phillips 66 of Houston, also is building two new polyethylene plastics units southwest of Houston in Old Ocean by Phillips 66's Sweeny complex. The plants will make that ethylene and turn it into plastic resin that's shipped both domestically and internationally.
The project adds to a petrochemical boom primarily along the Gulf Coast, where chemical and plastic makers can take advantage of cheap and ample natural gas, the feedstock for their products. The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, estimates that more than 250 petrochemical projects are under construction or planned across the country through 2023, at a combined cost of $160 billion. About $50 billion of that investment is in Texas.
The growing demand for plastics is mostly coming from Asia, primarily China, but also India and Indonesia, where rising incomes are fueling appetites for consumer goods, said Ron Corn, a Chevron Phillips senior vice president.
"They're basically entering the consumer class," Corn said, and demanding products like single-serve shampoo packets.
There's a lot of competition from other ethane crackers popping up throughout Texas and Louisiana, but Corn said he's convinced global plastics demand is growing quickly enough to consume the new supplies.
The Houston area project is the biggest project to date for The Woodlands-based Chevron Phillips. Additional expansion could follow, Corn said, although the goal is to finish this project first. There were some minor delays caused by weather and additional retraining needed for some craft workers.
There was also one fatality in May when a contractor with the Irving construction company Fluor died after an on-site accident. A joint venture between Japan-based JGC and Fluor is building the cracker.
The project has created 10,000 temporary construction jobs and 400 permanent positions once it's completed.
Twenty-one-year-old Pete Rodriguez is one of those employees working as a polyethylene unit operator. A Mont Belvieu native, he was admittedly clueless about his future when he was about to graduate from high school.
A job fair drew his attention to Chevron Phillips, which awarded him a scholarship at Lee College in Baytown. Now he's on track to make close to $100,000 a year and just bought a home in Mount Belvieu.
Chevron Phillips said it has worked to be a good neighbor, buying up additional acreage to serve as a buffer between the plant and the Baytown community.
Chevron Phillips also built what is called a low-profile flare to release fewer emissions more discreetly - as opposed to the typical tall flare that looks a ball of fire in the sky. With a low-profile flare, only a glow can be seen from nearby communities.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Chevron-Phillips-6-billion-Houston-expansion-9960922.php
-
Natural Gas Is 'Cul-De-Sac' — McKibben
Oct 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Hess
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton hit a sour note with some environmentalists last night when she referred to natural gas as a "bridge to more renewable fuels" while laying out her energy policy.
Climate activists said Clinton's answer to the penultimate question in the contentious town-hall-style presidential debate should have focused on phasing out fossil fuels, but they bashed GOP nominee Donald Trump harder for an answer focused on how U.S. EPA is killing the energy industry.
"The answers we got revealed the fault lines in this election: Trump doubled down on fossil fuels, while Hillary talked about a clean energy future that doesn't leave anyone behind," said 350.org's May Boeve in a statement. "Her big mistake was naming natural gas as a bridge fuel — in reality, it's just a fast lane to more climate destruction."
Despite ire from environmental groups, President Obama has described natural gas in similar terms.
350.org founder Bill McKibben last week told a crowd that natural gas is a "cul-de-sac," not a bridge to cleaner forms of energy, and suggested the Obama administration had wasted the past seven years by pursuing the technology as an alternative to coal-fired power plants.
Speaking at Oberlin College during a conference titled "After Fossil Fuels: The Next Economy," McKibben talked about ramping up the pressure on the next president to address the issue. McKibben called on participants to come to Washington, D.C., if Clinton is elected for an "emergency climate summit" within the first 100 days of her presidency.
"If there are scientists gathered in the White House, we're going to need hundreds of thousands of people out in the street. And you're going to need to get on buses and trains and get from Ohio to D.C. for that day come April or May," McKibben told the crowd.
Despite a campaign by environmentalists urging debate moderators to press the candidates on climate, Clinton's answer to the energy question — posed by a voter — was the only time the subject was referenced.
Emily Southard, campaign director for ClimateTruth.org, said comments from the candidates were disheartening.
"Donald Trump claimed the EPA is killing American jobs, but climate change is the real economic threat that we can't afford," Southard said, noting the threats of worsening storms and sea-level rise.
"For her part, Secretary Clinton acknowledged the threat of global warming, but she didn't go far enough. Natural gas isn't part of the solution, it's part of the problem," Southard added.
Ahead of the debate, members of the ClimateTruth.org Action urged moderators to ask the candidates their plans to address and reduce the impact of climate change.
The left-leaning group, advised by prominent climate scientists including Penn State University's Michael Mann, works to counter the conservative movement and promote cuts in carbon emissions.
In a letter to CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and ABC News correspondent Martha Raddatz written Oct. 7, in the wake of Hurricane Matthew's destruction, Executive Director Brant Olson said it is the next president's responsibility to reduce the risk of future disasters by cutting emissions and planning to protect American infrastructure and lives.
"The ClimateTruth.org Action members who signed this petition fight the denial, distortion, and disinformation that obstruct bold action on climate — and together, we can hold our presidential candidates accountable," Olson wrote.
More than 13,000 people signed the letter.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/10/stories/1060044059
-
Clinton Vexed By Pipeline, Fracking And 'Phony' Greens — Emails
Oct 10, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northe
A trove of leaked emails from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's inner circle reveal a tricky balancing act the former secretary of State faced trying to appease both unions and environmental groups before announcing her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline last year.
Senior Clinton aides in the summer of 2015 debated about the timing and tone of her reaction to President Obama's imminent rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline and how to "soften the blow" to trade unions, according to emails Wikileaks obtained from an account belonging to Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.
The emails are among more than 2,000 Wikileaks released last week, including portions of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street that her staff had flagged as potentially problematic, including her statement that "You need both a public and a private position on certain issues."
The contents of the emails triggered a sharp exchange during last night's debate between Clinton and her Republican rival, Donald Trump, over the Kremlin's role in the upcoming presidential election and her intent when making the comments.
After defending her stance on having a private and public policy position to get things done in Congress, Clinton last night attempted to lay the blame for the leaks squarely with Russia.
"We have never in the history of our country been in a situation where an adversary, a foreign power, is working so hard to influence the outcome of the election," Clinton said. "And believe me, they're not doing it to get me elected. They're doing it to try to influence the election for Donald Trump."
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange released more emails from Podesta's account late this morning.Keystone XL
According to the emails, Clinton's staff debated her handling of Keystone XL months before she signaled her opposition to the oil sands pipeline in September 2015 during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa, where she said, "I oppose it because I don't think it's in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change" (Greenwire, Sept. 22, 2015).
In one exchange in August 2015, the Clinton campaign's labor outreach director, Nikki Budzinski, asks about specific timing and ways to reassure unions. Some labor organizations teamed with environmental groups to oppose the pipeline project, but others — particularly those representing the building trade unions — tended to support it.
"The Building Trades are flagging for me that they hear the Obama Administration will deny KXL on Monday. I just wanted to try to politically get ahead of this and where we are on the issue if this in fact happens," Budzinski wrote.
"The trades are also hearing that HRC will put out a statement stating that she encouraged Obama to take this position. Politically with the building trades, this would be a very dangerous posture," she continued.
Podesta in a reply email to Budzinski wrote, "Your [sic] in trouble, girl. Seriously, doubt we'll say we 'encouraged' but assume we'll support if it goes that way."
Republicans who cast Clinton's silence on the project as weak leadership would pivot toward accusing her of opposing job creation shortly after announcing her opposition to the pipeline.
And former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who was also seeking the Democratic nomination for president at the time, would also target Clinton, accusing her of following rather than leading public opinion (Greenwire, Sept. 23, 2015).
Other emails show Clinton staffers' concern with reported ties to Keystone XL backers and mentions of the pipeline.
"The enviros may latch onto this going forward," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote in an April 19, 2015, email about "Clinton Cash," a 2015 book by Peter Schweizer on the Clinton Foundation getting donations from a Canadian bank that's also a shareholder in Keystone XL.
"Have we discussed when she will come out against Keystone? After POTUS vetoes?" Mook wrote. "And more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL ... oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department."
In April 2014, staff questioned whether Clinton should mention the project in her book, "Hard Choices."
"Unless you feel some need to mention it, I'm not sure what the gain is," Jonathan Karp, now a publisher at Simon & Schuster, told Clinton aide and speechwriter Dan Schwerin, according to an April 23, 2014, leaked email chain.
"You say you're waiting for the study before making a determination, but I question whether any study is capable of defining a clear course of action," Karp wrote. "And some readers might think that relying on a study is a stalling tactic."
Podesta in a reply email told Clinton staffers to "cut" any mention of the oil pipeline from the book. Clinton's staff agreed and suggested the addition of more material on clean energy.'Russians'
Clinton's camp yesterday questioned the validity of the emails and linked the leak to the Kremlin.
Podesta during an interview with "Fox News Sunday" said, "They've put out documents that are purported to be from my account.
"The Russians, as U.S. senior members of the U.S. government confirmed, have been hacking into Democratic accounts, and now, they've hacked into my account," Podesta said. "I would just say, you know, this should be of concern to everyone that the Russians are trying to influence our election."
Clinton's running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), said during an interview with CNN yesterday that he couldn't dignify material released by Wikileaks by commenting on them, noting that any group is capable of doctoring documents.
"I have no way of knowing the accuracy of documents dumped by this hacking organization," Kaine said, adding that much of the hacking has been linked to the Russian government.
CNN host Jake Tapper pushed back, saying, "You could ask her."'An extra scrub'
The batch of leaked emails also contains excerpts from Clinton's paid speeches that her campaign research director, Tony Carrk, flagged for other staffers in a Jan. 25 email as potentially troublesome.
The email pointed to a 2014 speech at Goldman-Black Rock, in which Clinton said she was "kind of far removed" from middle-class struggles because of "fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy."
Another email that triggered a sharp exchange last night during the second presidential debate was Clinton's comment in 2013 before the National Multifamily Housing Council that "you need both a public and a private position" on policies. Other speeches included statements Clinton made about her ties to Wall Street.
The list also included comments her staff said could be interpreted as "pro-Keystone."
Russia surfaced again in June 2014 when Clinton during a speech brought up the issue of "phony" green groups opposed to pipelines and fracking.
"We were up against Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media," Clinton said at an event hosted by tinePublic Inc. "We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh, that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from Russia."Tax credits
In the most recent batch of emails, top Clinton advisers huddled over a policy background meeting with Ben Geman, an energy and environment reporter at National Journal.
Clinton energy adviser Trevor Houser in a note contained in a June 29, 2015, email advised staff to carefully tread on the issue of production and investment tax credits for renewables given financial implications.
"The one other thing I would flag for John is that if Ben asks whether we would support a permanent extension of the PTC/ITC we need to hedge given out solar/renewable targets," Houser wrote. "Those imply a $10-$15 billion per year price tag by 2020 and $25-$35 billion per year by 2027 if extended at current levels. May need to call for 'extending and improving' or something like that."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/10/10/stories/1060044058
-
Energy Policy Touched on Briefly During Contentious Second Presidential Debate
Oct 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
After nearly 90 minutes of acrimony punctuated by personal attacks on each other, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump briefly discussed energy policy during the Second Presidential Debate on Sunday. But the candidates essentially repeated comments they made earlier on the campaign trail.
Energy policy became the penultimate topic of discussion at the debate. The candidates were asked what steps they would take to meet the nation's energy needs, while ensuring that their policies struck a difficult balance -- by preserving both the environment and the jobs at power plants that use fossil fuels.
"Energy is under siege by the Obama administration. Under absolute siege," said Trump, the Republican nominee for president. "The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is killing these energy companies. And foreign companies are now coming in…buying so many of our different plants and then re-jiggering the plant so that they can take care of their oil…
"I'm all for alternative forms of energy, including wind, including solar, etc. But we need much more than wind and solar."
He later added that EPA regulations are "so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business. All you have to do is go to a great place like West Virginia or places like Ohio, which is phenomenal, or places like Pennsylvania and you see what they're doing to the people, miners and others in the energy business. It's a disgrace."
Trump accused Clinton, the Democratic nominee, of wanting to put coal miners out of business. But while adding "there is a thing called clean coal…coal will last for 1,000 years in this country," he did not expound on the fact that clean coal technology is still being developed and is considered controversial in some quarters, or that cheap natural gas and coal-to-gas switching is playing a larger role in coal's demise than EPA regulation (see Daily GPI, Oct. 4; Sept. 26).
Still, coal provided a nice segue for Trump to talk about natural gas.
"We have natural gas and so many other things because of technology," he said. "Over the last seven years, we have found tremendous wealth right under our feet. [It's] so good, especially when you have $20 trillion in debt.”
Clinton responded by claiming, albeit incorrectly, that the United States has achieved energy independence for the first time in its history. She also embraced natural gas.
"We are not dependent upon the Middle East, but the Middle East still controls a lot of the prices," she said. "The price of oil has been way down, and that has had a damaging effect on a lot of the oil companies. We are, however, producing a lot of natural gas, which serves as a bridge to more renewable fuels, and I think that's an important transition.
"We've got to remain energy independent. It gives us much more power and freedom than to be worried about what goes on in the Middle East. We have enough worries over there without having to worry about that."
Last week, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported that U.S. gross crude oil imports increased by 528,000 b/d during the first half of 2016, a 7% increase compared to the first half of 2015. The EIA also reported that for the week ending Sept. 30, the U.S. imported 7.71 million b/d of crude oil, excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Clinton added that climate change is "a serious problem" that is included in her energy policy.
"I support moving toward more clean, renewable energy as quickly as we can, because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses," Clinton said. "But I also want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That's why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country.
"Those coal miners and their fathers and their grandfathers dug that coal out. A lot of them lost their lives. They were injured, but they turned the lights on and they powered their factories. I don't want to walk away from them. We've got to do something for them. But the price of coal is down worldwide, so we have to look at this comprehensively."
In a note to clients Monday, ClearView Energy Partners LLC said the debate did little to change its expectations that energy sector regulations from the Obama administration would be strengthened under a Clinton presidency, while a Trump presidency would delay or rescind them.
“Trump’s high hopes for energy-driven economic benefits were not inconsistent with our view that he could potentially preside over tax reforms that put energy companies at disadvantage,” said Christi Tezak, managing director for ClearView. “Likewise, Clinton’s positioning of natural gas as a ‘bridge’ to renewable energy was not inconsistent with our expectation for environmental rules that result in flat-to-down gas demand on the electric grid.”
Last month, Trump told attendees of the Marcellus Shale Coalition's Shale Insight conference that he would support the oil and gas industry by removing trade barriers and regulatory restrictions enacted by the Obama administration (see Daily GPI, Sept. 23). His opinions on energy issues are similar to those held by Continental Resources Inc. CEO Harold Hamm, who also serves as Trump's energy adviser.
Meanwhile, Clinton has taken a more pragmatic position on energy issues than her former rival for the Democratic nomination, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT). Sanders had called for a nationwide ban on hydraulic fracturing and co-sponsored legislation that would have, among other things, prohibited new oil and gas lease sales in the offshore Arctic, Atlantic and Pacific oceans and the Gulf of Mexico (seeDaily GPI, April 15).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108040-energy-policy-is-brief-subject-of-acrimonious-second-presidential-debate
-
Sioux Request for Dakota Access Pipeline Injunction Denied by Appellate Court
Oct 10, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
A three-judge panel in a federal appellate court in Washington, DC, on Sunday denied a request from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for an injunction to block ongoing construction of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access oil pipeline. Backers of the four-state project hailed the court action, and the Native American opposition vowed to continue their fight.
The fight is focused on a small portion of the nearly 1,200-mile pipeline project in south-central North Dakota near the Standing Rock reservation and where Dakota Access plans to cross under a part of the Missouri River where a dam forms Lake Oahe (seeShale Daily, Oct. 6). An easement from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is still being debated by federal officials.
In denying the emergency motion for the administrative injunction, Judges Cornelia T.L. Pillard, Janice Rogers Brown and Thomas Griffith said their action was not the final word, noting the USACE, in consultation with ongoing discussions with the federal Departments of Interior and Justice, must still grant the water crossing easement.
"Intervenor Dakota Access Pipeline LLC has rights of access to the limited portion of the pipeline corridor not yet cleared -- where the Sioux Tribe alleges additional historic sites are at risk," the judges said in a two-paragraph order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The judges concluded that the tribe's legal team "had not carried its burden of persuasion" in meeting certain criteria the court looks to in deciding whether to invoke an injunction.
Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II said the tribe and its fellow protesters "are not backing down from this fight; we will not rest until our lands, people, waters and sacred places are permanently protected from this destructive pipeline."
In the meantime, while other legal and political processes are being worked out, Archambault asked Dakota Access to voluntarily stop construction, something the company is not obligated to do, except on some Interior Department-specified federal lands.
"We continue to believe that as long as the ultimate administrative and judicial decisions are based on facts, science, engineering and the rule of law, the pipeline will become operational without additional delay," said a spokesperson for the Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now coalition, which was "pleased, but not surprised" with the appellate court action.
During oral arguments last Wednesday, judges and the Sioux Tribe's attorney narrowed the scope of the injunction against the pipeline project, but no conclusions were reached by the court, and the judges expressed some questions about the claims of the parties.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108042-sioux-request-for-dakota-access-pipeline-injunction-denied-by-appellate-court
-
New Wave OF Power Plants Is Fueling U.S. Gas Demand: Kemp
Oct 4, 2016 | Reuters
By John Kemp
(John Kemp is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own)
The United States is experiencing a structural increase in gas demand with more gas-fired power stations operating more hours per year and consuming a record volumes of gas.
But domestic gas production is turning down, with output nearly 4 percent lower in July 2016 compared with July 2015 ("Falling U.S. gas output meets stronger demand", Reuters, Oct 3).
Growing demand for gas and shrinking supplies are not sustainable, so gas prices will have to rise to encourage more drilling and limit the use of some gas-fired power plants.
U.S. power producers had 448 gigawatts of gas-fired generation capacity in July 2016, an increase of 25 gigawatts since the end of 2012, according to the Energy Information Administration (tmsnrt.rs/2dOroBg).
Installed gas-fired capacity is scheduled to grow by another 11.5 gigawatts to 459 gigawatts by the end of 2017, when it will be almost 9 percent higher than five years earlier.
Most of the extra capacity uses combined-cycle technology. Total gas-fired capacity will have risen nearly 9 percent between 2012 and 2017 but combined-cycle will increase by almost 14 percent over the same period (tmsnrt.rs/2dOrHvX).
Historically, most gas-fired power plants burned gas in a boiler to raise steam (similar to a coal-fired plant) or combusted it directly in a gas turbine (similar to an aircraft jet engine).
Steam turbines and especially combustion turbines waste lots of heat and are relatively inefficient and expensive ways to generate electricity.
But they can ramp production up and down more quickly than coal-fired steam turbines, which made them ideal for meeting short periods of peak power demand in summer and winter.
Used mostly in peaking mode, gas-fired steam turbines were used for less than 12 percent of the time on average in 2015 while combustion turbines were used less than 7 percent of the time.
Combined-cycle units, however, are designed to operate far more efficiently: gas is first burned in a combustion turbine and then the exhaust heat used to raise steam in a boiler.
Both the turbine and the boiler can be used to drive generation sets, enabling more of the fuel's energy content to be converted into electricity.
Combined-cycle units are designed to provide baseload throughout the year rather than just during periods of peak demand.
The average combined-cycle plant operated more than 56 percent of the time in 2015, according to the Energy Information Administration.
CAPACITY FACTORS
Capacity factors for combined-cycle plants have been trending upward over the last few years as they replace coal-fired units thanks to stricter emissions regulations and falling gas prices.
The average gas-fired combined-cycle plant operated for the equivalent of 4,932 hours at full power in 2015, up from 4,489 hours in 2012, an increase of almost 10 percent.
Average coal unit operation dropped to the equivalent of 4,783 hours from 4,981 hours over the same period ("Average utilization for natural gas combined-cycle plants exceeded coal plants in 2015", EIA, April 2016).
Capacity factors at combined-cycle units continued to increase in 2016, while coal-fired power plants sat idle more of the time, thanks to low gas prices.
The proliferation of combined-cycle plants with high capacity factors is driving a big structural increase in gas consumption and tightening the gas market.
Unusually high temperatures across the most populous parts of the United States since the end of May helped drive record gas combustion by power producers this summer (tmsnrt.rs/2dKGyre).
But with more gas-fired power plants being installed and running for more hours, underlying gas demand has been increasing, whatever the weather.
With more combined-cycle capacity due to come online, gas consumption will continue to increase, other things being equal.
The combination of rising gas consumption with stagnating or falling gas production is clearly unsustainable in the medium term (tmsnrt.rs/2dKHFan).
Gas prices will have to rise to reverse the slump in gas production and cut capacity utilization at combined-cycle plants to conserve fuel.
The EIA forecasts gas use in the power sector will decline by 2.3 percent in 2017 as rising gas prices spur a modest switch back towards coal ("Short-Term Energy Outlook", EIA, September 2016).
(Editing by David Evans)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-natgas-kemp-idUSKCN12500T
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested